A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Kittamaru]

Two things: Why do you disregard an entire post and feel a single question is an adequate response?

Second, I didn't say "behind closed doors," so I don't know why you suggest that I did, let alone put in quotes. This is what I said:

​

You'll notice I'm specifically talking about keeping it out of the classroom.

The problem is, no matter where you start regulating/controlling it, it ends up being akin to the current battle being raged with homosexuality... why should they be forced to be out of the public eye any more than a straight couple? Now, obviously, if they are intent on having an all male foursome on the bed of their truck in a supermarket parking lot, then there is a problem! Much the same, if a group of devout Christians goes into a local supermarket and starts screaming and ranting about how the Lord is the only true love and that all who disbelieve are going to burn for eternity, there is a problem.

I think we need to quantify something here; what do you consider being "overly religious"? Would it be something along the lines of someone offering to pray with you if they notice you having a bad day, even though they have no idea who you are? Would it be someone wearing a cross or rosary? Perhaps reading the bible in public, or an athlete saying a quick prayer thanking God after making an incredible effort to win the game?

Where do you draw the line? Otherwise, it's just a slippery slope to... well, history has plenty of examples...

As to why I didn't respond to the entire post, I apologize - I was replying on my phone whilst laying in bed trying to fall asleep

One, Q isn't a bigot. Hating religion is not hating the religious. Two, why should I have to ostracize myself from my classmates just because I don't believe in God? Why can't you do your pledge in the privacy of your own home, or on your front porch, on the corner of your street, rather than in my classroom?

Indeed, hating the religion is not necessarily hating the person... but Q's actions and words seem determined to showcase a hatred for not just the religion but anyone who follows it.
I'm not saying you have to ostracize yourself at all - showing respect for someones differences isn't the same as being ostracized. Now, if you were being forced to say, stand outside the room and wait in shame because you were different, or perhaps if you were forced into "containment camps" for not being of the same creed (WW2 and the Japanese Americans anyone?)... then yeah, there's a big freaking issue. Being asked to respect others right to their religion? I think that's simple good manners.

Except even you don't follow that decree. Didn't you just call Q a bigot? That's judgment. And you certainly don't love people who you think are evil. You certainly judge them. Okay, you don't judge homosexuals because no harm comes to anyone--but what about pedophiles? Scum of the earth, right? But I don't think anyone would argue against the notion that pedophiles are born with those desires, or at least develop them prior to sexual maturity--and in any case it isn't a choice. You not only don't love them, but you probably hate them. And you sure judge them.

I am not perfect - my temper gets the better of me at times and I don't always have the control to follow the word as well as I would like. To that end; Q, if your hatred is purely towards the religion and not the people, then you have my apologies; you are not a bigot.
As far as judging pedophiles vs homosexuals, there is a huge difference there. A pedophile harms someone, in this case a child who is not ready to, and should not be forced to, encounter such activity (that of a sexual nature). And while I may despise the notion that they would prey on the innocent, and may hate those that do so... in all honesty, I wish no ill will to those that simply have those urges and resist them. How or why the urges develop, i can't say - what I can say is that someone with those urges that seeks out the help required to overcome them, I would willingly and lovingly give that help to.

Of course, asking a person to love their neighbor is folly; it's not possible, just as not judging them is impossible. So I have to ask: What good is that message? If it's not only impractical but impossible, then what's the point? Wouldn't something much less extreme, and far more practically applicable serve everyone better?

The message is to love thy neighbor as thyself; to me, that falls along the same lines of the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Loving them doesn't mean love in a literal, romantic or sexual sense, but a familial sense... after all, we are all of the same species, stuck here upon this third rock from the sun... would it not be better for us to work together rather than try to destroy one another? Look at your own family - despite their differences, I would wager you still love them, even if there are parts of them you disagree with.

I'm sorry, where in the rules does it say calling religion stupid is prohibited? We aren't allowed to state our opinion of a particular religion? Since when?

You are allowed to state your opinions. What you aren't allowed to do is assault and abuse people with differing opinions... on the forums it is considered violent or abusive speech... in the US, it is considered a breech of personal right.

No, it doesn't. Your religion only does that if a handful of quotes made by the fictional character Jesus are taken out of context. As I said above, such a thing as loving thy neighbor as yourself is impossible, and even if it were possible, it isn't practical, nor necessary for mankind to get on successfully. Not only that, even Jesus didn't believe that people who don't believe in him shouldn't be judged. In fact, he introduced the idea of hellfire, reserved especially for people who do not obey his commands.

Jesus did not introduce the idea of hellfire... in fact, Jesus didn't "introduce" much of anything in the way of punishment. His single greatest contribution was his self-sacrifice to save us from ourselves.

We can only take from the Bible what we translate out of it... and I'm saying it once again; it was written a LONG time ago in a VASTLY different culture during a TOTALLY different set of issues and norms... that has to be taken into account. I would stake my life to it; if God / Jesus were to issue forth a new "bible" today, it would be VERY different than the one we translate from eons ago.

 

[The Marquis]

You don't know how you met me
You don't know why
You can't turn around and say goodbye
All you know is when I'm with you
I make you free
And swim through your veins like a fish in the sea
I'm singin'

Follow me everything is alright
I'll be the one to tuck you in at night
And if you
Want to leave I can guarantee
You won't find nobody else like me

I'm not worried 'bout the ring you wear
Cuz as long as no one knows than nobody can care
You're feelin' guilty and I'm well aware
But you don't look ashamed and baby I'm not scared
I'm singin'

Won't give you money
I can't give you the sky
You're better off if you don't ask why
I'm not the reason that you go astray and
We'll be all right if you don't ask me to stay

You don't know how you met me
You don't know why
You can't turn around and say goodbye
All you know is when I'm with you
I make you free
And swim through your veins like a fish in the sea
I'm singin'

 

[(Q)]

Whatever makes you feel good mate... in the end, time will tell

Time will tell? That is your response?

Given time, your religion along with others will go the way of the dodo and the world will be free from the shackles of religious slavery, free from bigotry, free from the hatred, free from the racism, free from the ignorance, free from the oppression, and most importantly, free from hearing it in public.

 

[(Q)]

Let me pose to you the same question... why should the religious be sequestered to "behind closed doors"? That isnt freedom... that is oppression plain and simple.

No, it isn't, no one is oppressing you. You are free to do whatever you want behind closed doors. If you want to do weird sexual things to your spouse, you are not oppressed to do so, but you would probably do them behind closed doors, where it belongs, where no one wants to see it, yes?

Same thing. Plain and simple.

 

[Stryder]

No, it isn't, no one is oppressing you. You are free to do whatever you want behind closed doors. If you want to do weird sexual things to your spouse, you are not oppressed to do so, but you would probably do them behind closed doors, where it belongs, where no one wants to see it, yes?

Same thing. Plain and simple.

You just neglect that "hiding behind closed doors" can include pooling material wealth from it's followers, generating a weapons arsenal and not declaring things with the IRS it leads to repeated Wacos. Forcing people into hiding just strengthens there resolve as a cult movement, it's like telling teenage daughter that their boyfriend is no good for them, it will just make them fight the truth that much harder. It's better for them to be out in the open to allow for public scrutiny.

 

[quinnsong]

You just neglect that "hiding behind closed doors" can include pooling material wealth from it's followers, generating a weapons arsenal and not declaring things with the IRS it leads to repeated Wacos. Forcing people into hiding just strengthens there resolve as a cult movement, it's like telling teenage daughter that their boyfriend is no good for them, it will just make them fight the truth that much harder. It's better for them to be out in the open to allow for public scrutiny.

Amen to that! Shine that light and let freedom ring.

 

[(Q)]

Nah, not selfish at all..

How about this case?

An elementary school is canceling a Christmas toy drive they have participated in for three years after a threat of legal action this year, WLTX reported.

East Point Academy in Cayce, with 360 students, is a publicly-funded charter school under the South Carolina Public Charter School District.

For the past three years, the school has participated in "Operation Christmas Child," which is affiliated with Samaritan's Purse.

Under the program, kids collect toys, pencils and other small items, pack them into shoe boxes, and donate to needy children.

That has now stopped after the school received a letter last Monday from the American Humanist Association, a national nonprofit organization with over 20,000 members and 125,000 supporters across the country, according to the letter.

The mission of American Humanist Association's legal center, according to the letter, is "to protect one of the most fundamental principles of (American) democracy: the Constitutional mandate requiring separation of church and state."

The letter called the school's involvement in Operation Christmas Child "unconstitutional."

"The letter was very explicit that there would be litigation against us if we did not stop," school East Point Academy's principal, Renee Mathews, told WLTX.

---

The letter claimed it was sent on behalf of a parent at the school.

It points to the fact that Operation Christmas Child is part of "Samaritan's Purse," an international Christian based organization led by Franklin Graham, son of Evangelist Billy Graham.

"There's no religious literature tied with it," Mathews said. "There's no speakers who come. There's no religious affiliation at all."


​

This atheist group deems giving Christmas presents to the needy to be unconstitutional because the group that organised it through the school is a Christian group and so, the poor children would be preached at when given their Christmas presents. Protecting poor children from indoctrination by denying them Christmas presents.. Nah, not selfish at all... I mean they could have organised it themselves, offered to take the boxes to give to needy children for Christmas without any religious overtones. But no. But that's not selfish is it? Give to the needy? Fuck that! Poor kids shouldn't be indoctrinated into Christmas anyway. So no toys for them.

As an atheist, that story is a disgrace and an embarrassment and shows the pure selfish nature of the new age atheists who are so caught up in policing religion that they sought and succeeded in taking toys from needy kids because it was a religious group giving said toys to said needy and poor children.

And you query whether fundamentalist atheists are selfish?

"Seriously?"

Look at Q's response to the issue. He doesn't care that some poor kids in a 3rd world country were denied some joy or happiness. No, really, that's what it came down to. That group could very well have done something about it to prevent 'religion' from being fed to the kids. Instead, they chose to simply refuse to alleviate the suffering of poor children in 3rd world countries. But to Q, the issue was black and white. Because it was a religious group organising the toy drive through a public school, then it automatically became an issue of Church and State. Okay. Fine.

But since when did we become this heartless?

And that's my personal gripe with the movement we have become.

Since when did we become such heartless bastards that taking toys out of a poor kid's hands was acceptable for political reasons?

Is this what we want atheism to be about?


Of course.

And taking toys from poor children in third world countries at Christmas is the way to go about combating religious intrusion in public life. It's a great way to stop the incursion of religious organisations in those countries.

They should also set about to making sure organisations like Saint Vinnie's (in Australia at least) stop with their asking people for money for the poor and their Christmas toy drives in public areas (in Australia at least).. You know, in the name of Separation of Church and State and all and using public foot paths to do this in..

Onward atheist soldier...

As a hint.. When the battle has gotten to taking toys from poor kids at Christmas for political reasons, then 'we're' doing it wrong.

How do you think it is perceived by the public and by the people those gifts would have been going to?

Attacking my 'motherhood' aside that is, how do you think that is perceived? How do you think it was received?

Do you actually think it placed atheism in a positive light at all?


Which is pretty much the response I expect from fan-boys like you.

Putting Bells emotionally charged rant aside, she would like to know how this is perceived by the public.

In 2001, victims of the El Salvador earthquake had to sit through a half hour prayer meeting before receiving assistance (publicly funded aid) from this organization.

No Bells, the public did not perceive this in a positive light at all.

In 2003, Franklin Graham, stated that Islam is a "very evil and wicked religion" leading to opposition campaigns by Islamic leaders.

Again Bells, the public did not perceive this in a positive light at all.

This organization has been criticized (publicly) in the UK, Canada, the United States, Ireland and other countries. The British supermarket chain, Co-op, and South Wales Fire Service both suspended their support for the project after numerous complaints about its religious connections.

You see Bells, there is a great deal of negativity perceived by the public as a result of this organizations evangelistic motives over actual care for people.

Do you even care about the fact this organization thumbs their noses at the law in order to spread the gospel, before offering publicly funded aid to victims?

As it appears, you do not care. You must feel that they are above the law and can do whatever they want in order to convert others?

 

[(Q)]

You just neglect that "hiding behind closed doors" can include pooling material wealth from it's followers, generating a weapons arsenal and not declaring things with the IRS it leads to repeated Wacos.

That is why we have laws and law enforcement, Stryder. If believers are compelled to violence and illegal activities because they can't flaunt their religion in public says a great deal more about their religion, it's values and ethics than anything else.

Forcing people into hiding just strengthens there resolve as a cult movement, it's like telling teenage daughter that their boyfriend is no good for them, it will just make them fight the truth that much harder. It's better for them to be out in the open to allow for public scrutiny.

No one is saying religion is not good for them, as your example proposes. People are free to practice their faiths, just as the teenage daughter would like to practice her infidelity with her boyfriend, all of it behind closed doors, where it belongs.

 

[(Q)]

Amen to that! Shine that light and let freedom ring.

Freedom to do what exactly?

 

[quinnsong]

@ Q

You can cherry pick all day Q and I am sure you can find plenty of fodder, no doubt there is fodder everywhere. But there are just as many religious organizations that help communities like Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists(huge on community support without asking for anything in return) with whom I have worked with many times as an organizer, never once did they ask about my beliefs or the beliefs of those they were helping.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

He's not a mod, Fraggle. Things have to change; I think you feel this too.

My point is that he's hardly in a position to judge what "acting badly" is.

 

[quinnsong]

freedom to do what exactly?

speak!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

People would not hate gay people unless their own religion had demonized them.

Not true. Most heterosexual men have a great fear of homosexual sex, thus the word homophobia is actually correct even if it's consistently used incorrectly. This is not true of women. Most of them are more frightened of being hit on by a strange man than by a woman.

So fear generates hatred of the men we're afraid of.

It takes considerable effort to prevent this fear and hatred from taking root; our parents must teach us to brush it off. Failing that, the even greater burden falls on ourselves. I lived in Hollywood for ten years because it made my drive to work shorter. Constantly encountering gay people (who were open about it) slowly taught me that there is nothing to fear.

 

[Yazata]

It would be a fallacy to call me a bigot considering I have nothing against people, we are actually talking about religion, which is not a person, fyi.

How is that different than a Christian saying, 'I hate the sin, not the sinner'?

I don't know if I'd call you a 'bigot' or not. I rarely think in terms of the politically-correct terminology.

But I do think that your views are both crudely simplistic and needlessly hostile.

It's stuff like this that make me increasingly reluctant to label myself an 'atheist', despite the fact that I don't believe in the existence of religious deities.

Talking to atheists on the internet is kind of how I imagine talking to the taliban would be. Or to people who identify with a different domestic political party/ideology for that matter, it's the exact same psychological phenomenon. Choose up sides, hate your opponents, never think, never learn. Talking to atheists (or the taliban or political opponents) is more akin to flashing gang-signs (and then reaching for your gun) than it is to Socratic dialogue.

Hence, one cannot be bigoted towards and ideology or philosophy.

You just asserted that. Assuming for the sake of argument that it's true, then what's wrong with "religionists" hating "heathens" like you? It isn't you they hate, it's your excreable heathenism. So their hatred isn't "bigotry" at all. You can arguably abandon your heathenism any time you like, by choosing to believe just like them.

And what about the theories that a predisposition towards religiosity of some sort is innate in how human cognition functions and that it finds expression in most people?

 

[Trooper]

I took both. I don't think the system was ever designed for that. Screwed me over something awful.

To avoid harmful interactions, don't mix the red one with alcohol. Take it at bedtime and the blue one in the morning.

Drifting off, feeling his breath, his wing, as they brushed against my skin
Hearing the familiar music, daring to dance with the truth, yet again
You are unremarkable, my dear, he whispered
All in vain, he added, twirling within my essence. Empty, he uttered
Pulling me close and peering deep within my soul
Chocking down his bitter words with knotted suffocation
Stripped with understanding, left vulnerable, and ashamed
Consuming his speech, each mouthful filled with sorrow
The cries from the [I’s]…all lies, suffer not the truth
The breath of fire stifled and guarded by vanities with razor sharp tongues
Truth diverging by itself and one, dancing into infinity
Two into one, then into two again, to use and to be used
The light bounced back to reveal my worn, torn, borrowed gown
Drenched in servile sudor and bloody tears
Marveling at the decaying fabric, too old to mend
The music muffled by the sound of my clicking heels
I froze to hear to the ghostly notes, dance in step with the truth
The dead notes leaving no guiding motif, fading with no obvious end to grasp
I reached for his hand, only to discover…I was alone
Awakened with sound of the serpent’s hiss, I reached for the alarm
His reassurance confirmed that it was only a dream
He coiled, consoled, and drew together the days denial
His constricting confidence forced all the accomplishments to the surface
With pride strong enough to stand against envy before my feet touched the ground
I danced off into a new day…

So here I am, drunk, messed up, questioning everything and laughing at every damned one of you. And me, of course. More than anyone else.

Let me guess. Yank.

Let me guess, to escape your bite of the apple. Can’t justify your own existence, can you? You’re just jealous because I can do it sober.

:cheers:

 

[quinnsong]

Not true. Most heterosexual men have a great fear of homosexual sex, thus the word homophobia is actually correct even if it's consistently used incorrectly. This is not true of women. Most of them are more frightened of being hit on by a strange man than by a woman.

So fear generates hatred of the men we're afraid of.

It takes considerable effort to prevent this fear and hatred from taking root; our parents must teach us to brush it off. Failing that, the even greater burden falls on ourselves. I lived in Hollywood for ten years because it made my drive to work shorter. Constantly encountering gay people (who were open about it) slowly taught me that there is nothing to fear.

i have two very good looking sons and have always taught tolerance regarding sexuality, race and religion. Both are very tolerant and comfortable with religious tolerance but are still not comfortable around homosexuals. Just recently on a trip to Gatlinburg, Tenn. (what a ripoff, pretty though) we went into a place called Dick's Wings and their whole spiel is that the employees are to be kind of rude and sarcastic to the customers, that was all good and kind of fun. My aunt, my son and me were sitting at the bar and the bartender who was an extremely flamboyant and feminine man, kept trying to engage my son in conversation and was openly flirting with him, the more embarrassed my son got only seemed make the bartender more determined to try and engage my son. My son in his early twenties did not know how to articulate his displeasure and as I watched him getting redder and redder with embarrassment and anger I finally asked him,"Why can't you express to the man whether with humor or seriousness that you are not interested?" He said to me, "Mom, honestly I don't know that I can ever be comfortable with a man coming on to me."

Your post got me thinking Fraggle , what you say is true, that although I had taught tolerance to my son, he had not been exposed to very many homosexuals in his life and thus his fear (which produced anger in him) when encountering homosexuality in the real world.

 

[quinnsong]

How is that different than a Christian saying, 'I hate the sin, not the sinner'?

I don't know if I'd call you a 'bigot' or not. I rarely think in terms of the politically-correct terminology.

But I do think that your views are both crudely simplistic and needlessly hostile.

It's stuff like this that make me increasingly reluctant to label myself an 'atheist', despite the fact that I don't believe in the existence of religious deities.

Talking to atheists on the internet is kind of how I imagine talking to the taliban would be. Or to people who identify with a different domestic political party/ideology for that matter, it's the exact same psychological phenomenon. Choose up sides, hate your opponents, never think, never learn. Talking to atheists (or the taliban or political opponents) is more akin to flashing gang-signs (and then reaching for your gun) than it is to Socratic dialogue.



You just asserted that. Assuming for the sake of argument that it's true, then what's wrong with "religionists" hating "heathens" like you? It isn't you they hate, it's your excreable heathenism. So their hatred isn't "bigotry" at all. You can arguably abandon your heathenism any time you like, by choosing to believe just like them.

And what about the theories that a predisposition towards religiosity of some sort is innate in how human cognition functions and that it finds expression in most people?

Very nicely put and much needed.

 

[Kittamaru]

No, it isn't, no one is oppressing you. You are free to do whatever you want behind closed doors. If you want to do weird sexual things to your spouse, you are not oppressed to do so, but you would probably do them behind closed doors, where it belongs, where no one wants to see it, yes?

Same thing. Plain and simple.

You are joking, right?

*facepalm*

no, of course you aren't... because that's actually how you think about these things...

You are, however, forgetting something - at least in this country, we are granted freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and worship, and freedom of speech... so, if I wanted to come come to your neighborhood, stand on your sidewalk/street (public property) and preach, technically speaking there is nothing wrong with that, so long as I am not disturbing the peace (eg, being overly loud, disrupting traffic, accosting people as they walk by). Is that morally right to do? No.

Now, what you are trying to compare that to would be me coming to your neighborhood and, I dunno, having sexual intercourse with my wife on your sidewalk/street. That is not a protected action (nor is it morally or ethically correct to do so).

Please tell me even YOU can see the difference there.

 

[Yazata]

I think we need to quantify something here; what do you consider being "overly religious"? Would it be something along the lines of someone offering to pray with you if they notice you having a bad day, even though they have no idea who you are? Would it be someone wearing a cross or rosary? Perhaps reading the bible in public, or an athlete saying a quick prayer thanking God after making an incredible effort to win the game?

Where do you draw the line? Otherwise, it's just a slippery slope to... well, history has plenty of examples...

Religious people have just as much right to pray or meditate in public, and to speak openly in public about whatever their beliefs and practices are, as atheists have to speak openly in public about their own disbelief in whatever they don't believe in. I don't see how the former can be forbidden without forbidding the latter too.

People's right to do both needs to be defended.

I'm not saying you have to ostracize yourself at all - showing respect for someones differences isn't the same as being ostracized.

While people should have the right of free-speech, that doesn't necessarily imply the right to get in other people's faces and to disrupt other people's lives. The right to express one's religious beliefs in public doesn't imply the right to shout-down everyone who believes in something different. It doesn't imply the right to try to silence atheists from speaking about their own disbelief. And it certainly doesn't give atheists licence to try to silence everyone else's expressions of their own religiosity.

That doesn't mean that disagreement is always out of line though. That one is a pretty fine distinction and it's relevant to Sciforums which exists as an open discussion forum. When somebody expresses their belief or disbelief in something, they don't get automatic immunity from somebody else posting their own disagreement.

I guess that I'd draw the line minimally at civility (and ideally try to aim a little higher at intelligence). Disagreement is ok, so long as it has real cognitive content and presents a plausible alternative point of view. Disagreement isn't ok when it's nothing more than loud expressions of abusive attitude directed at shutting up those we disagree with.

It's a judgement call, but I'd say that Kittamaru has been pretty good so far in drawing the line in the right place.

 

[Kittamaru]

Religious people have just as much right to pray or meditate in public, and to speak openly in public about whatever their beliefs and practices are, as atheists have to speak openly in public about their own disbelief in whatever they don't believe in. I don't see how the former can be forbidden without forbidding the latter too.

People's right to do both needs to be defended.



While people should have the right of free-speech, that doesn't necessarily imply the right to get in other people's faces and to disrupt other people's lives. The right to express one's religious beliefs in public doesn't imply the right to shout-down everyone who believes in something different. It doesn't imply the right to try to silence atheists from speaking about their own disbelief. And it certainly doesn't give atheists licence to try to silence everyone else's expressions of their own religiosity.

And I'm not trying to imply that a theist, even of my own religion, has any right to silence atheists. What we do have is the right to continue with our beliefs unabated/unabashed/unrestricted (again, within the boundaries of the law and moral guidance). I have had more than one conversation that edged along the lines of "I don't know your personal beliefs, but..." and have been tied into what was going on. In only one out of many dozens of cases did the person get offended at all, and that was more because I mistook him for a girl... (he was very, VERY effeminate and i couldn't see an adams apple). If the person wants to discuss it, that's cool with me. If they don't, I acknowledge and move on. As for how the conversations get to that point, each one is different and each one is based on what is going on... for example, a friend of mine who is bisexual, I had a simple conversation with him where I asked how that worked, because I honestly didn't quite understand it. His response was jovial and he was more than happy to explain... and this was because, while I WAS questioning his belief/preference, I wasn't calling it INTO question. Rather, I was trying to learn and educate myself, which he appreciated greatly.