Yes, please do make up more lies. You appear to be very good at it.
Top Ten Signs that You're a Christian
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
Yes, please do make up more lies. You appear to be very good at it.
I never understand why so many atheists are so often so keen on belittling religious believers (and Christians in particular) for little or no reason. Is it just so they can boost their own self-esteem by reinforcing each others? Is it that their own beliefs are so weak that they need this constant reinforcement to keep them up, or else they will backslide into worshipping Jehovah and his son?
For Christians and suchlike it makes sense to proselytize and develop group identity. But does it for atheists?
Me, I just don't care one way or another what some guy on a message board believes in or not. You believe in God? Fine, as far as science can tell? You don't? Also fine, by the same standards. It doesn't, to the best of verifiable knowledge, matter either way.
EDIT: Looking back at this post, I realize I might have been a little excessively snarky. It wasn't meant to cause offense. But it does seem odd to me that people who do not in fact believe in supernatural powers get so involved about them. Why bother so much with people's religions?
For Christians and suchlike it makes sense to proselytize and develop group identity. But does it for atheists?
Me, I just don't care one way or another what some guy on a message board believes in or not. You believe in God? Fine, as far as science can tell? You don't? Also fine, by the same standards. It doesn't, to the best of verifiable knowledge, matter either way.
EDIT: Looking back at this post, I realize I might have been a little excessively snarky. It wasn't meant to cause offense. But it does seem odd to me that people who do not in fact believe in supernatural powers get so involved about them. Why bother so much with people's religions?
Last edited:
HeartlessCapitalist
This is funny because this is exactly how I see the religious. Clinging to each other to reinforce their beliefs and to stay away from anyone who thinks differently.
No, but there is a constant battle with the far right over the separation of church and state in the US.
No problem. The reason religion comes up so often is that there is a high percentage of people in the world who are religious, and no matter how much we would like that to not be an issue that separates us and divides us, it does.
This is funny because this is exactly how I see the religious. Clinging to each other to reinforce their beliefs and to stay away from anyone who thinks differently.
No, but there is a constant battle with the far right over the separation of church and state in the US.
No problem. The reason religion comes up so often is that there is a high percentage of people in the world who are religious, and no matter how much we would like that to not be an issue that separates us and divides us, it does.
Well, me too. I tried to imply it, more or less.
Surely it's not that big a deal?
Well, yes, but a lot of atheists seem to be just as adversarial as a lot of religious people. Not just so they hold their own ground, but go out of their way to seek conflict. That's not really constructive or even helpful to their position.
HeartlessCapitalist
Actually it is. Mainly from the religious right, there are constant attempts to infiltrate local school boards for the sole reason of changing the curriculum.
I think that they feel, if they can get their religion being taught alongside science that is legitimizes their beliefs. So it's not a matter of them believing in and following a religion, it is about them trying to force it on all of us.
That includes those of other religions as well.
There can be no state sanctioned religion. This is what they do not understand and will keep trying. So yes, the battle will go on and on.
Is it alot ? I know a lot of them and I don't see this. However, I don't expect them to just agree or go along with something to avoid conflict.
When was the last time an atheist came to your door selling atheism.
Actually it is. Mainly from the religious right, there are constant attempts to infiltrate local school boards for the sole reason of changing the curriculum.
I think that they feel, if they can get their religion being taught alongside science that is legitimizes their beliefs. So it's not a matter of them believing in and following a religion, it is about them trying to force it on all of us.
That includes those of other religions as well.
There can be no state sanctioned religion. This is what they do not understand and will keep trying. So yes, the battle will go on and on.
Is it alot ? I know a lot of them and I don't see this. However, I don't expect them to just agree or go along with something to avoid conflict.
When was the last time an atheist came to your door selling atheism.
WEll, then I certainly see why people would object to that.
I live pretty much out in the woods, so I don't get many salesmen knocking on my door period. Lucky me.
Though I was mostly thinking about people on the Internet. In real life I see little of either aggressive atheists or aggressively religious people.
which brings up the question of how much our attitudes about certain types of ppl are shaped by the extreme versions of those types of ppl, whereas the majority of those ppls aren't so bad..
I think the greater the concentration of religious people (and atheists, I suppose), the more fundamental the beliefs and attitudes towards others will be. Places that lack in diversity in religious beliefs tend to have a very skewed view of the world in which they (and others) must live.
*************How i cried when M*W departed. I check her scribble board but she no come no more.
M*W: I haven't gone anywhere.
quantumdarkness19
Registered Member
LOL! I love that list!
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
I think a few of those, like 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, are a bit inaccurate, or at least way too broad, considering the doctrinal diversity among Christians, even of the same sects.
honestly this hole thread is trolling... though you do have to have it now and again. this is what brought me here to this forum in the first place. A science forum with really dumb people trying to argue there way into a wet paper bag. Medicine woman just provided the bag. it's important to soak the bag too... which she has. with the wet argumentative bag, the religious trolls who have way way more time on there hands than most of the educated busy science and art people out there, these tight ass religious folks need the bag. We need them to need it too. that way we can stay active and evolve out side the bag wile there argument stays moldy and gross over time. see you can dwell on fairy tales in the wet bag and never leave, wile the rest of the world grows the fuck up.
The arguement created is intended to widen the gap. if you would like to talk about psychological constructs inside catholic beliefs and symbols that's pretty cool with me. JUST STOP TELLING A SCIENCE FORUM that evolution didn't happen. Stop referring to SCIENCE as a fucking person, or an ACT. It's a category in which principals and practices concern any open mind under provable experiments that can be repeated, conclusive or not to amount to a factual result. (ARE YOU SCIENCING HARD NOW!!)
but seriously. there was allot more practiced just in this last hundred years that's almost forgotten in Christianity. I'm happy I'm not one. Mostly for the fact that you guys can't break things down any further, well have been taught to in recent years (I'm talking also in the last few hundred years)
I'm also going to let you guess what I believe in. (Believe is a funny word) Fuck that, I'm going to ask you instead to teach your self to leave your comfortable wet bag alone for a wile. humm getting past your comfort zone, losing your expectations for a fucking second would help.
you, Keep prying. I'll keep art-ing, and they will keep scienc-ing.
...Hundreds of def boys can't be wrong if so many priests make it feel so right
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that many of the more insulting and hostile atheists are former religious believers. Losing their childhood faith was a wrenching experience for them. They're still struggling inside themselves and will often project that onto others. There's a lot of bitterness.
One of the things that's always struck me about many militant atheists is how often they resemble religious fundamentalists with their faith-in-god torn out. There's the same textual literalism. You haven't lived until you've had a discussion board full of atheists lecturing you on the evils of allegorical scriptural interpretation and on the necessity that "true" Christians accept Biblical inerrancy. These atheists are just as fond of quoting scriptural 'proof-texts' as the fundies, except now they're used to discredit the Bible rather than to preach it. They seem to put in an inordinate amount of time studying their Bibles. There's the same evangelical impulse to preach and the same intolerance of dissenting opinion.
Of course, not all atheists are like that. I think that there's a large silent-majority of secular people out there who aren't obsessed with religion and don't even think about it all that often. They don't feel constantly driven to attack religious people and don't feel reflexive visceral anger in their presence. They may even have some vague positive feelings about some forms of religious expression, even if they don't share it themselves.
It was a funny read.
Religion is truly interesting since it's one of those things that sticked with humanity since, uhm, ever. What I kind of find even more interesting is the (d)evolution that took part in the field of religion. I find the pagan concept much more interesting, and much more understandable than the monotheistic point of view on things.
Religion is truly interesting since it's one of those things that sticked with humanity since, uhm, ever. What I kind of find even more interesting is the (d)evolution that took part in the field of religion. I find the pagan concept much more interesting, and much more understandable than the monotheistic point of view on things.
this statement is a perfect example why religious people aren't and shouldn't be taken seriously. you just made this up because it's not even remotely true.
you just made it up probably because you assume that it must be true simply because there are religious who do this. this type of thinking is like self-serving delusion. what you just stated is exactly what religionists are more guilty of. it sure isn't constructive or helpful to their position. please stop preaching to those who are not the ones who are guilty of it. the word hypocrite comes to mind. it just gives more fuel to hate religionists even more. it's like you can't stop lying.
what makes it more repulsive is christians say things so innocently but they aren't.
i've NEVER met an atheist who went around preaching or knocking on people's doors or handing out pamphlets (maybe they should).
it's actually very dishonest to make up lies like this as you have done. it would be akin to a sin, would it not be your religion??? hmm??!!
haha, let's be honest here though. this is exactly what has religionists befuddled. they thought they could have oppressed and/or lulled everyone to their beliefs. there were those who were on the inside and know a great deal and are against it. that's what comes from experience. religionists don't like challenge or opposition, who does? if they had their way, no one would be against it. those who are familiar with religion and religionists will have more insight and knowledge. they just have more ammo against it and religionists would like to appeal to outsiders rather than the ones that were the direct victims for support against them asking for tolerance when they weren't tolerant at all and that's the dirty secret that those who were raised or been around religious people know, hence more of the hostility or even deep anger. lmao
if everyone just let them go without any opposition or questions, they would end up abusing their power eventually which is exactly what they want. one has to remember their tricks and that is just telling them they are wrong on any point is grounds for accusing the other side of intolerance or bigotry. which is fine in the sense of disagreement because that is exactly what religionists do as well which is preach their way is correct or their beliefs are correct whether it be about any social issues. they also have their own stand and opinions which would be biased as well. that is the nature of beliefs or opinions. they for some reason think that no one should oppose them. lol
even those who are against some aspects of religion doesn't mean they reject or don't understand there are positives. it's just that you can't be too lenient to those who don't use any reason and justify everything with the bible which is what they do.
also, when you lucidly consider it, those who say they don't take the bible literally but are christians are just being evasive. if they honestly are taking moral lessons or allegory, that can be gleaned from many works or philosophies. there has to be more than that reason why one identifies as a christian, muslim, jew etc.
Last edited:
actually you both are guilty of stereotyping..both are true, but not for all.
the only religious group that i know of who do that are the LDS..
now i can agree with you..
there are exceptions, but they are few and far between..
one of my complaints is they try so hard to get you in, then ignore you once you become a regular, the meet and greet during service, does not count.
religion had their chance..they blew it..(inquisitions)
?
i call those ppl 'do as your told'..they do not want to take responsibility for their beliefs,they are happy to be lead like sheep (see roman influences on the bible to see how they are encouraged to be sheep..)
do you believe the bible is the unerring Word of God?
i don't..the bible was written by mans interpretation of who/what god is,when it is reference in the bible as 'god said' its usually followed by a 'to me'.
that does not mean that god was not there (doesn't mean he was either).
consider how many of those works and philosophers were influenced by the bible.
cause that is the closest thing i can find to describe my beliefs,
You forgot the JW's..
And depending on where you live you may encounter a few others..
I have had direct experiences with both atheism and religion over the years. In my experience, religion tends to promote a more positive message for right or wrong. While atheism seems more on the offensive, promoting an anti-message. For example, the debate between creation and evolution has religion seeking inclusion, while atheist seeks exclusion. Religion offers choice while atheism wants to make that choice for you. It is ironical that reason wants to be dogmatic and religion allows free choice.
If a bible toter comes to your house, they try to share their enthusiasm about what they believe in, right or wrong. It is not about attacking the atheists but getting their word out. The atheists tend to be on the attack. It is not about discussing the science behind atheist choices, but about attacking what religion says and does.
It is about time for atheism to get beyond its own irrationality, which makes it come across as another religion. It is suppose to based on science and logic, which by definition, is not suppose to be about emotional appeal. To someone on the outside, this seems like smoke and mirrors, which is why one gets the impression of just another religion, with irrationality at its core, but with only a surface shell of reason.
In my opinion, atheism needs to put itself on the line and present a positive message. A positive message show it is not just a virus, lacking life of its own, needing host to to be alive. There are a lot of good points to be made. However, once you present a positive message, one is subject to analysis and criticism. But this is a good way to check to see if various ideas hold up under rational fire from those without the same faith. Negative emotion can cloud reason, making it harder to be objective. I am not sure if this is needed to avoid putting it on the line.
There is such a thing as an irrational atheist. That is someone who may follow the doctrine, but in a faith based way. They did not come to these conclusions based on reason, but took it on faith. Dawkins is sort of their pope. But as history shows not all popes are as pure as snow. The ideal atheist is rational like Mr Spock.
Maybe the rational atheists should try to split off from the irrational atheists and try to get out a positive message, and not rely on faith and negative emotional appeal. This creates the impression of another religion.
If a bible toter comes to your house, they try to share their enthusiasm about what they believe in, right or wrong. It is not about attacking the atheists but getting their word out. The atheists tend to be on the attack. It is not about discussing the science behind atheist choices, but about attacking what religion says and does.
It is about time for atheism to get beyond its own irrationality, which makes it come across as another religion. It is suppose to based on science and logic, which by definition, is not suppose to be about emotional appeal. To someone on the outside, this seems like smoke and mirrors, which is why one gets the impression of just another religion, with irrationality at its core, but with only a surface shell of reason.
In my opinion, atheism needs to put itself on the line and present a positive message. A positive message show it is not just a virus, lacking life of its own, needing host to to be alive. There are a lot of good points to be made. However, once you present a positive message, one is subject to analysis and criticism. But this is a good way to check to see if various ideas hold up under rational fire from those without the same faith. Negative emotion can cloud reason, making it harder to be objective. I am not sure if this is needed to avoid putting it on the line.
There is such a thing as an irrational atheist. That is someone who may follow the doctrine, but in a faith based way. They did not come to these conclusions based on reason, but took it on faith. Dawkins is sort of their pope. But as history shows not all popes are as pure as snow. The ideal atheist is rational like Mr Spock.
Maybe the rational atheists should try to split off from the irrational atheists and try to get out a positive message, and not rely on faith and negative emotional appeal. This creates the impression of another religion.