I'm sorry you don't see the difference, but you not seeing it does not mean it's not there. I see it clearly. You see a stereotype. The difference I see (aside from beliefs, I guess leaving behaviour to be discussed) is that we arrive at our beliefs in a fundamentally different way. We play the game of life differently.

Nobody here is trying to impose our beliefs on anyone. Instead, we present rational arguments in an attempt to influence people to change their minds of their own free will. Are you trying to impose your beliefs by coming on this board and posting this message? If not, then neither are we. 

Do you wear a crucifix or other Christian symbol? Do you pray in public ever?

So all activists are extremists? I think you're a little extreme there in your anti-activist activism. What would be a non-extreme way to stand up for our rights and excercise our freedom of speech? Cuz frankly, going with the status quo is leading this world to disaster.

I deny it. When's the last time you heard of a skeptic/free-thinker fly a plane into a building or start/support a huge war on zero reliable evidence?

Broncosfan,

If one doesn't look to closely at religion it's absurdities are usually not apparent, same for Mother Theresa. Have a look at what someone discovered that saw it from the inside:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html 

"We play the game of life differently".

How..??

By posting silly little videos on YOUTUBE ..??

Or wearing silly little T-shirts proclaiming that you're atheists..??

Or spending countless hours in front of a computer posting hundreds / thousands of messages on this and other bulletin boards..??

You're right - you do play the game of life alot differently than people like myself - or my wife - or my children - or my friends / work associates.

 

Let me enlighten you about something - there have been and are alot of very, very bright people who think that the idea of an omnipotent God is alot of superstitious poppycock.

However, there are alot of equally bright people - then and now - who believe that there is a God / higher power.

We're talking about very bright and very educated people on both sides of the issue - intelligent people who have arrived at their beliefs after alot of careful analysis and thought.

The frequent posters here can try and rationalize things all you want and scream at the top of your lungs that you're free and rational thinkers, but you have alot more in common with the 'fundies" than you realize.

I don't think the very intelligent people of faith and the very intelligent people who don't believe feel that compelled to shout their beliefs at th etop of their lungs from the rooftops.

Personally, I think it's the not-so-bright people who feel the need to proclaim their beliefs so vocally and in an "in-your-face" manner.

I've met my share of "fundies" over the years and from what I've seen and read of Sapient, for example, he has alot in common with him.

If only Mother Theresa had helped people to get out of their poverty by teaching birth control to impoverished people with health problems, she could have done a lot more good. I don't know about you, but I have a Day Job in I.T. that takes much more than 40 hours a week, I volunteer, I work with Beyond Belief Media, I take care of my critters (quite well, I might add) and still find time to go to the theater and have dinner or coffee with friends. It wouldn't be necessary for us to become vocal and be activists if religion was kept inside churches.

But my wife, for example, would never dream of wearing a silly t-shirt expressing her atheist views no more than I would wear a t-shirt expressing my views. Nor would she stand in front of a church and deny the existence of God no more than I would stand in front of a humanist bldg and read scriptures.

Overgeneralization. Why would I wear an atheist t-shirt? Where I live, no-one cares about religion, I live in one of the world's most secular cities (Hong Kong). Religious nonsense is laughed at here. I am against religion because in the greater context, it is a force of evil.

 These are activities for "kids" and extremists..!!

Meanwhile, it is perfectly OK for Christians to proselytize online, televangilists to whore lots of money, it's ok to spread lies and misinformation about evolution and it's ok that 20% of the United States believes the Sun goes round the Earth and the Earth was created after the sumerians learned to brew beer.

 These are activities for the fringe extremeists at both ends of the spectrum - and there's no denying that many of you are as just as "nutty"  and just as "rigid" in your beliefs as the fundies you condemn so frequently

I don't follow. Fundamentalists are called so because they dogmatically adhere to religious texts literally despite evidence. Please explain how requiring reason, science and evidence for veiwpoints (what atheists believe) is identical to religious fundamentalists. 

 

Although I found the latter part of your post somewhat unreasonable and ad hominem, because you do not consider the social context in which this atheist movement has arised. I do agree on your final comment.

 

Let's just assume that I only have read that you are somesort of enlightened Catholic who agrees that faith is not knowledge proper and therefor formally irrational, yet reason constraints your faith in someways which enables you to have an evenso reasonable relationship with your atheist wife.

My conclusion would be that you would be the most intelligible person in understanding both ends and above all understand the subtleties of both atheist radicals and theist radicals. Since you show yourself as the reasonable middleground of how theist and atheist can coexist in a peacefull and reasonable manner.

 

Yet instead you let yourself be seduced to make derogatory comments which show no empathy whatsoever for the precarious situation atheist in the US find themselves in. So although you have created a proper consensus  with your wife, you fail to see that life beyond your own is not as reasonable and rational as you see your own.

Either you are way ahead of us, or you just arrived at a soothing status quo with your wife without even reflecting on the meaning and content of that situation.

 

So please adjust your tone to a more respectful and reasonable one, otherwise you would contradict yourself. 

DeludedGod:

 

In reading your response,it's pretty evident that you've missed my point.

"Meanwhile, it is perfectly OK for Christians to proselytize online, televangilists to whore lots of money, it's ok to spread lies and misinformation about evolution and it's ok that 20% of the United States believes the Sun goes round the Earth and the Earth was created after the sumerians learned to brew beer."

 

No - it's not ok for all of the above. This is the point I was trying to make. 

There are Christians who espouse these nonsensical opinions as if they were "etched in stone" facts.

 

These people are "cuukoo birds".

 

But at the other end of the spectrum, you have atheists on web sites like this espousing opinions that theists are nothing more than brainwashed sheep and suffering from a mental illness.

 These people are also "cuukoo birds". 

They're just as "nutty" as the fundies - the ONLY difference is that that they happen to believe in different things.

 

And then you have people like myself who couldn't care less that atheists DON'T believe in God.

 Or people like my wife who couldn't care less that Catholics DO believe in God. 

My original post simply stated that after reading many of the posts over the last few weeks, I don't see alot of difference between the silly rantings of the 'fundies" versus the silly rantings of the "hard-core activist atheists."

 

 

 

 

 

I am referring to atheists primarily in the US; and with "precarious position" I refer to the fact that there is a common taboo on atheism. There is in many ways a Christian or theist bias in the political process, which undermines the very core of a liberal democratic society.

 

I am however not an US resident, therefor I must be cautious in claiming such things. I am informed by people I meet on the internet and the Dutch media. (Recently there was a documentary on the tremendous influence religon has in the US)

If the things I hear and see are true than I must conclude that the US is an under-developed country in respect to secularity and democratic freedoms, which is somewhat paradoxal since the US is often seen as the frontrunner in the "posse" of Western democracies.

 

 

 

No, I'm pretty darned confident of what I said.  Silly me for attempting to say it tactfully and gracefully.

 Let me rephrase so there's no question as to what I am saying.

Mother Theresa was terribly misguided in how she ministered to those in India.  She allowed poverty to  remain when she should have been teaching birth control and ways for those people to overcome their horrible living conditions.  Her religion was definitely a drawback when it came to truly helping the people.

Untrue.  King of Kings or (especially) The Passion of the Christ wouldn't be shown on television.  They would be shown in the churches which chose to show them.  I said "Keep religion INSIDE the church".  I didn't say "Keep some religion inside the church." 

That statement includes religious holidays. 

I do not believe I was unclear with my statement.

 

Where do you draw the line, Susan..??

What other movies, for example, should be "banned" from televison because of religious references..??

 How about bibles or books that contain some religious / christian themes - perhaps they, too, should be banned from libraries - perhaps they should ONLY be available in churches too..??

How about songs that contain references to Jesus - Christmas carols, for example - perhaps they should be banned from radios at Christmas  and Christmas CDs should ONLY be sold in churches..??

Where do you draw the line, Susan..?? 

If you've never done so before, you really should check out a fundie bulletin board sometime. 

You'll very quickly see the same fervour to become "activists"- the same passion to want to change the world - the same concerns about the "threat" the other side is - the same comments about restricting/ banning certain books / movies / etc.  - the same inability to differentiate between facts and opinions - scoffing at the other side and putting them down to bolster your own opinions - etc etc etc.

Don't kid yourself - you and many of the posters here have far more in common with the fundies than you think..!!

Broncosfan, here is the issue.

I don't care if people believe in God. I think it is irrational, but humans are not really rational creatures, so it is not my business. I feel strongly about it because:

-Religion is postulated as some kind of medium through which to understand God, which is ridiculous. A clear throwback to a past when religion was used to keep an iron grip on teh masses. If God is omnipotent, do you truly think this God will care if you go to church? How do you know God wants you to worship it? If people worship God, that is fine. But people raised billion dollar institutions on nothing at all. Obviously, the churches of the renessaince and the Islamic architecture in Spain is beautiful, and I love architecture. But when it gets to the point where the Belvedere Hall has a gold leaf that could fund a year of cancer research, where religion gets tax-exempt status, where we have "faith-based initiatives", where churches compete like gas stations, then we have a problem.

 

-The dogma. I don't care if people worship God, but I do care that it comes packaged as unquestioned dogma. I am against any dogma, be it religious or atheistic (like the communists). This leads to a mindset held by huge numbers of faithful. For instance "my god is better than yours" or "that gives me the right to kill you" or (in Islamic countries) "if you blaspheme the Quran, we will burn you alive". Dogma is dangerous.

Religious Toe-stepping on science. Mostly an issue in the United States only. Doesnt really exist anywhere else. Fix this and I will be very happy.

-Sheilded from discourse. We are not allowed to criticize religion because "we are disrespecting someone else's sacred beliefs". Bullshit. Religion should be subject to the same ruthless critique as anything else. We cannot have lower standards of evidence for just one aspect of society. 

-The mythology. If religion was just about believing in God, that would be fine. But in addition to the domga, it comes packaged in obvious mythology. The trinity? Made up in 400AD. The ascension of St Mary? Made up same time. Vast amounts of religion, Muhammed flying to heaven on his winged horse, A body surviving rigor mortis for three days, are clearly mythology which people accept as true for no apparent reason. this is interesting.  n terms of evidence, there is no difference between the beliefs that Thor and his hammer rules the sky, and that Yahweh is watching over us, or Allah. Yet no-one believes in Thor and his hammer. Some religious beliefs "die" while others do not, "Die" in the sense that everyone accepts them as mythology what I am trying to say now is not whether mono or poly came first, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is: why do people believe in religion? Religion is ridiculous. It is clearly mythology. Stories of Muhammed flying to heaven on his winged horse, or a body surviving rigor mortis for three days, are clearly conjured up. The transevolution of the monotheistic religions is obvious. Islam comes from Christianity comes from Judaism. So my question is, why do certain religious beliefs survive in the memeplex, while others die? Why has Thor with his hammer a fun story that Icelandic children gather round and listen to, while the belief that a guy got nailed to a cross and went to heaven a beleif that people bomb abortion clinics for?

 

Yes.  

I don't know that I'd use the word "threat" unless you're talking about the threat of a theistic government (but that's a whole different topic that doesn't belong here). 

The fact that religion (and in the U.S. that would be xianity) has permeated so much of our daily lives and there are so many in-your-face theists attempting to force their religion on everyone else is, at the very least, rude and annoying.  Ever get that knock on the door on Saturday morning from the Jehovah's Witnesses?  Ever get bible verses left on your desk from the theist in the next cube?

I was simply saying that it would be just dandy for all the theists to be as theistic as they like as long as it stayed in their church and didn't infringe on anyone else.  (We all know that isn't going to happen as long as they're determined to save our non-existent souls.)

I beg your pardon?!?  Where was I unable to differentiate between fact and opinion? 

Yes, there has ben scoffing here, but if you've read some of the silliness posted by theists, sometimes it's deserved.

Usually you'll see comments like "Please provide evidence" or "Please back up your argument."  I would suspect that what you interpret as putting someone down is when evidence is not supplied or is very weak and subsequetly the lack of evidence is dramatically pointed out.  That, in itself, bolsters opinions because they have not been refuted.

 

I suppose ill just pretend im invisible

And that's exactly why we're objecting to your points so strongly. You're lumping us all together.

Don't waste time promoting silly views, warns "Broncos Fan."

Shaun:

This was the original comment you made:

" But not agreeing with everything the Catholic Church does imply that you are not a Catholic--you are still a theist, however, just not the Catholic one, according to the rules of the club in question.  And being a Catholic implies that Hell is what a person who does not believe in God is probably awaiting, at least according to the Church.  It's their rules, not mine."

And then when I asked you to provide me with a specific to the cathecism of the Catholic Church, here's the response I get:

"Well, I am not sure about what is in the Catechism itself, as I've never stidied them.  What I was referring to was heresy. "

This is EXACTLY the point I was making in my first post. 

So many of you are posting and making statements and implyinjg they're facts and when you're actually challenged, you immediately back-pedal and we get these gobbledy-gook" responses. 

This is EXACTLY the point I was making - so many of you depict yourself as analysitical and rational individuals when, in fact, at best, you're not really that much more "rational" than the fundies.

Those "cuukoo birds" are forever making statements that are supposedly facts, but in reality are nothing more than opinions - ands stupid ones at that

But you guys do the EXACT same thing.

Those "nuts" want to bank certain books and movies and music. -

Many of you want to do the same thing - but just different films, music and books. 

Those fundie kooks think society is going to hell because we're living in a "godless" society.

Athesit kooks think we're so screwed up because we suffer from a mental disorder known as theism.

You're ALL cut from the EXACT same cloth - you're just the reverse side.

Anyways, this is my last post - enjoy your forums.!! 

Broncosfan is running away without answering most of our responses. Well, have a nice life.

Since you've refused to comment on a single thing I've said, I'm going to have to conclude that your comments are not directed to me in any way, though I must say they are quite hypocritical. Not sad to see you go.

Broncosfan, you have made some great posts and great points.  It's quite refreshing to come across someone like you.  

From what I've gathered, Susan has become more outspoken about her Atheism due to an increase in theism and christianity being pushed on people in a number of nations.  I too have noticed this, it is what has brought me out of hiding as well.  I can't say I agree with her completely though.  King of Kings and Passion of Christ, they have not been forced down anybodys throat.  There is always the option to change the channel or watch a different movie.  One has to specifically choose to go watch these.  I see that part of her view as being similar to saying movies like Pearl Harbour should only be shown in America or in army bases.

The only thing I have against these movies is that many theists were up in arms against The Divinci Code and a few nations are barring that latest documentary about the supposed findings of Jesus' tomb.  If they can do that about those two movies and if they really do want Harry Potter banned, than we should be able to put a block on King of Kings and Passions of Christ.  Fair is only fair, right?  Myself though am not going to do anything against these movies due to my feelings on free speech and the right of people to make their own choices as to whether they watch it or not.

The things that made me start to stand up are the ever increasing levels of theism in our political and legal scenes.  The teaching of creationism along side Darwins theories, moves being made against abortion (even for people who were raped), how politicians have discriminated then hidden behind their religion to get away with it such as abolishing marraige for homosexuals, a few politicians have talked about prayer in schools, Australia and its recent push for chaplains in all schools etc.

I want my words to be informed so I've been searching out sites on Atheism, attempting to find a like-minded community from which I can learn more.  Unfortunately most sites I've come across are either dead in the water (more forum spam than actual posts) or overrun with fundamentalists and extremists on both sides.

I've stuck around here longer than most sites and am still investigating which is a good sign but as with everything there is always an extremist minority.  They are often the ones who take the loudest stands so trying to find a more tolerant middle ground is often hard.

Ahh, fair enough.  I take it that the message simply came across badly in this thread which is easy enough a thing to happen in text based mediums like this where people tend to respond instantly.