Why so many atheists etc here?

I post here out of self defense. I have always been attacked for my atheism by the religious. When I answer back, I am accused of being the instigator.

0 Replies

Hi Edgarblythe

I find nothing wrong with atheism. I do wonder though, that many atheists seem to be very 'fanatical' (for want of a better term) about the rightness of their belief (I'm not saying its wrong) when dealing with religious people (though perhaps that's because I only notice the vocal atheists)...

As an observation...many religious people...and many atheists...fail to respect the other persons right to believe what they want to believe (whether they consider it right or wrong)...and if you can't respect the other persons beliefs, not much gets accomplished, because why should 'I' listen to someone who shows disrespect to me? (most likely, given general human nature, it will result in an retaliatory attack).

0 Replies

vikorr- I am not Edgar, but I would like to put my two cents in.

First of all, you see a lot of arguing amongst the religious, the agnostic and the atheist on A2K. Think about it. This is a FORUM, whose purpose is to share ideas. It is also a place where one can express views that might
not be considered appropriate in "polite society".

For instance, the only people in my community who know of my views are those who are like minded. We tend to find one another. In my dealings with the religious, I keep a low profile, because there is no reason to bring such matters up. If I were asked, I would certainly express my views, but normally there is no point. Even if I were asked, (which I have been) I would give a perfunctory answer, like, "I am not observant". Unless someone is attempting to create a discussion, why bother?

It is funny that you consider atheists, "fanatical". I believe the exact same thing about people who adhere to either a fundamentalist religion, or are extremely devout in a mainstream religion.

0 Replies

Hello Phoenix

I thought I went out of my way to clarify the remark I made as to 'fanatical'? (hence the '' marks, the (for want of a better word), and the conditional 'perhaps I only notice the vocal ones, and the 'atheists & religious people do such and such' remark which further clarified what I meant by the word).

And yes, there are many fanatical religious people.

Thank you for your comments on the ability to share idea's here, and the low profile you have kept elsewhere.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I post here out of self defense. I have always been attacked for my atheism by the religious. When I answer back, I am accused of being the instigator.

If the people you "answer back" to are the same "the religious" who attack you, I see no problem.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

As an observation...many religious people...and many atheists...fail to respect the other persons right to believe what they want to believe (whether they consider it right or wrong)...and if you can't respect the other persons beliefs, not much gets accomplished, because why should 'I' listen to someone who shows disrespect to me? (most likely, given general human nature, it will result in an retaliatory attack).

vikorr, you have muddled a couple of things together here that need to be kept separated. Respecting ones right to believe whatever they want is not the same thing as respecting the belief itself.

I fully support and respect the right to religious belief so long as it does not infringe upon others or enter into the government. You will find that to not be true of many of the theists here, primarily from islamic countries, but there is no shortage of Christians that attempt to force their religiously derived morality upon the general population.

That said, I do not see how I could possibly respect many of the religious beliefs themselves.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

Since ALL laws reflect SOMEBODY'S idea of what is right and what is wrong, how do you propose to keep government free of the influence of BOTH religious views of morality (i.e. right and wrong) and atheistic views of morality?

You cannot have a government without laws that reflect SOMEBODY's idea of right and wrong, can you?

I have found it quite interesting how religious the Democrats in the USA are sounding in this election cycle just now beginning.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Hussein Obama, etc are very visibly appearing frequently in churches and using religious persuasion to make their case. Does this bother you? Or are you unconcerned because they probably are only doing so to get elected?

0 Replies

What amazes me is that no one has provided the rather simple answer that this is a discussion board. People come here to discuss topics. Anyone who is registered here has the right to read and respond to any thread.

This is precisely the problem you have with religious nut cases at this site, or any other site that i've seen--they expect special treatment. They expect that only people who hold views such as theirs should appear in these threads to discuss the topics, and they engage in special pleading on behalf of their favorite superstitions and their imaginary friends.

Snood is one of the worst offenders--he gets really, really nasty with people with whom he consistently disagrees about religion, and will follow members around to other threads to harass them when he gets angry, and it has gotten him temporarily banned on more than one occasion.

Snood once played a no-holds-barred game in the political threads--i haven't seen him much in political threads, and i suspect that is because he is even more likely to lose his temper and get banned in those threads. But this is exactly my point about the hypocricy of the religious--Snood will go ballistic on a political topic, and feels no constraint in the matter of criticizing ideological beliefs--but he indulges special pleading for religion, and want to suggest that criticism of religious points of view ought to be off limits.

MOAN is another member who was once fond of trying to suggest that people who don't believe as she does ought not to show their faces in religious threads. She hasn't been around much lately, though.

It's a discussion board, boys and girls--people come here to discuss things, and any one has a right to comment on any topic in any forum.

0 Replies

I know I left my "Jesus Loves Me" pea shooter around here somewhere.

There it is.

phhht......

Ha.. take that..

0 Replies

Quote:

Snood is one of the worst offenders--he gets really, really nasty with people with whom he consistently disagrees about religion, and will follow members around to other threads to harass them when he gets angry, and it has gotten him temporarily banned on more than one occasion.

I would argue with you about being any nastier than anyone else. I don't know anyone who can hold a candle to you as far as being nasty, but I don't know what good can come out of beating that to death. I haven't had any kind of confrontation about religion with anyone, even you Setanta, since I've been back. I think it would be pretty easy to just disagree about the issue and not comment on each other if we want to. I'd like to not be judged by my worst behavior forever and ever.

Quote:

Snood once played a no-holds-barred game in the political threads--i haven't seen him much in political threads, and i suspect that is because he is even more likely to lose his temper and get banned in those threads.

I am in the political threads more than anywhere else.
If you haven't seen me there much, maybe its because I simply don't post to this forum as much, period.

Quote:

But this is exactly my point about the hypocricy of the religious--Snood will go ballistic on a political topic, and feels no constraint in the matter of criticizing ideological beliefs--but he indulges special pleading for religion, and want to suggest that criticism of religious points of view ought to be off limits.

Special Pleading - that's how you and I start going round and round. I'm just going to say it one more time. It is possible to disagree about religion without being disagreeable, even for me. I seem to be able to completely disagree with edgar, for instance, without it ever getting ugly. I don't think this ever has to be about me or you or any individual again, unless someone makes it that way.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Mesquite,

Since ALL laws reflect SOMEBODY'S idea of what is right and what is wrong, how do you propose to keep government free of the influence of BOTH religious views of morality (i.e. right and wrong) and atheistic views of morality?

I wasn't reflecting on possibilities. I was pointing out the limits of my respect.

Quote:

You cannot have a government without laws that reflect SOMEBODY's idea of right and wrong, can you?

The fact that some aspect of moral guidance is supported by a religious text does not make it any better or worse IMO. I don't need a religious text to tell me that society is better off with laws against murder theft and perjury. The same goes for slavery, segregation, or unequal treatment of women.

I have found it quite interesting how religious the Democrats in the USA are sounding in this election cycle just now beginning.

Quote:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Hussein Obama, etc are very visibly appearing frequently in churches and using religious persuasion to make their case. Does this bother you? Or are you unconcerned because they probably are only doing so to get elected?

The majority of the voting public are religious to some degree, so for any candidate to have a realistic chance of being elected they will have to appeal to this group in one way or another. If any of them pandered by promising favors to the religious (faith based initiative) or used religious issues as a wedge (anti-gay marriage amendment) then I would have a problem with them.

Edit: Is there any particular reason other than the obvious that you chose to single out Barack for inclusion of the middle name?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I don't think this ever has to be about me or you or any individual again, unless someone makes it that way.

Oh, someone always "makes it that way"--and that someone is you. However, you're being disingenuous. You have gone after me, and followed me around with your toady Intrepid because i attacked MOAN. I originally simply pointed out that remarks she made were idiotic, or unsupportable--to which she responded with acrimony verging on hysteria. She then willfully lied, on more than one occasion, and in particular, used information which she dug up about me in a search in an attempt to get my sympathy, and thereby create an entree for herself here.

So, i despise her. Thereafter, i took the gloves off. When i saw her lying, i told her she was a liar. When i was uncertain, i pointed out that she couldn't be trusted because she was known to be a liar. When she vaunted her excellence as a humble and devout christian, i held a mirror up to her false humility and her egocentric, religiously-centered pride. It made her angry, but it made you absolutely insane.

Our nastiest exchanges always grew out of your desire to play the white knight of christianity, riding up to save the poor innocent (choke, choke, gag, puke) damsel, MOAN. You and she deserve each other, and you eared every vicious remark i ever aimed at you, and you begged for them as well.

Go whine somewhere else, where there are no witnesses to your viciousness and your hypocricy, past and present. Shall we send a PM and ask Lash to come and comment on you and MOAN?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:
I don't think this ever has to be about me or you or any individual again, unless someone makes it that way.

Oh, someone always "makes it that way"--and that someone is you. However, you're being disingenuous. You have gone after me, and followed me around with your toady Intrepid because i attacked MOAN. I originally simply pointed out that remarks she made were idiotic, or unsupportable--to which she responded with acrimony verging on hysteria. She then willfully lied, on more than one occasion, and in particular, used information which she dug up about me in a search in an attempt to get my sympathy, and thereby create an entree for herself here.

So, i despise her. Thereafter, i took the gloves off. When i saw her lying, i told her she was a liar. When i was uncertain, i pointed out that she couldn't be trusted because she was known to be a liar. When she vaunted her excellence as a humble and devout christian, i held a mirror up to her false humility and her egocentric, religiously-centered pride. It made her angry, but it made you absolutely insane.

Our nastiest exchanges always grew out of your desire to play the white knight of christianity, riding up to save the poor innocent (choke, choke, gag, puke) damsel, MOAN. You and she deserve each other, and you eared every vicious remark i ever aimed at you, and you begged for them as well.

Go whine somewhere else, where there are no witnesses to your viciousness and your hypocricy, past and present. Shall we send a PM and ask Lash to come and comment on you and MOAN?

Setanta, you started the personal stuff in this thread, about things that happened months ago. Why do you insist on keeping the vitriol flowing? I got no beef with you.

0 Replies

On atheists, etc., posting on the spirituality and religion forum, well...

many of us have extensive backgrounds in religion. Some are very well versed in the bible, and other religious and spiritual texts, and some have extensive knowledge of theology. Not everyone who studied religion and/or was religious at one time is unlearned in these matters - quite the contrary, many know more than many religious posters about religion.

While being now without belief or agnostic re belief in religion, we retain interest in discussions about it, to some extent, with varying motivations as so far expressed on this thread.

Further, those who reject religion as their moral framework may still be interested in other spiritual ways of being.

In any case, no one 'owns' these threads for discussion.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Setanta, you started the personal stuff in this thread, about things that happened months ago. Why do you insist on keeping the vitriol flowing? I got no beef with you.

No, i did not start "personal stuff." You wrote:

In post #2568642, Snood wrote:

. . . although I think that the "interest" some profess in spirituality and religion extends no further than to what extent they can riddle a belief system with holes . . .

Then:

In post #2568680, Snood wrote:

I've no problem with "healthy skepticism", constructive criticism, intellectual curiosity...

I just wouldn't characterize some commentary that way. Some of it is sharpshooting, plain and simple.

So to throw a little of your biblical claptrap at you, seem to readily find the motes in the eyes of others, despite the beam in your own, which you don't acknowledge. Had you not tried to make out that people were "sharpshooting" at innocent religious types, if you had not attempted to suggest that other people want no more than to "riddle a belief system," then you'd have seen no reference to you in any of my posts.

You set yourself up for the comments when you came to sneer at those with whom you disagree--absent this tripe from you, i'd have made no reference to your behavior of "months ago." Now you want to whine about it--typical . . .

0 Replies

The real reason there are so many Atheists here is that this is a nexus for the Atheist Cabal!

The Atheist Cabal's premier porpoise is to eradicate all religions and take over all the churches and mosques and synagogues and preach the word of Non-Belief.

Mums the word!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:
Setanta, you started the personal stuff in this thread, about things that happened months ago. Why do you insist on keeping the vitriol flowing? I got no beef with you.

No, i did not start "personal stuff." You wrote:

In post #2568642, Snood wrote:
. . . although I think that the "interest" some profess in spirituality and religion extends no further than to what extent they can riddle a belief system with holes . . .

Then:

In post #2568680, Snood wrote:
I've no problem with "healthy skepticism", constructive criticism, intellectual curiosity...

I just wouldn't characterize some commentary that way. Some of it is sharpshooting, plain and simple.

So to throw a little of your biblical claptrap at you, seem to readily find the motes in the eyes of others, despite the beam in your own, which you don't acknowledge. Had you not tried to make out that people were "sharpshooting" at innocent religious types, if you had not attempted to suggest that other people want no more than to "riddle a belief system," then you'd have seen no reference to you in any of my posts.

You set yourself up for the comments when you came to sneer at those with whom you disagree--absent this tripe from you, i'd have made no reference to your behavior of "months ago." Now you want to whine about it--typical . . .

How are my comments above directed at you? Maybe I included you in my characterization of "sharpshooting", but I certainly didn't just mean you. Stipulating that anyone can post anywhere for any reason, I'll stand by my assertion that some are moved to post on the religious threads more to pick a fight than to "discuss" anything. And I posted that in answer to the originator of this thread - he asked "Why are so many atheists, etc, on Spirituality/Religion threads?" I thought it was a reasonable question, and I provided my opinion.
You don't have to make this personal, Setanta.

0 Replies

Its no way just the atheists who do this 'sharpshooting.'
Religious users do it a lot. Which is even worse, because it's against most religious beliefs to victimise someone.
But i don't know the whole story.
Carry on.

0 Replies

Quote:

vikorr, you have muddled a couple of things together here that need to be kept separated. Respecting ones right to believe whatever they want is not the same thing as respecting the belief itself.

Hi Mesquite

Thanks for the input, and I agree with you. That is what I meant in relation to what I posted. I just didn't mention the part about not having to respect the belief itself (mind you...for example...say someone calls a belief 'delusion', because they don't that is what they think of the belief...now because another person believes in this belief, that means they too must be delusional...therefore the disrespect extends to both the belief and the person)

....

And yes this is a forum for debate. I guess I thought that being Atheists, atheists wouldn't be much interested in religion/spirituality...perhaps, is it just an interest in proving each religion wrong? ...and If so... what about the principles of the religion? (I don't mean the belief in a God, but rather the 'love thy neighbour as thyself' stuff) Does this also come in for wanting to be proved wrong, because it is part of a system? Or perhaps the reasoning is to moderate religious beliefs?

0 Replies

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Its no way just the atheists who do this 'sharpshooting.'
Religious users do it a lot. Which is even worse, because it's against most religious beliefs to victimise someone.
But i don't know the whole story.
Carry on.

Hey, when you learn the whole story, ya promise to lemme in on it?

0 Replies

Why so many atheists etc here?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know