snood wrote: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.
I didn't say that your comments were directed at me. This is not about making this personal, it's about the truth of what goes on in threads in S&R, and the truth of the matter is, as the Pentacle Queen has pointed out, that it is not just the irreligious who indulge in sharpshooting. As for making this personal, when you get on your white charger, your high horse, you make a target of yourself, don't whine about it, it simply demeans you further. Drop the holier-than-thou tone, and i'll cease to comment.
Just so I'm clear, what you're calling my "white-knight" and "holier than thou tone" was when I was defending momma angel, and not with my comments here?
Dropped in just to say I am no atheist.
I am etc. Proudly.
As a somewhat open-minded atheist, I post on spirituality threads when the topic interests me, or I have an opinion that doesn't seem to have been covered. I do try to convert people to my point of view, though I am content if I can just instill some doubt so that the fanatically dogmatic followers of the various (and contradictory) traditions can appreciate the value of tolerance.
Unlike a number of atheists here, I do not believe the question of the existence of God can be determined rationally, or any other way; I fully acknowledge that my non-belief is a matter of faith and prejudice, and merely ask the religious to acknowledge the same in the case of their cherished notions.
I do try to avoid topics that appear to be directed at fellow believers and not the general public. If self-proclaimed Christians wants to discuss the interpretation of a Bible verse, for example, I will generally refrain from putting in my two cents unless the poster appears to be willing to entertain all points of view and not just those of his or her own tribe. That's just a personal choice; as others have stated, everything on this forum is fair game.
Quote: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?
See, this is what I mean - you're asking good questions, I think.
If a veggan frequents a hunting forum to try to point out why eating meat is so bad, it isn't totally unreasonable to ask what's up with all the visits. It ain't like they're gonna stop eating meat, and although the veggan certainly has every right to present his case, it ain't like they will react to his input the same as they would to, say, a man who's family has fed itself
for generations with their hunting.
Ah but that's the question. Is the analogy a vegan visiting a hunting forum, or vegans and hunters visiting a nutrition forum?
I see "Spirituality & Religion" as encompassing ALL this stuff. Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, Jainism, Atheism, Agnosticism, and on and on.
Cannibalism is OK for religionists if they believe it to be part of their faith?
giggle....
I think some atheists actually know more about religions than the religious people who only follow their own religions. They probably have also spent more time questioning themselves on spiritually and religion, and therefore those subjects are interesting for them. In the S&R threads, there is also the "S". Certainly there are spiritual and philosophical issues that are not religious. Yes, I note that those who post in S&R also post in the Philosophy threads.
This forum allows everyone to exchange ideas, and as long as discussions are open-minded and respectful, I enjoy reading different points of view. An atheist can probably make you understand more or better about your religion because he provides a totally different opinion of it. You can then view your religion through the eyes of someone who does not believe in it. It is like seeing both sides of the coin.
mesquite wrote: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?
Do you think that politicos telling Democrats that Jesus would be pleased if the US expanded programs to combat poverty is acceptable? Is it using a religious issue as a wedge?
BTW I do not favor the faith based initiatives of GWB. And I commonly use his middle initial, as well as the middle (maiden) name of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Do you find the use of a middle name unacceptable? It is very common in politics (think JFK, FDR, Richard Milhous Nixon -- all often referred to with middle name or initial).
Does it help to tell you I would vote Obama before I would ever vote Clinton?
I agree, Sozobe - and wish to clarify my post to say that when I mentioned bible and other religious texts, I meant religions' texts in general.
snood wrote:cello wrote:I think some atheists actually know more about religions than the religious people who only follow their own religions. They probably have also spent more time questioning themselves on spiritually and religion, and therefore those subjects are interesting for them. In the S&R threads, there is also the "S". Certainly there are spiritual and philosophical issues that are not religious. Yes, I note that those who post in S&R also post in the Philosophy threads.
This forum allows everyone to exchange ideas, and
as long as discussions are open-minded and respectful, I enjoy reading different points of view. An atheist can probably make you understand more or better about your religion because he provides a totally different opinion of it. You can then view your religion through the eyes of someone who does not believe in it. It is like seeing both sides of the coin.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear. (with the "rider" that what constitutes "respectful" is very subjective. Some see the atheist position itself as inherently disrespectful, which it is really.)
vikorr wrote: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)
delusion
noun
1. (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
vikorr, if someone state that they know that the earth was created in six 24 hour days approximately 6000 years ago because the bible says so, then in the year 2007 the word delusion is not an unfair descriptor.
If one believes that wrapping themselves in explosives and detonating it in a crowded shopping plaza puts them on a fast track to paradise to be attended to by 72 virgins, then they are not only deluded, but dangerously so.
Quote:.... 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?
Regarding the principles, ebrown_p pretty much summed up my feelings on that with this post.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1417027#1417027
Quote:Greyfan :
As a somewhat open-minded atheist, I post on spirituality threads when the topic interests me, or I have an opinion that doesn't seem to have been covered. I do try to convert people to my point of view, though I am content if I can just instill some doubt so that the fanatically dogmatic followers of the various (and contradictory) traditions can appreciate the value of tolerance.
Unlike a number of atheists here, I do not believe the question of the existence of God can be determined rationally, or any other way; I fully acknowledge that my non-belief is a matter of faith and prejudice, and merely ask the religious to acknowledge the same in the case of their cherished notions.
These are the sort of things I find myself nodding my head to (particularly the tolerance - which from my view should always go both ways)
Quote:vikorr, if someone state that they know that the earth was created in six 24 hour days approximately 6000 years ago because the bible says so, then in the year 2007 the word delusion is not an unfair descriptor.
Quote:Ebrown_p :
I have a respect for the Jesus in the Bible and brave people in history who used the Christian faith for good
I am angry at American Christians because they hold beliefs and policies that directly contradict the teachings of Christ. They use the Bible as a smokescreen for a repressive brand of politics. .
This is a fair enough and valid view. I understand/agree with most of what he said afterwards (though some of what he said, I am not in a position to form an informed opinion on - I live in Australia)
One of the posters here on this forum was Timberlandko, a fellow with vast background knowledge on theology and much more. May he rest in peace.
vikorr wrote:Eorl wrote:For myself, I've always been fascinated by religion. I see it as a contagion in the human race, and I'd love to see an end to it.
Hi Eorl, I can understand how people come to that conclusion, especially given religious history, and with how it affects people today. I find myself quite moderate towards the existence of religion (perhaps with the exception of Islam, which seems very warlike to me) . . .
PS. on the subject of seeing the end of it...I'm not sure that's possible...it seems to me that it will always rear it's head in one form or another.
Funny you should say that. Did you know the book of revelation speaks of a time when a powerful worldwide organization will nearly succeed in wiping out religions entirely?
Chumly wrote: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!
Funny you should say that
ossobuco wrote:One of the posters here on this forum was Timberlandko . . . May he rest in peace.
Gasp! Just a figure of speech, I hope.
Geeze, Neo, you should know better than to just make a statement about Revelations without actually quoting the verse to which you refer. Why don't you pony up, let others judge for themselves is the verse to which you refer actually does predict an event as you characterize it?
On the issue of eliminating religion, for my part, i have stated more than once in these fora that i don't care what ahyone else believes, so long as they don't attempt to foist that belief upon society, against the wishes of the majority--and in the specific case of the United States, within the context of a pluralistic society with a secular government.
This once again leads us to the issue of why atheists would post here--and leads me once again to point out that any comments by anyone in any thread at this site are fair game for responding comments, including severe criticism, and acid comments on the stupidity of any assertions offered. There is no basis for special pleading that any belief set should be immune from criticism--this is a place in which the intent is to discuss and criticize, without respect for persons or belief sets.
However, i am hilariously amused by a circumstance of this thread. So often in the past, many religiously-motivated members, and MOAN in particular, have whined about how religious threads attract more atheists than theists. It is amusing to see how many theists have shown up in a thread which asks a basic question of atheists, and not theists.
