Elevating the atheism/religion discussion

[Retro Rob]

fyi: Russian Orthodox is Christian

But Christians don't agree with other Christians on many things; and you should know that there are atheists in among the ranks of Christianity as well, struggling with doubts and aren't yet ready to come out as such.

"Christian" doesn't mean anything in and of itself anymore.

 

[sandorski]

But Christians don't agree with other Christians on many things; and you should know that there are atheists in among the ranks of Christianity as well, struggling with doubts and aren't yet ready to come out as such.

"Christian" doesn't mean anything in and of itself anymore.

Has it ever?

 

[alzan]

Exactly, and I never said otherwise. That really doesn't really challenge my point though. While I said they think you're doing it wrong, I never actually said you ARE doing it wrong.

You're wrong here.

Many times (with myself as a prime example) all it takes is a little seed to be planted to get someone thinking, and then that leads down a path to either conversion or de-conversion...happens everyday, buddy.

You don't have to care about it at that moment, but something could just get you thinking a little, and then you go from there.


What? Preaching...IS acting. Talking, is "acting and living your faith" as its a MASSIVE part of being Christian.

You seem to know very little about what you criticize.

I have to deal with it as much as you do.

Your "idea" is not supported by the US Constitution -- no one is restricted to "waiting for you", so don't mind me if I reject it on those grounds.

That's all fine and good, but so what? Your views are not shared by the folks who actually founded this free country, and that's precisely why we have freedom of religion...to be protected from people who hold your anti-freedom viewpoints.

I didn't tell you to move to Russia, that was one of two options your realistically have at your disposal; (1) Work to change the laws (which you said you really can't), (2), move to another country which supports your views, or (3), deal with it (which you seem to have a hard time doing).

So if none of these are optional for you, then what's your point?

Oh, trust me...the more agnostics and atheists they have in their ranks, the more they can oppress Christianity and restrict preaching the way you want it done here.

You'd fit right in.

My my, you're quite the antagonist aren't you? I'm seeing quite a bit of the "militant theist" in your posts, in juxtaposition to the "militant atheist" talked about in this and many other threads.

No, preaching and talking about your faith can be a large part of being Christian but it's not necessarily so; your interpretation of your faith is not the same as everyone else's.

Your interpretation of the 1st Amendment as it relates to religious expression is IMO not shared by many citizens or indeed many constitutional lawyers or judges. "Your views are not shared by the folks who actually founded this free country, and that's precisely why we have freedom of religion...to be protected from people who hold your anti-freedom viewpoints." - Lol, I'm anti-freedom now am I? Yep, pretty militant.

True, your actual phrasing was "or move to Russia".

Perhaps you should consider a mission trip to Russia, so that you can help stop the "oppression" that's happening there.

Hell, with all those non-believers there you could make a real killing in the conversion game. Do you think with high enough sales..er, converts, you could win a car or maybe a flat screen TV?

Serious question, is this militant Christian style you've adopted working for you as far as street preaching?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Has it ever?

yes: one who attempts to be a 'little christ'.

 

[Retro Rob]

Lol, I'm anti-freedom now am I? Yep, pretty militant.

Yes you are. Your views are only supportive of restrictions on preaching, but you seem completely oblivious to the fact that atheists and agnostics fairly and equally benefit from the same basic freedoms to tell people they're wrong either in person or in print as we do.

You don't have the freedom from being offended, you seem to get sensitive and bothered when someone tells you you're wrong.

 

[alzan]

Yes you are. Your views are only supportive of restrictions on preaching, but you seem completely oblivious to the fact that atheists and agnostics fairly and equally benefit from the same basic freedoms to tell people they're wrong either in person or in print as we do.

You don't have the freedom from being offended, you seem to get sensitive and bothered when someone tells you you're wrong.

When/where did I say that atheists/agnostics should be free to preach in public unrestricted?

You might have inferred that I supported unrestricted speech for atheists/agnostics because I mention preachers in my various posts. The reason I do that is because I have never, repeat never, had an atheist/agnostic; come to my door unbidden, stopped me in the street and hand me a pamphlet, catch my eye and taken that as an invitation to talk, or pushed themselves on me in any way. Any conversation I've had with another atheist/agnostic happened solely because I sought it out.

 

[Retro Rob]

Serious question, is this militant Christian style you've adopted working for you as far as street preaching?

My style works well, because it isn't militant.

Just saying, though...what you say about religion and the views you hold have serious consequences for those who wish to affect political change.

For instance, in a country that's by far religious and would like to keep its religious freedom, how many of these people would be willing to trust, let alone vote for, people who say:

"Raising your kids in your faith is child abuse", or "kids shouldn't be allowed to learn their parents religion until they're 18", or "religion impedes human progress".

All statements show a profound intolerance of religion, and the first one accuses religious people of illegal activity (as child abuse is against the law, punishable by jail time).

So, if you're wondering why you're not trusted in a country like this, or people equate you with 20th century Soviets, reflect for a moment on what some people who speak loudly for the cause of irreligion and/or atheism say, analyze your own personal views, and strive to change them.

 

[alzan]

My style works well, because it isn't militant.

Just saying, though...what you say about religion and the views you hold have serious consequences for those who wish to affect political change.

For instance, in a country that's by far religious and would like to keep its religious freedom, how many of these people would be willing to trust, let alone vote for, people who say:

"Raising your kids in your faith is child abuse", or "kids shouldn't be allowed to learn their parents religion until they're 18", or "religion impedes human progress".

All statements show a profound intolerance of religion, and the first one accuses religious people of illegal activity (as child abuse is against the law, punishable by jail time).

So, if you're wondering why you're not trusted in a country like this, or people equate you with 20th century Soviets, reflect for a moment on what some people who speak loudly for the cause of irreligion and/or atheism say, analyze your own personal views, and strive to change them.

Well at least now you've dropped of your earlier this evening posts.

Politicians get elected largely by telling people what they want to hear; I don't support it but it's a fact in this country and many others. What consequences?

I do think that teaching a child religion before they have the ability to think for themselves is a form of child abuse though it's not the type of abuse most people think of when they hear the term. As far as accusing people of illegal activity that's a bit of a stretch, even for you. Intolerance of religion? Hardly. The first two statements are simply appeals to let children decide for themselves, the last a recognition certain attitudes and thought processes, religion among them, can be an impediment to human progress.

I'm not trusted in a country like this? A negative opinion of my trustworthiness from a relatively anonymous Internet poster who's never met me is worth exactly this:















As to how atheists/agnostics are viewed by theists, I could care less. I don't assign value and worth to a person based even slightly on their spirituality and or belief system or lack there of. If that's one of your criteria for valuing a person that's your choice.

You're the only person who's equated me with a 20th century soviet.

I cannot change what some of the more vocal atheists/agnostics say, I can only change my reaction to it.

Perhaps you should do the same.

Edit 12/3/14: You never did answer my previous question - When/where did I say that atheists/agnostics should be free to preach in public unrestricted?

 

[Victorian Gray]

back then even the non religious believed the earth was flat.....

In the 11th century you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who wasn't religious and the idea of a spherical earth was pretty well known and understood given that the idea goes back at least to the ancient Greeks.

 

[Caravaggio]

As an atheist I think I have evolved beyond bashing the religious.

Sorry, no. You have evolved exactly as far as your Darwinian random mutations allow.
You have not, nor can you ever, determine the rate of your own evolution.
But your parents can pay for a good education, if they wish.

Maybe that will allow a better chance for your 'smart' genes to express themselves. Maybe you will get shot by an angry white cop. Who can tell?

 

[lotus503]

Wait, if you think someone is doing something wrong, you have the responsibility to say something, then let them decide if what you're saying has merit, or they'll tell you to leave them alone.

Simple. I have to deal with other religious people approaching me with something I don't believe in as well, yet, I still support their right to try to tell me I'm wrong. When I don't want to be bothered, I let them know...complaining about it only makes you more irritated by it. Then it goes back to our Government system, which allows that as long as your rights aren't being violated.

You'll just have to deal with the inconvenience, but ultimately, religious people having these freedoms are fundamental to you having your freedom to do the same yourself about the falseness of my beliefs, if so shall choose.

This is America...learn to suck it up, and deal with it...and stop complaining about it unless you're willing to go without certain rights yourself.

I get what your saying. My point is I usually don't engage in conversations with religious folks about such topics, because the fact i'm an atheist I am forced in those discussions to point out the inconsistencies with whatever dogma that religion is tied to.

My bigger point is I do not like doing that, I don't like making people feel bad about what they choose to believe when they aren't hurting someone else.

However when you tell me i'm wrong and I need to believe like you, its on like Donkey Kong. Its not about the right to say what you want etc, its about the desire to not bash ones belief system most of which are directly tied to an individuals sense of worth and esteem.

figures Christians wouldn't have a problem doing it though.

 

[lotus503]

Sorry, no. You have evolved exactly as far as your Darwinian random mutations allow.
You have not, nor can you ever, determine the rate of your own evolution.
But your parents can pay for a good education, if they wish.

Maybe that will allow a better chance for your 'smart' genes to express themselves. Maybe you will get shot by an angry white cop. Who can tell?

I think of evolution beyond the context of biology. At 44 years old my mind and thoughts have evolved from the time i was 16. largely based on my observations and experiences

 

[Retro Rob]

I get what your saying. My point is I usually don't engage in conversations with religious folks about such topics, because the fact i'm an atheist I am forced in those discussions to point out the inconsistencies with whatever dogma that religion is tied to.

Well, that's a good thing which allows you both to address each other in a critical, yet, respectful manner and perhaps, you both may grow to better appreciate each other's position from a point of knowledge instead of hearsay and prejudice.

My bigger point is I do not like doing that, I don't like making people feel bad about what they choose to believe when they aren't hurting someone else.

No one does, however, if you were to "feel bad", it doesn't mean that was my intent -- it could quite probably mean you just are a little overly-sensitive when it comes to someone sharing something with you that you may yet to agree with.

However when you tell me i'm wrong and I need to believe like you, its on like Donkey Kong. Its not about the right to say what you want etc, its about the desire to not bash ones belief system most of which are directly tied to an individuals sense of worth and esteem.

I mean, I hear you...but religious people don't stop you and tell you: "hey, you're wrong by not being religious or being [insert religion here]"/

In my experience anyway, you're normally asked a question of some sort, and the conversation goes from there...it may be extremely rare (if not non-existent) that a random stranger comes and tell you "you're wrong", especially if he doesn't even know where you stand on said issue.

 

[lotus503]

Well, that's a good thing which allows you both to address each other in a critical, yet, respectful manner and perhaps, you both may grow to better appreciate each other's position from a point of knowledge instead of hearsay and prejudice.



No one does, however, if you were to "feel bad", it doesn't mean that was my intent -- it could quite probably mean you just are a little overly-sensitive when it comes to someone sharing something with you that you may yet to agree with.



I mean, I hear you...but religious people don't stop you and tell you: "hey, you're wrong by not being religious or being [insert religion here]"/

In my experience anyway, you're normally asked a question of some sort, and the conversation goes from there...it may be extremely rare (if not non-existent) that a random stranger comes and tell you "you're wrong", especially if he doesn't even know where you stand on said issue.

Rob I think you and I are pretty thick skinned, we are used to having these difficult conversations, taking information in and not taking it personally etc. After all were on forums to do exactly that.
Best I can do is provide you with an example of something that happened that speaks to why I feel the way I do.

My nine year old daughter has a friend that lives a couple of houses away, this friend is her age and they like each other very much. One day my nine year old comes home upset, I ask her what wrong and she said Sydney just told me I was going to burn in hell because I don’t believe in Jesus.
I of course told my 9 year old that is ridiculous that there is no proof Jesus is God or that hell even exists.

I explained that this is what Sydney believes so we need to respect that but its ok to tell Sydney we do not believe what she does. I then go on to tell her I do not believe in God and why I do not believe in God etc.

Couple of days later she went to go play with Sydney about 30 minutes after she left to go to her house I get a knock on the door. Its Sydney, her mom and my daughter and Sydney’s mom is fuming mad.

She proceeds to tell me it’s not my kids place to tell her daughter that God isn't real. I of course respond with well its not Sydney’s place to tell my daughter she is going to burn in hell and that by doing so they forced me into a position to have to challenge their religious views as it relates to my daughter. The next 30 minutes is her trying to defend the existence of God to save face with her daughter on my doorstep.

I of course refuted all of the evidence she put forth and presented my own in support of my viewpoint. She and her daughter left in tears. And now the kids relationship is strained, I was forced to essentially punk mom in front of her kid because she insisted on spewing the gospel at my doorstep when it was unwelcome.

I didn't want to hurt her, or to get between how she raises her child, but dammit she forced me into it. That is the downside of evangelizing .

 

[alzan]

Rob I think you and I are pretty thick skinned, we are used to having these difficult conversations, taking information in and not taking it personally etc. After all were on forums to do exactly that.
Best I can do is provide you with an example of something that happened that speaks to why I feel the way I do.

My nine year old daughter has a few that lives a couple of houses away, this friend is her age and they like each other very much. One day my nine year old comes home upset, I ask her what wrong and she said Sydney just told me I was going to burn in hell because I don’t believe in Jesus.
I of course told my 9 year old that is ridiculous that there is no proof Jesus is God or that hell even exists.

I explained that this is what Sydney believes so we need to respect that but its ok to tell Sydney we do not believe what she does. I then go on to tell her I do not believe in God and why I do not believe in God etc.

Couple of days later she went to go play with Sydney about 30 minutes after she left to go to her house I get a knock on the door. Its Sydney, her mom and my daughter and Sydney’s mom is fuming mad.

She proceeds to tell me it’s not my kids place to tell her daughter that God isn't real. I of course respond with well its not Sydney’s place to tell my daughter she is going to burn in hell and that by doing so they forced me into a position to have to challenge their religious views as it relates to my daughter. The next 30 minutes is her trying to defend the existence of God to save face with her daughter on my doorstep.

I of course refuted all of the evidence she put forth and presented my own in support of my viewpoint. She and her daughter left in tears. And now the kids relationship is strained, I was forced to essentially punk mom in front of her kid because she insisted on spewing the gospel at my doorstep when it was unwelcome.

I didn't want to hurt her, or to get between how she raises her child, but dammit she forced me into it. That is the downside of evangelizing .

It's unfortunate your daughter's friends mother didn't teach her daughter not to broach religion and belief with her friends, but it does help to point out at least one of the problems with teaching children your faith before they're mature enough to decide on their own and/or know how to tactfully talk to others about faith. Of course some adults don't know how to tactfully talk to other adults about faith or the lack there of.

I'm sure little Sydney was not mature enough to know just how arrogant it is to tell someone "they're going to burn in hell for not believing in x"; apparently her mother isn't mature enough either.

 

[sandorski]

It's unfortunate your daughter's friends mother didn't teach her daughter not to broach religion and belief with her friends, but it does help to point out at least one of the problems with teaching children your faith before they're mature enough to decide on their own and/or know how to tactfully talk to others about faith. Of course some adults don't know how to tactfully talk to other adults about faith or the lack there of.

I'm sure little Sydney was not mature enough to know just how arrogant it is to tell someone "they're going to burn in hell for not believing in x"; apparently her mother isn't mature enough either.

Indeed. However, amongst Evangelicals it is more than encouraged to bring up the subject. It's even a Duty.

 

[alzan]

Indeed. However, amongst Evangelicals it is more than encouraged to bring up the subject. It's even a Duty.

Ah yes, the "Great Commission".

I guess someone forgot to tell evangelicals you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Lotus' daughter may be sad at the loss of her "friend" but she'll learn later that it was no great loss.

Any "friend" of any age who tells their friends that they're going to hell for not believing x isn't a friend in any shape or fashion.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob I think you and I are pretty thick skinned, we are used to having these difficult conversations, taking information in and not taking it personally etc. After all were on forums to do exactly that. Best I can do is provide you with an example of something that happened that speaks to why I feel the way I do.

These are healthy conversations.

My nine year old daughter has a friend that lives a couple of houses away, this friend is her age and they like each other very much. One day my nine year old comes home upset, I ask her what wrong and she said Sydney just told me I was going to burn in hell because I don’t believe in Jesus. I of course told my 9 year old that is ridiculous that there is no proof Jesus is God or that hell even exists.

I mean no disrespect because we're not talking about 9 year old children, but comparing the emotional reaction of a 9 year-old in no way indicates how adults (whom I didn't think I needed to make clear that I was referring to) respond to such cold-hearted remarks made by other adults if the conversation even goes that way.

Likely, your daughter was more upset because of who said it (a friend of hers) not so much about the content.

For example, harsh words hurt more if uttered by a friend than some stranger.

I explained that this is what Sydney believes so we need to respect that but its ok to tell Sydney we do not believe what she does. I then go on to tell her I do not believe in God and why I do not believe in God etc.

Cannot disagree with this.

Couple of days later she went to go play with Sydney about 30 minutes after she left to go to her house I get a knock on the door. Its Sydney, her mom and my daughter and Sydney’s mom is fuming mad.

She proceeds to tell me it’s not my kids place to tell her daughter that God isn't real. I of course respond with well its not Sydney’s place to tell my daughter she is going to burn in hell and that by doing so they forced me into a position to have to challenge their religious views as it relates to my daughter. The next 30 minutes is her trying to defend the existence of God to save face with her daughter on my doorstep.

I of course refuted all of the evidence she put forth and presented my own in support of my viewpoint. She and her daughter left in tears. And now the kids relationship is strained, I was forced to essentially punk mom in front of her kid because she insisted on spewing the gospel at my doorstep when it was unwelcome.

I didn't want to hurt her, or to get between how she raises her child, but dammit she forced me into it. That is the downside of evangelizing .

I agree that the topic of religion is an emotional one, but what you experienced really isn't typical, but it isn't completely foreign either.

And I really don't believe her mom "left in tears" simply because you stood your ground...but I'm willing to believe that you probably presented your refutations in a very disrespectful and condescending manner out of your anger because of your 9 year old was treated, you know...tit-for-tat.

But then, that seems to be more about you and her defending both of your children than debating the merits of a belief system.

I also agree it was silly and quite immature of her to come trying to preach, particularly since you both were emotionally wound up over the episode with you and her daughters. Perhaps she could have waiting a few days so that you could both come to an understanding when neither of you are emotional.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's unfortunate your daughter's friends mother didn't teach her daughter not to broach religion and belief with her friends, but it does help to point out at least one of the problems with teaching children your faith before they're mature enough to decide on their own and/or know how to tactfully talk to others about faith. Of course some adults don't know how to tactfully talk to other adults about faith or the lack there of.

I'm sure little Sydney was not mature enough to know just how arrogant it is to tell someone "they're going to burn in hell for not believing in x"; apparently her mother isn't mature enough either.

This was clearly about him defending his daughter, not about religion. The same thing happens at little-league baseball games when one kid runs over another kid at the plate, and parents fight and argue.

Does that mean that you shouldn't let your kids play baseball until they're 18, or don't allow it altogether?

You're looking for the tiniest inconvenience to support your anti-freedom viewpoints. Fortunately for all of us in the US, people are more rational than that.

 

[alzan]

This was clearly about him defending his daughter, not about religion. The same thing happens at little-league baseball games when one kid runs over another kid at the plate, and parents fight and argue.

Does that mean that you shouldn't let your kids play baseball until they're 18, or don't allow it altogether?

You're looking for the tiniest inconvenience to support your anti-freedom viewpoints. Fortunately for all of us in the US, people are more rational than that.

Hmm, you must have read a different post from lotus; clearly it was about little Miss Evangelist Sydney telling lotus' daughter that her daddy was going to hell for not believing in x. After having her father's views explained to her, a couple of days later she went back to her friends house to explain her father's views to little Miss Evangelist Sydney; her mother then proceeded to show her true hypocrisy and went to lotus' house to explain, in her own special and somewhat anti-freedom way, that neither he or his daughter was to tell little Miss Evangelist that G-d isn't real. Perhaps if little Miss Evangelist hadn't "street preached" to her friend the children's relationship wouldn't now be strained.

When/where did I say that atheists/agnostics, or anyone else for that matter, should be allowed to speak publically unrestricted?

 

[Retro Rob]

Hmm, you must have read a different post from lotus; clearly it was about little Miss Evangelist Sydney telling lotus' daughter that her daddy was going to hell for not believing in x. After having her father's views explained to her, a couple of days later she went back to her friends house to explain her father's views to little Miss Evangelist Sydney; her mother then proceeded to show her true hypocrisy and went to lotus' house to explain, in her own special and somewhat anti-freedom way, that neither he or his daughter was to tell little Miss Evangelist that G-d isn't real. Perhaps if little Miss Evangelist hadn't "street preached" to her friend the children's relationship wouldn't now be strained.

Well, I'm not going to argue over an exchange that we can't prove even happened, so have at it. For all we know, Lotus could be making that up (not saying he is, though).

When/where did I say that atheists/agnostics, or anyone else for that matter, should be allowed to speak publically unrestricted?

Note: In the context of my point to you, "unrestricted" means "telling someone they're wrong as much as you like".

So do you support anyone for that matter, being allowed to tell you how wrong you are without limitations? And that's not to say its a good idea to keep telling people they're wrong, I'm asking about the freedom to do so.

Yes or no please.

 

[inachu]

I prefer to think that Jesus is really Zeus as that is the technical translation from greek into english which really means HAIL ZEUS.

And so since I was indirectly hit by lighting then that means I was chosen by Thor?

There would be more violence in America if we took the Bible seriously and followed it as a guidebook as a base for morals and ideology.

 

[alzan]

Well, I'm not going to argue over an exchange that we can't prove even happened, so have at it. For all we know, Lotus could be making that up (not saying he is, though).

Note: In the context of my point to you, "unrestricted" means "telling someone they're wrong as much as you like".

So do you support anyone for that matter, being allowed to tell you how wrong you are without limitations? And that's not to say its a good idea to keep telling people they're wrong, I'm asking about the freedom to do so.

Yes or no please.

Whether or not the exchange can be proven to have happened is moot; we both responded to it thinking it true and accurate.

As much as we all like there to be simple yes or no answers to various questions of life, very rarely are such answers possible. Just because one has a freedom to do something does not mean one should do it in a given situation. As well, freedoms are not absolute and can be/are restricted.

Yes I do think person A has the right to to tell person B how wrong B is without limitations along with the right of B to respond by 1) walking away, 2) telling A to f*ck off and die, 3) laughing uproariously while shaking head and then walking away, and so on. Any response that isn't breaking a civil/criminal law is basically allowable.

I would submit as well that it's possible person B did not invite nor initiate the confrontation, even if it were invited and B's response to "You're wrong about x" was to say "F*ck off and die" then person A has defeated his original purpose of trying to bear witness or fulfill the great commision by saying/implying that B is wrong.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes I do think person A has the right to to tell person B how wrong B is without limitations along with the right of B to respond by 1) walking away, 2) telling A to f*ck off and die, 3) laughing uproariously while shaking head and then walking away, and so on. Any response that isn't breaking a civil/criminal law is basically allowable.

Essentaily, this is my point...and why I said that atheists have the same rights, so there is no use complaining about how religious people use the same rights...no ones violating your freedoms, you'll just have to deal with hurt feelings.

 

[Retro Rob]

I would submit as well that it's possible person B did not invite nor initiate the confrontation, even if it were invited and B's response to "You're wrong about x" was to say "F*ck off and die" then person A has defeated his original purpose of trying to bear witness or fulfill the great commision by saying/implying that B is wrong.

It takes two to be conforntational. The message is never meant to be confrontational, unless you're bent on telling people they're going to Hell (which, again, I don't believe in so it's never apart of my speaking).

But, I've learned that being the bigger man is always the way to go. I've walked past people trying to stop me to donate to their anti-abotion campagns...I simply smile and nod, no matter what they say to me, and say "thanks, but I'm fine" and keep it moving.

Taking the high-road as long as someone doesn't physically assualt/touch you is always the best option.