The atheist bus

[Cail]

I don't believe you can convince religious people to be atheists by being nice and sensitive. That's only good for making people like you. But they still think you deserve eternal damnation, even if they like you. Their friendliness isn't worth much, given what they really think about you.

You know, I rarely come into The Close because arguing religion and atheism is even more futile, pointless, and stupid than arguing politics, but what the fuck Malik?

You make no issue whatsoever about your opinion of anyone religious (we're deluded morons who believe in fairy tales), and you assume that religious people are as judgmental and caustic as you? It's become quite clear over the few years I've read your rants about religion that you're far more dogmatic about your atheism than all but the most fundie of the Fundies. I hate to break this to you man, but 90% of religious people really don't give a shit what you believe in, and would never hold it against you. The 10% who do are assholes who clearly don't understand the whole "love thy neighbor" thing that's, oh, I don't know, the cornerstone of every major religion in the world.

So I guess the chance of us talking politics over a beer at some point is out the window given that you think I'm an idiot who wants you to burn in Hell indefinitely, huh?

[Cybrweez]

malik, Dawkins reminds me of the guy from Kentucky, who has the God Hates Fags thing going on. I think there's one big difference, the hate from that guy is against a minority group, the hate from Dawkins is against a majority one, so of course his comes across as much better.

BTW, remember in God Delusion, he talks about the "I was an atheist, but"? Sounds just like the old, "I was a Christian, but" (obviously, I don't expect Dawkins to be fair, we've established that).

By the way, I think there is a hell, and you are on your way there. That's a separate issue from whether I hate you or not. Believing in consequences is completely different than in how you treat someone, or feel towards them. You say, they all hate me and want me to go to hell. Cail says, they all think we're morons.

My opinion is that Cail's statement is probably more likely, but I may be biased But I don't think so. Compare Dawkins (where the Delusion of religionists is blatant), to Lewis or Chesterton. Can you find the hate in their writings?

[Cail]

Cail did not say they all think we're morons. Cail said that Malik has said that people of faith are deluded by supernatural fairy tales. Cail is making the leap that one who believes that others are deluded by fairy tales would call those who believe that morons.

Edit- Regardless, it is very clear that there are some atheists who are just as (if not more) dogmatic, closed-minded, and hateful than the very people of faith they rail against. And I would hope that those atheists piss off the moderate, live-and-let-live atheists as much as the fundie Christians piss off the rest of us.

[Cybrweez]

That's true, that's the leap I'm making as well. Or maybe just naive, which I guess is really just a nicer way of saying it.

EDIT: after Cail's edit

No matter what issue, both sides have people that the majority probably would disown, and question their motives (you can see it in the gay marriage protests, did you see the old woman accosted?) This is why to use people as an example of any thought/belief, is a slippery slope. It was one of Dawkins' attacks. Through first 2 chapters, he didn't attack the Bible, but those who claim to be believers (showing his ignorance of religions, he says since they have enough similarities, he'll just use one as an example . ). I guess later in the book, he talks about the Bible itself? Regardless, the attack against people is lame. I'd probably agree w/him on most of his rants, but like I said, he conveniently ignores the atheist errors throughout history. Maybe his end result is since any thought/belief can be twisted to any use, we shouldn't think about anything?

[Cail]

Naive is a nice way of saying, "can't figure it out".

Granted, I may just be cynical, but I'm not the one who just called every atheist a glad-handling, backstabbing, false friend.

[Zarathustra]

I don't believe you can convince religious people to be atheists by being nice and sensitive. That's only good for making people like you. But they still think you deserve eternal damnation, even if they like you. Their friendliness isn't worth much, given what they really think about you.

You know, I rarely come into The Close because arguing religion and atheism is even more futile, pointless, and stupid than arguing politics, but what the fuck Malik?

Well, it seems I didn't remove that last sentence fast enough from my post. I decided it went over the top, and took it out. But you caught it anyway.

I'm not saying I don't value friendship with the few Christians I know (some on this board). I wasn't talking about my own feelings. I was talking about the Christians in my life that I know, who are nice to my face, but really think I'm a pile of shit for what I believe. They believe atheists are evil, and that I deserve to go to hell. If you don't believe this, or don't know people like this, then you don't know the people I know. Really, I don't want to be too explicit here, but I'm talking about people who are very close to me. People who smile to my face, but I keep learning things they say about me and my atheist children behind my back, that are some of the most judgmental crap you've ever heard. Like I said, the details are too personal.

However, it's not always people who are close to me. The mother of my son's girlfriend made her break up with him when she knew he was an atheist. She was perfectly fine with him up to that point. That's the 16-yr-old. The 7-yr-old doesn't have a single friend who doesn't plead with him to believe in god, and try to scare him with stories about the devil. This affects us all. We are an atheist family in the Bible Belt, and we are constantly judged, shunned, and made to feel we are unwanted. What the fuck indeed.

You make no issue whatsoever about your opinion of anyone religious (we're deluded morons who believe in fairy tales), and you assume that religious people are as judgmental and caustic as you? It's become quite clear over the few years I've read your rants about religion that you're far more dogmatic about your atheism than all but the most fundie of the Fundies. I hate to break this to you man, but 90% of religious people really don't give a shit what you believe in, and would never hold it against you. The 10% who do are assholes who clearly don't understand the whole "love thy neighbor" thing that's, oh, I don't know, the cornerstone of every major religion in the world.

I don't think you're a moron. I don't think you're deluded. I think you've been misled. That's different from judging you, as a person, as someone who is *bad.* Nice, smart people are tricked into believing falsehoods all the time. Though I do think being tricked is partly your responsibility, especially when the possibility that you've been tricked it pointed out to you, but I don't think you are a *bad* person for for not giving it up.

So I guess the chance of us talking politics over a beer at some point is out the window given that you think I'm an idiot who wants you to burn in Hell indefinitely, huh?

I didn't say you want me to burn in hell. You just think that I, and every human who doesn't believe as you do, deserves it. Why else would you accept the notion that we need to be saved? Saved from what? Well, eternal damnation.

I don't believe your assertion that 90% of religious people don't view atheists as an evil threat. We had a black man elected President before we had an atheist elected President! (If we ever do have one, that is.) And that's in a country where we had a Constitutional right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech before black people were even considered human! This entire thread was started over the "controversy" of atheists simply having their beliefs made public! Like it's something outrageous for us to speak our minds?!? Every other group in our society has marches and lobbying groups, parades and get-out-the vote grass roots efforts. But let the atheists put a sign on a bus and it's a big deal? We are today's pariahs. If you don't feel it, it's because you are not one.

I am caustic. And I am judgmental. But I'm not judgmental in the sense of, "you are an evil human being for what you believe." I'm judgmental in that I have strong opinions and I'm not afraid to say them.

I am certainly not dogmatic. I didn't progress into atheism (from agnosticism) until last year. I can admit when I'm wrong. Dogmatic people don't ever admit when they are wrong. Lately in the Tank, I've had to eat crow more than I like. I don't like the taste of it one bit. But I like the taste of intellectual dishonesty even less. So, when I make a mistake I own up to it.

I made a mistake in that last sentence you quoted, which is why I deleted it (too late). I think it gave the impression that I don't value your friendship. That's not true. (And we are friends, I'd like to think, despite the fact that we're basically strangers who have never met each other. ). But if this were a thread in the Tank, and I had used the word "liberal" instead of "religious" people, you probably would have agreed with me. Treating liberals nice doesn't get conservatives any brownie points, nor does it ever change their minds. They can like you, but still think you're an ignorant, homophobic, racist, bigot because you are a conservative. Or, if you want to apply it to foreign policy, if I'd said, "rogue nations," instead of "religious people," you probably would have agreed with me. Getting them to like America won't convince them that we are right.

So I think we agree on this more than my unfortunately careless words would make it seem.

As far as Dawkins goes, I respect that he doesn't need people to like him. Similar to what we've been saying in the Unity thread in the Tank . . . sometimes being liked is overrated. I don't need to be liked. But I certainly don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. And if I did that, I'm very sorry.

(Mmm . . . yummy crow with a side of humble pie. )

[The Dreaming]

Any Catholic at least who claims to know the criterion for damnation and salvation is full of shit. The official church position? "It's a mystery". We have some ideas on the subject, but certainty is impossible. The best we can do is say that there have been a few people so damn virtuous that if they aren't saved, salvation isn't possible. These people are the Communion of Saints.

Anyone who claims to have a monopoly in Truth (with a capitol T, and no PLEASE no objectivist/subjectivist bickering for now) Probably doesn't know jack shit. I consider myself a pretty smart guy, I'm decently well read and decently worldly. The sum of everything I know is an absolutely insignificant fraction of the sum of all human knowledge. I'm also pretty sure that the sum of human knowledge is just as if not more insignificant in comparison to the sum of all possible cosmic knowledge. This is the key to wisdom. Some people who have lived have grasped a piece of the gargantuan, unfathomably enormous monument of truth, (undoubtedly shaped like that fabled elephant was to the three blind men) and we have been enlightened by them. Newton was one of these people. Aristotle. Locke. Einstein. Why not Christ? Moses? Zarathustra? Mohammed?

It's kind of funny to me to see how steadfast allies in the 'tank come into the Close and are at eachother's throats

[Cail]

That's an excellent post TD.

Malik, here's my point.

You're a libertarian who believes that you have the right to do and believe whatever you want. Yet you spend an inordinate amount of energy telling other people that you think their beliefs are ridiculous. This is especially frustrating because their beliefs have no impact on your life whatsoever.

Then you complain about how other kids treat your kids. You are aware that children are (as a group) a bunch of rotten, cruel bastards, right? Even still, if you have the right to raise your kids the way you wish, so do those parents. The fact that you've chosen to raise your kids outside of the norm is your choice, and as such, you have opened them up to "different" criticisms they're taking.

Arguing politics is moderately less futile because other people's politics do have a dramatic effect on our day-to-day lives. Religion has none. You're not oppressed because of your lack of faith. I'll say it again....No one cares, and those who do don't matter.

But you're the converse of those people. Whether or not I (or anyone else here) believe in God has no effect on your life. It doesn't raise your taxes, it doesn't board soldiers in your home, it doesn't take your guns, and it doesn't stifle your speech. Yet for some reason, rather than just explaining why your beliefs are your beliefs, you feel the need to belittle everyone who believes differently. You're the Pat Robertson of atheism.

[Cybrweez]

malik, from your posts, I can see you stereotype all christians based on your experience, which I guess is normal for most people (one problem, we tend to group those experiences, even if each one doesn't fit, b/c it makes our case easier).

You talk about the treatment you and your kids receive (for good reason), yet say how you enjoy Dawkins' beligerence, and think he shouldn't worry about being nice. But, those on the receving end may feel the same way you do about you and your kids' treatment.

By all means, if "all" (and is it ever really all?) the Christians you know talk about you behind your back, and actually treat you terribly, in person or not, then its their problem, not Christianity's. Approach them, ask them, if a Christian is a follower of Christ, when did he gossip about others? What does the Bible say about gossip? What about love others more than yourselves? Its the same approach I would use if I were to see such behavior from those who claim to be Christians.

But remember, just like some atheists, some Christians are beligerent, and only talk as if they're preaching to the choir, and would make jokes when others point out their beligerence, and how its not really effective.

I think this type of behavior demonstrates human nature. The Bible is pretty clear on its views of humility and love, and the only judging it speaks about, is among believers (and its not the vindictive type that is commonly known today). And yet, there are a great amount of people who claim to be Christians, yet demonstrate none of those teachings.

I know, we can go down the slope of, well, who determines what the Bible teaches? As I said to LM in regards to original intent of the Constitution, I don't think its quite as hard as its made out to be. The problem isn't the difficulty, its putting aside any biases, whether in regards to Bible or the founders. (in fact, if you read the founders' writings, alot of them had problems w/those who mentally agreed w/Christianity, but in no way acted like it. It really ticked them off).

[Zarathustra]

You're a libertarian who believes that you have the right to do and believe whatever you want. Yet you spend an inordinate amount of energy telling other people that you think their beliefs are ridiculous.

Actually I use the word "ridiculous" in the Tank a lot more than here. But then again, I post a lot more in the the Tank than here. I think religious belief is "inauthentic," or not true to this world. I think I've used that terminology a lot more than "ridiculous."

This is especially frustrating because their beliefs have no impact on your life whatsoever.

Absolutely untrue. Our entire planetary civilization is built around beliefs that even you would call myths, as long as we're not talking about your religion. You have the same opinion about religions that I do, as long as it's not your own. Zeus? Odin? The Great Juju at the Bottom of the Sea? You might not spend as much time as I do arguing against them, but you absolutely believe they are myths, and that the people who believe them are misled. This is why I find it so frustrating that people find my ideas insulting or shocking (though perhaps a lot of that is my delivery), when they hold exactly the same beliefs about *other* religions. You are just as much an atheist as I am, except I disbelieve one more god than you. That's the only difference.

Then you complain about how other kids treat your kids. You are aware that children are (as a group) a bunch of rotten, cruel bastards, right? Even still, if you have the right to raise your kids the way you wish, so do those parents. The fact that you've chosen to raise your kids outside of the norm is your choice, and as such, you have opened them up to "different" criticisms they're taking.

I haven't chosen to raise my kids as atheists. We have told them since they were little that they can believe anything they want, and that to simply accept what we believe is intellectually lazy. They have to come up with their own beliefs. But when you give kids the choice, and don't force a belief upon them, they spontaneously, naturally choose to trust their senses. Unless an authority figure overrides their natural tendency, they don't pop out of the womb believing in Zeus or Odin. Or the Christian god. Atheism is the "default setting" of humans which is only changed by an authority figure instilling their own beliefs upon impressionable minds. My kids' beliefs are their own.

Other parents have the right to raise their kids as they want--until my kid is sitting in 2nd grade, and gets told on because he's an atheist. I'm serious. His friend raised his hand in class, and "outed" my son by tattle-telling on him to the teacher. As if his beliefs were something that needed to be reported to the authorities. So not only does my 2nd-grader have to deal with his close friends judging him, but now the entire class is aware, and they are made aware in the context of "reporting misbehavior." Where does that come from? Parents. Parents who instill the idea that if you don't believe what they believe, you're a bad person and going to hell. It's not merely kids being a rotten cruel bunch. Their parents, and their parents' religion, did this to them. Ultimately, those parents got that idea from the Christian belief system. You really think this has no effect on my life?

So maybe I occasionally come on too strong or come off as condescending, but at least I'm not the one who thinks the people who disagree with me are bad people heading for punishment due to their beliefs. Even if my children get their atheism indirectly from my example, at least they are not reporting other children to the authorities because they believe differently.

No one cares, and those who do don't matter.

Well, I suppose my mom and dad don't matter? I suppose the fact that my children are treated like there is something wrong with them by their own grandparents doesn't matter? I hate getting into this, because I don't want to play the victim. But you really have no idea what you're talking about when you tell me that it doesn't matter. I could try to explain to you how the looming holiday season is like a rock in my gut, how I crave contact with family, but I can't take my son around people who think he is autistic because he was born out of wedlock. He's not autistic--doctors, psychiatrists, and a dozen teachers have all verified that he is exceedingly intelligent and he is currently in the school's gifted and talented program. But try telling that to his grandparents who think he's the product of sin.

Yet for some reason, rather than just explaining why your beliefs are your beliefs, you feel the need to belittle everyone who believes differently. You're the Pat Robertson of atheism.

I can be condescending. So can you. But I don't belittle "everyone who believes differently." I do speak harshly about a belief system. And people who share those beliefs feel targeted. If I was belittling ancient Greeks for their gods, my condescension wouldn't even register with you, because you'd share it.

malik, from your posts, I can see you stereotype all christians based on your experience, which I guess is normal for most people (one problem, we tend to group those experiences, even if each one doesn't fit, b/c it makes our case easier).

You talk about the treatment you and your kids receive (for good reason), yet say how you enjoy Dawkins' beligerence, and think he shouldn't worry about being nice. But, those on the receving end may feel the same way you do about you and your kids' treatment.

Those "on the receiving end" of Dawkins choose to be on the receiving end by reading his books or attending his lectures.

I don't stereotype Christians. I realize that some of you don't think Hell is a Lake of Fire. But you all believe humans require saving, and that we are at birth creatures who have something for which to apologize. Just being here, just being born, is a state which requires repentance. That's what Christians believe. Our "natural" state is one that not only needs fixing, but one that requires our shame, guilt, and repentance. This isn't a stereotype. It's the basic Christian belief of the human condition. It's the reason little kids feel like they have to report other kids to the authorities because they believe differently.

And yours isn't merely a belief system about how the world is. It's a moral system about how the world (and its inhabitants) should be. Merely by having your beliefs, you are judging me. How could you not? You believe atheism is morally wrong, and I'm an atheist. I believe Christianity is incorrect, not morally wrong. So the difference between my beliefs and yours is that your beliefs include a moral judgment of me. I still think you're a good person, even if I disagree with you. But you think I'm going to hell (deservedly so), because I disagree with you. How can you possibly be worried about stereotypes or how I come across in an Internet debate, when your core beliefs require you to lump me into the group: "Damned for eternity."

The Bible is pretty clear on its views of humility and love, and the only judging it speaks about, is among believers (and its not the vindictive type that is commonly known today). And yet, there are a great amount of people who claim to be Christians, yet demonstrate none of those teachings.

The Bible is not clear at all on its views of humility and love. Stoning gays or adulterers is humility and love? Turning a woman into a pillar of salt because she looked back over her shoulder while fleeing her home (which was being destroyed by god via fire and brimstone because of its homosexuals) is humility and love? Flooding the entire planet because people weren't doing what they were told is humility and love? Heck, the god of the Bible doesn't even demonstrate these teachings. Why should his followers? If the Bible is true, then the way Christians treat me is nothing compared to what god has in store for me.

[Cail]

Malik, lest you forget, I was atheist or agnostic for the vast majority of my life. I didn't become Catholic until I was 31. So yeah, I do understand what it's like. I also understand what it is to be cut off from family members, as I haven't spoken to my mother in well over 3 years (I doubt she knows I'm divorced).

You have chosen to live outside the norm. We can sit here and talk about whether or not atheism is "natural" or not, but the fact of the matter is that a staggering majority of the world believes in something greater than us. It sucks that your kids have to deal with small-minded people, but.....tough. Life sucks sometimes and it isn't always fair. Let your son go to school with fingernail polish on, and they'll make fun of him for that too. Big deal.

It may be uncomfortable, but no one is trying to take away your rights. Everyone has the absolute right to believe whatever they want or to believe nothing. Everyone has the absolute right to have an opinion about other people's beliefs. C'mon man, you're a libertarian. Their right to express their opinions about your beliefs ends the second they start infringing upon your rights.

But that hasn't happened, has it? Instead, you get bent out of shape over beliefs that don't jibe with your own, while at the same time you get bent because other people get bent because your beliefs don't jibe with theirs.

Put it this way. You and I both believe that (for example) drugs should be legalized. If they are, I still won't do them because....well, because I think they're pretty stupid to be perfectly honest. But I will absolutely support your right to get wasted on whatever you want.

One last word about other religions. I don't think that anyone who believes in anything is misled. I don't think atheists are misled either. Why? Because it doesn't matter. By belief structure has nothing to do with anyone else's. If you choose to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that doesn't have any effect on me whatsoever. Likewise, the rest of the world believing in whatever they want to believe has no effect on you. You have absolute control over your beliefs and how you relate with others. You have absolutely no control over how others relate to you or what they believe in.

I am truly sorry that you have family members who put their faith ahead of their family. I can assure you that there's nothing Christian (as it relates to Christ's teachings) about that.

[Avatar]

Good post Cail.

--A

[Cagliostro]

If you choose to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that doesn't have any effect on me whatsoever.

Just you wait....

It will.


Well, honestly, those that love to argue will argue long and wide about anything, and in order to make a point, they have to take a firm stance. So I understand why Malik is arguing here. He just doesn't know any better. But seriously, what is wrong with Malik arguing? I don't really see Malik doing anything more than arguing his "reality tunnel." I don't see what this has to do with him being a libertarian.

Then again, I'm a fence-sitting agnostic, so what do I know?

Gotta go now. I've got to research The Great Juju at the Bottom of the Sea. It sounds like this one might be the deity I've been looking for all of my life.

[stonemaybe]

I get more and more embarrassed as this thread grows - could somone godlike...sorry i mean modlike... correct my misspelling from athiest to atheist in the thread title? Please?

[Fist and Faith]

I decided right from the beginning to not give you crap about that.

[stonemaybe]

actually, I have no idea what you (or me!) are talking about......

[Menolly]

*soft smile*

See Stone?
Told ya it was easy to do yourself...

[rusmeister]

I think my prime objections to Malik's charges against Christianity is that I object to the same things that he does. And none of those things are in genuine expressions of ancient and traditional Christianity. Just for example, thinking "atheists are evil". The Christian who truly understands Christianity knows that the first person we are to see as evil (inclined to evil) is ourself - the worst thing a Christian can do is to tell himself how good he is and to go saying how much better he is than his neighbor. That is the Pharasaism that Christ condemned. So when Malik complains about the Christian that sees him (the atheist) as evil and damned, I agree with Malik. Malik's mistake is in taking that view as a correct understanding of the Christian faith - he interprets the poor understandings of the Christians he has dealt with as valid understandings of Christianity. I've tried to communicate this again and again, seemingly without success. (But I still hold out hope!)

If atheists and Christians would attempt to hear the best and most rational that the other has to say, they might actually find a lot of respect for each other, even while holding the other to be wrong. At least they would stop confusing radical and unreasonable thought with the most serious and reasonable aspects of the ideology.

Now where Malik is quite right is that the truth is important, so even though I hold that Dawkins is objectively wrong and foolish to ignore the reasonable in faith, his insistence on coming to the truth is admirable and desirable.

[Furls Fire]

If atheists and Christians would attempt to hear the best and most rational that the other has to say, they might actually find a lot of respect for each other, even while holding the other to be wrong. At least they would stop confusing radical and unreasonable thought with the most serious and reasonable aspects of the ideology.

Amen to that...

[[Syl]]

Military atheists want new rules on prayer

Coalition complains of religious discrimination in the services
By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Wednesday, November 12, 2008

WASHINGTON — A coalition of atheists and agnostics wants the new White House to protect young military members from what they see as rampant religious discrimination in the services.

I definitely know where they're coming from, but I'm not sure I totally agree. I myself never had much of an adverse experience, but then, I didn't ever make an issue of it (my dog tags said "NORELPREF"). About the worst I ever got were a couple funny looks from the chaplain when I didn't bow my head with everyone else or the officer who literally did a doubletake when I said "do affirm" instead of "do solemnly swear" during an ad hoc enlistment ceremony (they usually offer you the choice when they're reading the stuff you're supposed to repeat, but this was just some LT we roped into doing the formality (he was standing in line at the post office counter) for my reserves enlistment).

That said, religion really is everywhere in the military. In boot camp, the only real break you get is when you go to services on Sunday (I rotated denominations each Sunday. the Catholic one was a trip. one of my buddies almost flipped when we sat back down and I asked what I was supposed to do with this wafer). Every ceremony opens and closes with a prayer, and the chaplain's almost always slotted to speak. And on the ship, the chaplain always gives a little sermon over the 1MC before taps. About the only time it ever annoyed me was standing in formation, and it wouldn't have really made a difference who it was or what they were talking about, just that it was more time standing there.

So, I guess I support them, but when the evangelical population of the military is over 60 percent, I have to wonder how much of a difference any presidential directive will make.