Atheism and arrogance

[Cooky]

Are you twisting @Windwalker's words intentionally, or did you just misread or misunderstand what was written?

What do you mean?

 

[SalixIncendium]

What do you mean?

He wasn't implying all theists are immune to ignorance or stating that anyone else said that.

 

[McBell]

Where exactly are you getting your information?

believe the technical term is "Rectal Reasoning"

 

[ecco]

Yes, but atheists don't get the message that homosexuality and all the rest is a sin - so where is the advantage in that!

Atheists don't get the message that there is such a thing as sin.

There are some bad people that do some bad things (being born gay is not one of them).

Accusing people who are born gay of being sinners is a bad thing done by bad, ignorant people.

"Sin" is an invention of the people who wrote and fostered religions. "Sin" is used by religious people to instill shame and remorse and dreading into the minds of the gullible. Seeing others as sinners leads to a false sense of self-righteousness.

 

[QuestioningMind]

We're allowed to say that Fundamentalism is un-enlightening, but we are not allowed to discuss atheist traits... Seems biased and unfair, especially in stating someone is "free to go" for exploring the idea.

...Ridiculously unfair, IMO.

Are you honestly claiming that you're not allowed to discuss atheist traits in a thread title: Atheists and Arrogance?

I don't think you comprehend what the words biased and unfair actually mean.

 

[ecco]

If I don't single out something it will be a confusing discussion.

It's pretty clear from the comments by most everyone, that no one is confused by the intent of your post.

 

[ecco]

That doesn't make any sense. Arrogance isn't dependent on looks.

I'm only a student, please.

Your snide sarcasm is noted.

 

[Windwalker]

Did someone claim that theists are immune to arrogance..? I don't recall seeing that here, or is it an assumption?

Read what I quoted in my post. It was in response to that statement, that, "I have not seen anyone who truly believes in one God and worships Him, being arrogant." That is claiming they are beyond being arrogant because they worship God. They are "too good" to be arrogant in other words, which is arrogance itself.

 

[Cooky]

Are you honestly claiming that you're not allowed to discuss atheist traits in a thread title: Atheists and Arrogance?

I don't think you comprehend what the words biased and unfair actually mean.

But the moderator suggested that the OP go and leave for starting this thread. I can give you the quote:

If you're just going to insult people on this forum instead of making a rational argument, you may go.

...So ya, I'm questioning what people are allowed to do, suggested not to do, or otherwise guided to do... I think that's a reasonable thing to observe and communicate openly.

 

[Cooky]

He wasn't implying all theists are immune to ignorance or stating that anyone else said that.

But he just told me someone DID say that in post #108... I missed that, and apparently so did you... It's okay if we missed that.

Everything is good and OK here...
We're moving forward together.

 

[ecco]

Some are Atheist because of the ignorance experienced in a religion.

I guess that applies to me. When I was ten-ish I went to Sunday School to learn about God and stuff. My ignorance of the Bible was replaced with the knowledge that religious people believed that God ordered a man to put two of all animals into a big boat and then flooded the whole world and killed everything except the people and animals on the boat.

It was very enlightening indeed. The stories were no more believable than what I read in my comics.

 

[ecco]

Yes. By attacking people here and labeling them arrogant because they don't believe, @Piculet , you are in fact hardening their attitudes and making it less likely to change their minds.

Nah. Comments from people like @Piculet do not impact anyone's attitudes or beliefs.

 

[Left Coast]

But the moderator suggested that the OP go and leave for starting this thread. I can give you the quote:

...So ya, I'm questioning what people are allowed to do, suggested not to do, or otherwise guided to do... I think that's a reasonable thing to observe and communicate openly.

Well, start with being respectful and giving people the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming their worldview is a function of a deep character flaw. That path will keep you going for quite a while here.

 

[Cooky]

Well, start with being respectful and giving people the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming their worldview is a function of a deep character flaw. That path will keep you going for quite a while here.

Okay, but this is a debate thread, and the OP created a discussion, and you're posting in a way that's not based on facts, but upon your emotions. That's unusual in a debate setting. It's not a big deal, but it kind of is, because it's an unhelpful trend if it catches on... Because It prevents knowledge from being learned, IMO, if we intimidate people into not tackling certain subjects.

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, but this is a debate thread, and the OP created a discussion, and you're posting in a way that's not based on facts, but upon your emotions. That's unusual in a debate setting.

What in the world are you talking about?

The very first thing I posted in this thread was a suggestion that the OP give a rational argument for their view instead of just quoting their holy book and declaring it reality. That's literally a call for a more robust, reasonable debate.

Saying, "why are fill-in-group-here such poopy faces?" is not, "creating a discussion," it's just an insult phrased as a question.

 

[Cooky]

What in the world are you talking about?

The very first thing I posted in this thread was a suggestion that the OP give a rational argument for their view instead of just quoting their holy book and declaring it reality. That's literally a call for a more robust, reasonable debate.

Saying, "why are fill-in-group-here such poopy faces?" is not, "creating a discussion," it's just an insult phrased as a question.

Some people like to discuss atheism, check for potential flaws about it, see where it leads us in the future... I want to make sure we're allowed to go there on RF.

...We are, right? And without fear of backlash such as being recommended to leave?

 

[Left Coast]

Some people like to discuss atheism, check for potential flaws about it, see where it leads us in the future... I want to make sure we're allowed to go there on RF.

...We are, right? And without fear of backlash such as being recommended to leave?

Yeah, you're allowed to criticize atheism.

Do you think it's a rational criticism of Hinduism to say, "Hindus are Hindus because they're ********"? Or do you think perhaps a more reasonable discussion starter would be, "I disagree with Hinduism because..." and then give rational, evidence-based reasons for your view?

So if you want to have a rational, critical discussion about atheism, let's have it instead of resorting to ad hom.

 

[Piculet]

Your snide sarcasm is noted.

Neither was sarcasm.

It's pretty clear from the comments by most everyone, that no one is confused by the intent of your post.

I would hope so, though they seem to be avoiding the actual topic. Anyway, that's exactly what I'm saying..if I had not singled out something the topic would be confusing.

 

[PureX]

I would disagree.

Very few children are raised as atheists. The reality of atheism isn't handed down.

Most children are raised to believe in a god. Their "reality" is handed down.

Even children can and will reject an imposed 'belief' when it doesn't work for them, or make sense to them. They will believe whatever their experience of reality tells them is true, just the same as anyone else does.

 

[Piculet]

Some people like to discuss atheism, check for potential flaws about it, see where it leads us in the future... I want to make sure we're allowed to go there on RF.

...We are, right? And without fear of backlash such as being recommended to leave?

Probably, yes. A mod saying something in the comments is not a formal thing. Despite the apparent published opinion, I haven't received a single warning. This mod replies in such a fashion because I speak against homosexuality and believe in God who forbade it and they are, I think, a homosexual. That's okay. Its rude, of course to insinuate someone should leave a community because someone could be very much hurt by it.