Stop!

[Devotee]

The thing is...
It is a two way street.

Seems to me that the ones complaining the most about "poison" are just as guilty as those they complain about.

For example, the atheist who continuously complains about religion are the ones the theists are complaining about atheism. So one feeds the other.

Yet neither seem willing to be the one to stop feeding into the circle.

i understand what you are saying. but either side is bad if they take it to an extreme. religious people and atheist alike! im just saying that the extremist of religion and anti-religion need to stop and not as extreme. thats it!

 

[Riverwolf]

i understand what you are saying. but either side is bad if they take it to an extreme. religious people and atheist alike! im just saying that the extremist of religion and anti-religion need to stop and not as extreme. thats it!

I think you mean to say "and not BE as extreme." ^_^

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

there is a difference, Willamena, between calling someone poison and calling their religion poison.

This lack of rational thought sounds a lot like when extremist christians holding signs in gay neighborhoods in San Francisco yelling to Gay folks I hate the sin and not the sinner.( I saw a lot of this in the 1980’s)

Mao called religion poison and used it as a reason to march into Tibet killing peaceful monks and publicly rape buddhist nuns. The cultural genocide still goes on to day. Many times this is what this type of hate speech ends with. In fact I have read about pre holocaust Polish peasants who said I don't hate the jews just there religion. Yet people who have that type of attitude seem to hand over the Jews to the Nazi’s. How could they stand up for them and be willing to die for them, when they had such a dislike for their beliefs.

 

[Copernicus]

non-believers are NOT the issue at hand here. its the extreme Anti-Religious that attack religion as a whole kind of people that are causing the problem. and nor do i feel like im under attack. i just feel that religion, which if used correctly can be great, is trying to be destroyed. I just say let all religious folk BE! if they are taking it to an extreme, then yes it needs to be taken care of. but all religous people shouldnt be blammed for what one person did. thats all im saying.

I think I understand what you are saying, but your OP started off directed at atheists and agnostics, not just extremists or people who make sweeping generalizations. It is the sweeping generalization that you object to, and the religious and non-religious are just as prone to taking that fallacious leap.

Even if you amend the OP to make it more even-handed, I still object to the implication that being opposed to religion is nothing more than a sweeping generalization based on the behavior of individuals. There is no correct or proper way to regard religion. Sometimes it motivates good behavior and sometimes it motivates bad behavior. What I think is harmful about religion is that it encourages people to jump to false conclusions about the way the world is. For example, many people of faith believe that gods are needed in order to make people behave morally. They therefore jump to the conclusion that those who lack religion are immoral.

 

[Willamena]

I think I understand what you are saying, but your OP started off directed at atheists and agnostics, not just extremists or people who make sweeping generalizations. It is the sweeping generalization that you object to, and the religious and non-religious are just as prone to taking that fallacious leap.

Even if you amend the OP to make it more even-handed, I still object to the implication that being opposed to religion is nothing more than a sweeping generalization based on the behavior of individuals. There is no correct or proper way to regard religion. Sometimes it motivates good behavior and sometimes it motivates bad behavior. What I think is harmful about religion is that it encourages people to jump to false conclusions about the way the world is. For example, many people of faith believe that gods are needed in order to make people behave morally. They therefore jump to the conclusion that those who lack religion are immoral.

Not all atheists and agnostics are anti-religious, nor are all anti-religious pepole atheist or agnostic. This thread was directed at anti-religous people.

 

[Copernicus]

Not all atheists and agnostics are anti-religious, nor are all anti-religious pepole atheist or agnostic. This thread was directed at anti-religous people.

I'm not sure that I would characterize myself as "anti-religious" in the sense that Devotee used the term, but I do see religion as a negative social force in modern times. There is something to Sam Harris's point that religious fanaticism is a far greater threat to the survival and well being of the human race than it ever was in the past.

 

[balloonbasket]

I agree too, Devotee, there is too much hatred directed at theists from atheists. They have there own fanatics.
How tolerant are you of other religions? I'm interested because it forms the basis for the thread i've started.

 

[Devotee]

I agree too, Devotee, there is too much hatred directed at theists from atheists. They have there own fanatics.
How tolerant are you of other religions? I'm interested because it forms the basis for the thread i've started.

balloonbasket, its not atheist that are doing this, its the anti-religous. but no means am i aiming this at atheists.

 

[Caladan]

I agree too, Devotee, there is too much hatred directed at theists from atheists. They have there own fanatics.
How tolerant are you of other religions? I'm interested because it forms the basis for the thread i've started.

Living in the U.S what do you find its easier to identify as, a Christian, or an Atheist?

 

[Copernicus]

balloonbasket, its not atheist that are doing this, its the anti-religous. but no means am i aiming this at atheists.

Well then would you say that you are also aiming at anti-atheists and anti-agnostics? What about the folks who demonize those critical of religion?

 

[Kerr]

Even though I may not like religion, I am not anti-religious, I am anti-fundamentalist.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Not all atheists and agnostics are anti-religious, nor are all anti-religious pepole atheist or agnostic. This thread was directed at anti-religous people.

I know many atheists and agnostics in my personal life. I have only found one who hates religion. I believe it is uncommon for atheists to be anti religion.

 

[Beaudreaux]

hello,

something has been bothering me. now, im not against atheist or agnostics, but what i am against are the anti-religious people. It seems that there are many people out there who see that one religious person does something wrong and then blame it all on religion, when religion didnt do it, the person did it. so please stop saying that religion is bad or poison, because even too much anti religion it poison.

thank you.

Look, I don't know what to tell you. I think every religion on the planet that posits the existence of something beyond the physical world is wrong. I also believe that such a point of view can be very dangerous. There are lots of other people like me and we're not going anywhere. We're not being rude to you. We're stating our opinion about what we observe to be the nature of faith in action.

When I first became an atheist, I would constantly hear things from my Christian family like "Don't you know God loves you?" or "I'm going to pray that you see the truth." But if I said "Don't you realize God does not exist" somehow I was being offensive. It's a double standard and it's not fair.

I think religious thought (and by that I mean beliefs that either lack physical evidence or contradict physical evidence) is dangerous. If you think I'm wrong, I'm fine with you telling me why. But starting a thread to whine about the fact that many people feel that way does not help your cause.

 

[Devotee]

Look, I don't know what to tell you. I think every religion on the planet that posits the existence of something beyond the physical world is wrong. I also believe that such a point of view can be very dangerous. There are lots of other people like me and we're not going anywhere. We're not being rude to you. We're stating our opinion about what we observe to be the nature of faith in action.

When I first became an atheist, I would constantly hear things from my Christian family like "Don't you know God loves you?" or "I'm going to pray that you see the truth." But if I said "Don't you realize God does not exist" somehow I was being offensive. It's a double standard and it's not fair.

I think religious thought (and by that I mean beliefs that either lack physical evidence or contradict physical evidence) is dangerous. If you think I'm wrong, I'm fine with you telling me why. But starting a thread to whine about the fact that many people feel that way does not help your cause.

you have misenterpreted what i said. I DONT CARE whether you believe in god or you dont. its just when the ANTI RELIGIOUS, again not atheist, say many horrible things against ALL religious people.

IM NOT ANTI ATHEIST. IM ANTI ANTI RELIGIOUS. and i dont have harsh feelings toward atheists or agnostics, i think their wrong, like they think i am, but im not against them.

just to make that clear

 

[3.14]

stop

hammertime






comeone someone had to say it

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

When I first became an atheist, I would constantly hear things from my Christian family like "Don't you know God loves you?" or "I'm going to pray that you see the truth." But if I said "Don't you realize God does not exist" somehow I was being offensive. It's a double standard and it's not fair.

Atheism in Indian thought can be traced back to 600 BCE. Atheists were also allowed to teach there ideas in Hindu Temples. I have no problems with you being an Atheist. The important question is are you a good neighbor ? IF you are then you are just fine. In fact I might find you more useful to challenge my views.

 

[DallasApple]

hammertime






comeone someone had to say it

Cant touch this!



COME on someone had to say this!

Love

Dallas

 

[ChristineES]

Since, if when a religious person does something wrong, it is the fault of the faith, then can it also be said that if an atheist does something wrong, it is because they have no God? If not, then it is a double standard.
Just remember that we are judged by the same standards that we judge with.

 

[monta]

Since, if when a religious person does something wrong, it is the fault of the faith, then can it also be said that if an atheist does something wrong, it is because they have no God? If not, then it is a double standard.
Just remember that we are judged by the same standards that we judge with.

I think sometimes when people struggle to come to terms with something we look for a reason, either because it was so irrational that it beggars comprehension or because it was so understandable that they themselves could have done it.

Having religion to demonise is a handy excuse as is having the lack of morality of atheism, we can assure ourselves that this happened because of something, it wasn't just some horrible tic of human nature.

 

[Nepenthe]

Since, if when a religious person does something wrong, it is the fault of the faith, then can it also be said that if an atheist does something wrong, it is because they have no God? If not, then it is a double standard.
Just remember that we are judged by the same standards that we judge with.

I agree with you for the most part in the way you've framed it.

But some religions, specifically the Abrahamic ones, rely on their deity to establish morals. If they commit atrocities in the name of their faith and decades later society's morals change so those acts that were once moral (even commanded by God) become immoral (from slavery to gay rights, etc.) it raises the question of how those past acts of oppression could not be blamed on their religion. If morality is fluid and cultural expectations shift over time, then the once religiously based morals that led to violence must be held accountable. This is a problem if the deity is omniscient; if God were all knowing She would know what was morally universal, that is, what would be moral and immoral in 800 BCE would be moral and immoral in 2009. Of course you could argue that it's human fallibility in interpreting the word of God that's at fault, but that merely raises other objections as to why "revealed" religions have all too often got the big issues wrong when it comes to oppression and violence against other tribes, women, homosexuals, etc.

With atheism there's no pretense of morality or immorality- atheism is amoral. Morals and ethics are ascribed through other ideaologies independent of atheism, so it makes little sense to hold atheism accountable for immoral acts. Blame the socio-political movements that are responsible but not the atheism since it communicates very little save for, well, "non-theism".

Having said that there's no question that the anti-religious ranting the OP condemns and your post critiques is sophmoric, ill informed and antagonistic against the wrong folks. I'm an atheist and anti-dogma in all its manifestations, whether religious, poitical or cultural. I'm not interested in attacking religions or the religious, particularly when there are several that I share a common political and social conscience with. It'd be puerile to reject them when I agree with such a majority of their opinions but disagree with their views on theism or an afterlife or whatever.
But if the faith or ideaology does become a dogma- that is an unwavering appeal to an idea depsite overwhelming evidence to the contrary- that's when I become an "anti". An antidogmatist if you will.