To the Anti-Religious

[Storm]

Seems we've had an influx of anti-religious atheists lately, making statements like "religion poisons everything," and "a rational religious person is... an oxymoron."

You guys do realize that a goodly number of the religious you love to bash are atheists, right? Agnostics, too. There are strictly atheistic sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheists (along with everyone else) are embraced by UU, and constitute a good chunk of our faith. There are even atheistic neopagans and occultists.

So, how do you deal with these people? Are they subject to your bashing, or do you just ignore their existence?

 

[rojse]

Seems we've had an influx of anti-religious atheists lately, making statements like "religion poisons everything," and "a rational religious person is... an oxymoron."

You guys do realize that a goodly number of the religious you love to bash are atheists, right? Agnostics, too. There are strictly atheistic sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheists (along with everyone else) are embraced by UU, and constitute a good chunk of our faith. There are even atheistic neopagans and occultists.

So, how do you deal with these people? Are they subject to your bashing, or do you just ignore their existence?

I must admit, I am getting tired of the Richard Dawkins clones, too.

 

[dogsgod]

Personally, I view the religious as those that are prone to making mistakes due to the logical conclusions that follow from sharing in unsupported beliefs. I view the religious as having good intentions as most people do and that we want the same things in life, we differ on how we set out to achieve our common goals because we differ on how we believe the world works.

 

[Bloomdido]

Our time is coming. The internet is our church and we will expose organised religion for what it is.

 

[rojse]

Personally, I view the religious as those that are prone to making mistakes due to the logical conclusions that follow from sharing in unsupported beliefs.

I would rather judge a poster on the content of their post rather than the religion they profess to have. I have quite high regard for quite a few theists that inhabit RF.

And if a theist can acknowledge that their religious beliefs are based on personal experiences, would you treat them differently to a theist who had not?

 

[Oberon]

Our time is coming.

Interesting. I hear the same thing coming from various fundamentalist religious groups too (mainly christian and muslim).

 

[Dunemeister]

Personally, I view the religious as those that are prone to making mistakes due to the logical conclusions that follow from sharing in unsupported beliefs. I view the religious as having good intentions as most people do and that we want the same things in life, we differ on how we set out to achieve our common goals because we differ on how we believe the world works.

Personally, I view the areligious as those that are prone to making mistakes due to the logical conclusions that follow from sharing in unsupported beliefs. I view the areligious as having good intentions as most people do and that we want the same things in life, we differ on how we set out to achieve our common goals because we differ on how we believe the world works.

 

[Kathryn]

Our time is coming. The internet is our church and we will expose organised religion for what it is.

Why does this phrase strike me as pitiful?

 

[Breathe]

Why does this phrase strike me as pitiful?

Because it is?

As to the OP, I believe that the majority of these new anti-theists try to lump two extremes: Biblical Literalist YECers, and antitheist atheists.

 

[linwood]

Why does this phrase strike me as pitiful?

Because it is pitiful.

 

[Storm]

Personally, I view the religious as those that are prone to making mistakes due to the logical conclusions that follow from sharing in unsupported beliefs. I view the religious as having good intentions as most people do and that we want the same things in life, we differ on how we set out to achieve our common goals because we differ on how we believe the world works.

So, if you're not stupid and irrational, you're not religious. Sorry, but that in itself is stupid and irrational, serving no purpose but to justify your bigotry.

Our time is coming. The internet is our church and we will expose organised religion for what it is.

That's nice, dear. Now contribute to the topic or get the hell out of my thread.

 

[dogsgod]

Personally, I view the areligious as those that are prone to making mistakes due to the logical conclusions that follow from sharing in unsupported beliefs. I view the areligious as having good intentions as most people do and that we want the same things in life, we differ on how we set out to achieve our common goals because we differ on how we believe the world works.

No doubt the "areligious" or the non-religious hold unsupported beliefs, the difference is that they are not commonly shared between the non religious nor encouraged and so collectively have no influence on each other, as groups, or on our culture. These unsupported beliefs would be held on an individual basis only.

 

[Caladan]

Seems we've had an influx of anti-religious atheists lately, making statements like "religion poisons everything," and "a rational religious person is... an oxymoron."

You guys do realize that a goodly number of the religious you love to bash are atheists, right? Agnostics, too. There are strictly atheistic sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheists (along with everyone else) are embraced by UU, and constitute a good chunk of our faith. There are even atheistic neopagans and occultists.

So, how do you deal with these people? Are they subject to your bashing, or do you just ignore their existence?

I'm sorry to say, that the image I get from the guys you're talking about is that of a lonely teen ager, not very socially enhanced, who has a minimal or non existent theological/cultural/religious understanding in some cases, or scars from a very religious past life style.
its downgrading the discussion level, in fact it renders much of the efforts for dialogue useless.

I'm an atheist. there are many religious phenomenas I find threatening. just like I find threatening phenomenas in other existing dimensions of our societies. people of faith are not my enemies, however its highly possible that extremists are the enemies of both me and of people of faith. and I'm highly interested in discussing with moderate people of faith the relevant issues that we (as normal citizens) need to deal with, including religious extremism and fundamentalism.

Does this mean I would shy from time to time to assault faults I may find with religion? no. but I would not project it on the members of RF, who are of one religion or the other, more than I have to to make what I perceive as a critical point.

 

[Storm]

No doubt the "areligious" or the non-religious hold unsupported beliefs, the difference is that they are not commonly shared between the non religious nor encouraged and so collectively have no influence on each other, as groups, or on our culture. These unsupported beliefs would be held on an individual basis only.

1) So what?

2) While I realize that Dunemeister said "areligious," the story is quite different for the anti-religious.

 

[Storm]

I'm sorry to say, that the image I get from the guys you're talking about is that of a lonely teen ager, not very socially enhanced, who has a minimal or non existent theological/cultural/religious understanding in some cases, or scars from a very religious past life style.
its downgrading the discussion level, in fact it renders much of the efforts for dialogue useless.

I'm an atheist. there are many religious phenomenas I find threatening. just like I find threatening phenomenas in other existing dimensions of our societies. people of faith are not my enemies, however its highly possible that extremists are the enemies of both me and of people of faith. and I'm highly interested in discussing with moderate people of faith the relevant issues that we (as normal citizens) need to deal with, including religious extremism and fundamentalism.

Does this mean I would shy from time to time to assault faults I may find with religion? no. but I would not project it on the members of RF, who are of one religion or the other, more than I have to to make what I perceive as a critical point.

QFT.

See, guys? You even annoy your fellow atheists.

 

[Dunemeister]

No doubt the "areligious" or the non-religious hold unsupported beliefs, the difference is that they are not commonly shared between the non religious nor encouraged and so collectively have no influence on each other, as groups, or on our culture. These unsupported beliefs would be held on an individual basis only.

Whatever.

 

[Dunemeister]

2) While I realize that Dunemeister said "areligious," the story is quite different for the anti-religious.

Right you are. However, I'd have to modify my statement just slightly so it fits more what I actually think in their case:

Personally, I view the anti-religious as those that are prone to making mistakes due to the logical conclusions that follow from sharing in unsupported beliefs. I view the anti-religious as having bad intentions, unlike most people, toward religious people. However, we want the same things in life, and we differ on how we set out to achieve our common goals because we differ on how we believe the world works.

 

[dogsgod]

So, if you're not stupid and irrational, you're not religious. Sorry, but that in itself is stupid and irrational, serving no purpose but to justify your bigotry.

I'm critical of the sharing in of commonly held unsupported beliefs and I have come to realize that some will not accept such criticism and will lash out in terms of stupid, irrational, and bigotry, rather than come to terms with the fact that not everyone partakes in this sharing in. I once did share in because I believed what I was told from a very young age but I no longer do, I also don't think I was anymore stupid and irrational then than I am now that I don't share in.

 

[Storm]

I'm critical of the sharing in of commonly held unsupported beliefs

Unless they're anti-religious.

and I have come to realize that some will not accept such criticism and will lash out in terms of stupid, irrational, and bigotry, rather than come to terms with the fact that not everyone partakes in this sharing in.

Not all of the religious do this, but you do. So, what's the difference?

I once did share in because I believed what I was told from a very young age but I no longer do, I also don't think I was anymore stupid and irrational then than I am now that I don't share in.

Then whence your definition of the religious?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Seems we've had an influx of anti-religious atheists lately, making statements like "religion poisons everything," and "a rational religious person is... an oxymoron."

You guys do realize that a goodly number of the religious you love to bash are atheists, right? Agnostics, too. There are strictly atheistic sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheists (along with everyone else) are embraced by UU, and constitute a good chunk of our faith. There are even atheistic neopagans and occultists.

So, how do you deal with these people? Are they subject to your bashing, or do you just ignore their existence?

No, I do NOT realize that nor do i accept it.

Such people are "religious" in much the way a nag is a Derby winner. They are both horses but only the gullible or uninformed would mistake one for the other.

In the immortal words of Ann Coulter, "I believe in a REAL religion. You know, one with rules and things."

Probably the only both accurate and intelligible thing she has ever said.

"Modern or liberal xantianity" and other new age collections of feel good ideas are hardly worthy of mention in the same sentence with Judaism or Islam or "historical Christianity."

My long dead dear pastor use to say very sincerely, "If you don't feel your religion directing your actions every day, telling you what to do and what not to do, you either aren't following it or you don't have one the began with."