Re: Tolerance for belief...

On May 2, 4:52 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snips]

On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:56:49 -0700, mike3 wrote:
On May 1, 7:46 pm, Enkidu <fox_rgf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hitory has show that when Christians contol the civil government,
atheists get burned alive. No thank you.

Aha! So you think I am some sort of Christian, then.

Tends to go with the "I believe in God" bit. However, that doesn't really
matter; you could be a completely non-religious (as in "not a follower of
any religion at all, just a believer") Godder and still face significant
problems being taken seriously.


You mean because you don't believe in God, right? How would one
solve those problems?

Why are you here in an atheist newsgroup if not to gain converts?

To discuss the belief.

Your belief? Unless it's devoid of gods, does it even belong here? Or
perhaps you mean the "belief" of atheism? If that's what you mean, you
might want to reconsider your notions. Atheism isn't a belief, at least,
not of necessity. I suppose it can be, in some forms, but even if so, the
term "atheism" does not equate to "having a belief".


Then what is it? This seems to be the rub. We seem to have different
ideas as to what a belief is. To me, a belief is more like an opinion,
and
need not carry the ring of some specific religion or religious
practice,
it's just a stance that one holds as a truth.

The whole point was to debate my beliefs

Wouldn't it make more sense in a theistic group, then? One where
different theistic views might be discussed and debated? Just a thought.


Would it be possible to face off atheism vs. theism, ie. "does God
exist"
type questions?

And is any God-belief less rational than atheism, according to your
standards?

Yes. Flat out, absolute, no discussion yes.


Well, alright, that's your opinion, mine is different. No discussion?
Then
I won't discuss it.

Is the stupidity the discussing the belief on the atheist group?

Partly.


So what group should I discuss it?

So then
I can only come and talk on this group if I am an atheist myself?

Nope. But coming into the lion's den covered in fresh, raw meat doesn't
exactly reek of stunning intellect.


What is the raw meat? You mean, just tossing out "Woohoo! I
believe in God!!!!" and not an actual *argument*?

I also
cannot ask questions about the validity of certain conceptions of
atheists I have, like the "atheism->anarchy"

Sure you can. However, if your views - or even questions - aren't at
least vaguely based on what atheism _is_, rather than some half-baked
notion you picked up somewhere else, you're going to get hammered. Little
things, like, say, the notion that atheism involves belief of some sort.


Then what, exactly, is atheism?

a bad conception, by the way. Atheism need not lead to anarchy, or vice
versa.

Atheism, being a _lack_ of a belief, can't very well lead to anything. At
most, it could conceivably open a door to something _else_ leading to
something.


It is a "lack of a belief", alright, but is it an opinion? Or is it a
lack of
opinion, altogether, ie. a purely neutral view on the subject of
God's existence?

What about free speech? Can't I discuss something from a
differing perspective from yours?

You're in our hall; you play by our rules. Don't like it? Go rent your
own hall.


I don't have another "hall" that I know of.

If you do not want to change your
"belief",

What belief?


Whatever you want to call it. Your opinion, or position, or whatever
it
is. Until I get a word you'll agree on, I'll stick with "X" for now.

Complaining about atheists confronting your lame beliefs in an atheist
forum is the mark of a moron.

You can confront the belief, what I am talking about is that you should
not call me stupid because I have the belief.

Unless it's a stupid belief, or the very notion of "belief" is inherently
stupid, or...


So then it's because of my X, and if I don't give up my X, you'll
still consider me stupid.

So that's the stupidity, then, is because I am VOICING my belief on a
group of people who don't believe it?

I'll give you a little clue. Godders - of whatever flavor - have
historically persecuted, killed, tortured and otherwise made things
miserable for non-believers - and believers of other sorts. So basically
what you're doing is jumping into a pool of people who have one thing in
common - a grasp of what it's like to be on the victim's side of the
equation - and you're announcing "Oh, yeah, and I'm on the oppressor's
side".


Ah. So it's because so many in the past have done so much bad,
then it's given them an overall bad rap. This is not something I have
liked, as for one, I would not condone such actions. And according
to the "divinely-inspired" religious holy books, such things should
_not_ be done anyway! Whoa! The extreme groups are therefore
_not_ following the religions they claim to be following!

That would be stupid in and of itself... but you actually go beyond that.
You do it in a forum where that pool of people, despite knowing what it's
like to be on the victim's end, *are not victims*. They have teeth, and
the willingness to use them. That's *truly* stupid, jumping into that and
announcing you're siding with the bad guys. Yet you take it further; you
don't just pick any random atheist, or deal with the ones who foray forth
into other groups... no, you come in to a forum _for_ and _by_ and almost
exclusively inhabited by atheists, to announce your belief in oppressive
views which have for 2,000 years treated those same atheists as evil and
disposable and not to be tolerated.


I agree, it would be stupid if that was my intention. My intention,
though, was not to say I wanted more discrimination, more hate, but
just to state my X. I, in fact, want PEACE for the world, not war
and discrimination. You have assumed that _all_ God-believers are
bad, but this is not the case, and I would never advocate that type of
activity. If I did advocate it, I might as well go and join up with
the
local terrorist group. But I wouldn't, of course, nor would I sponsor
some sort of "anti-atheism" legislation. You associate God-belief
with being a "bad guy", but this is not the case, since not all God-
believers are bad people and want to do that stuff. (I'm a good
example, even if you don't want to see it.) I don't like that type of
crap
either. This begs another question about atheism. Have a significant
amount of atheists started out religious (or a significant number of
atheists *who* started out religious) and then renounced it, and
hence going to atheism, because they were dissatisfied with the way
most mainstream religion treats people who disagree with it (ie. they
got "fed up with religion")? I would not be surprised if the answer to
that question was "yes". You know, I _opposed_ what happened on
9/11, not supported it, and _opposed_ Bush, since he is obviously
also motivated by extreme religion -- extreme Christianity.

Gee, do you *think* that might not be the smartest move you could ever
have made?


Well, no it wouldn't. But I also do _not_ agree with all the crap that
a lot of religious groups have done over the years, despite your
seeming assumptions to the contrary. You know, maybe there _was_
a bit of stupidity on my part, namely to announce it in front of
people
that have a certain set of assumptions about believers, even if
the assumptions do not hold for all believers. And that is where _you_
have a problem too. Because then you won't see when someone
comes up who does _not_ fit those assumptions.

How do you manage to "know" people
who believe in God if they did not voice it to you?

Let them. Let them, however, do it in appropriate fora.


What is an appropriate forum, then? A religion group? But then
how, as an _a_theist, did you come across it? Why would you
go and visit a religion group anyway? To jump in and say you're
an atheist to them? Then aren't you just opening up yourself for
all the discriminatory flak from the people there?

And why would I go to a Christian group when I'm not a Christian?

Because you're a theist. Same crap, different pile.

So then I could just go to the generic religion group and
discuss it there?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOURE A ATHEIST
    ... What "true religion"? ... >claim that we were created by GOD. ... >all the evidence you need to "prove" Atheism. ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Re: Insane Iislamic Bull Shit
    ... The report said that, not me. ... I think both inferences are wrong; I think growing atheism ... So, my platform in this debate is that religion, and the societies that ... the inclusion of a god. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Richard Dawkins
    ... Theism is a _claim_ (God exists); atheism ... is a refusal to assent to that claim. ... matters of religion is almost always harmful. ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)
  • Re: Richard Dawkins
    ... Theism is a _claim_ (God exists); atheism ... is a refusal to assent to that claim. ... matters of religion is almost always harmful. ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)
  • Re: Insane Iislamic Bull Shit
    ... grossly overstating the scope of the report I cited and my intentions ... atheism is solely responsible for the success of those nations. ... "Nearly all European nations are experiencing long-term ... Things got better when folks back then got religion. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
Loading