Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumWhat DU has taught me about religion.
The past few days have been very enlightening. Here's what I've learned:
- When the topic is sexuality, women's rights, or the age of the Earth, conservative Christians are "literalists".
- When the topic is income equality, conservative Christians are "selective".
- What church leaders think of gay marriage is irrelevant, because most believers are okay with it.
- What most believers think of the death penalty is irrelevant, because most church leaders are against it.
Makes sense, right?
PassingFair
(22,437 posts)yet they worship it.
And murderous religious fanatics are not killing because of religion, but...
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/das-murdered-blogger-bangladesh/393395/
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And as we've been scolded, that's FAR worse than any bad religion itself.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)When someone does something bad because of their religion, it definitely wasn't because of their religion.
When someone does something good because of their religion, it was definitely because of their religion and therefore you atheists need to shut up and stop criticizing it.
amuse bouche
(3,665 posts)Religion is used by cowards to justify their hatred of others
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...should be pinned.
Might help future members of A&A avoid some confusion...
Fourth Bruce: Gentleman, I'd like to introduce man from Pommeyland who is joinin' us this year in the philosophy department at the University of Walamaloo.
Everybruce: G'day!
Michael: Hello.
Fourth Bruce: Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce.
First Bruce: Is your name not Bruce?
Michael: No, it's Michael.
Second Bruce: That's going to cause a little confusion.
Third Bruce: Mind if we call you 'Bruce' to keep it clear?
bvf
(6,604 posts)you can't criticize the evil done by religion without crediting them for all the good things they do. <--Said by someone who wants to claim religion is primarily responsible for any good thing that gets done anywhere at any time and jumps all over people who say otherwise.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)RussBLib
(9,668 posts)...even though lots of adults may have been killed in the storm.
I didn't really learn that on DU. I learned that by watching The Weather Channel after tornadoes rip up any town.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)RussBLib
(9,668 posts)You just KNOW some Christians somewhere heard her say that she was an atheist and thought, "See, God is punishing you for being an atheist, by destroying your house."
I have no doubt about that.
Assigning supernatural causes to natural phenomena for over 3000 years!!
mountain grammy
(27,281 posts)because lord knows, Wolf is not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination and if there was a lord Wolf would have been zapped by his mic a long time ago.
Good for the mom for talking back to this fool...
so help me understand those folks, how do they explain their support of discrimination against the LGBT community as something good because it's obviously part of their religion when they refuse to support providing goods and services under public accommodation laws...
It's more than a little confusing at times.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If someone wants to discriminate against anyone - LGBTQ, women, minorities - it's AUTOMATICALLY not because of their religion, because religion is never behind anything bad!
You need to read more Reza Aslan and Karen Armstrong, kiddo.
nil desperandum
(654 posts)I promise I will keep trying to get the hang of this...it's funny because it smells so much like hypocrisy but apparently that's just the sweet, sweet smell of religious fervor.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)here on DU, but my experience here continues to reinforce my opinion about religious apologist bullshit.
LostOne4Ever
(9,597 posts)Behind the Aegis
(54,863 posts)Personally, I don't know if it has to do with religion or it's a big "meh" because the targets are foreign LGBT.
nil desperandum
(654 posts)the wonderful malleability of scripture which means you and I can both read the same passages and come to entirely different meanings and that's okay because it doesn't really matter what scripture says as long as we both feel better about our religious identity as part of our self.
Consequently if you read the following line:
and determine that it means Jesus came down to change the old testament completely and I read it to mean that he is as part of the trio of divinity expressing his support for all the previous laws of the old testament we are both right because of that perfect malleability. Even though the words are quite clear that Jesus is actually saying he won't change a single line or title of the old laws you don't have to believe that...
This religion thing is simply amazing...make it up as you go and get pissy when people ask you why as though the question is some form of persecution.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)When it comes to Biblical passages of dubious moral instruction, remember that the Bible may be interpreted in many ways... but never interpreted literally.
When it comes to Biblical passages of seemingly positive moral instruction, that shit is literal. Like, literally. Anyone to the right of whoever happens to be talking at the moment isn't a real Christian.
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)I can't imagine having to slog through an entire book full of such gibberish.
nil desperandum
(654 posts)it's because I read it that I was asked to no longer attend religious instruction because I was asking annoying questions I looked at a few other versions of christianity before coming to the conclusion it wasn't for me.
It makes for interesting conversations with some folks who insist the bible is the living word of god, because I like being a nuisance with uncomfortable questions about biblical interpretations.
William King
(42 posts)...during my Christian days: 3 chapters a day for a little over a year, from Genesis to Revelations. You know what? You begin to notice things when you read closely and remember certain passages. That, along with observing how Christians really behave (two years at a Baptist college) and reading about the history of Christianity, plus taking a course in Biblical Hebrew, and doing a Bible study course by mail (Worldwide Church of God, the H.W. Armstrong group) and asking Ben Kinchlow of the 700 Club in a letter which is the right interpretation of a group of scriptures, whose answer was that I should be careful not to get my theology from cultists (my question was never answered), led me to being the atheist that I am today.
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)I only had to do the Catholic Sunday school thing once a week, plus the silly requisite rituals. I still hated it with every fiber of my being, though, even as a child.
Hey, on the bright side, you're qualified to have an opinion on Christianity now! You see, according to some here, you have to understand Christianity before you can criticize it. I wish I could, but I can't. I'm currently working on reading all of Erich von Daniken's books so that I can have the opinion that UFOs are bullshit, after which I plan on learning all about astrology so that I can credibly state that the motions of the heavens have fuck-all to do with the events of our daily lives. Maybe I'll get to the Bible after that.
(You're still new, so I'll add this , but we usually don't need it here. )
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Like a wall of water/tsunami, apparently
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It's hard to warm people up to your position when you don't have a fucking position to speak of.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,502 posts)to their faces, as long as they're atheists.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Instead, I hit some religious station, where the preacher was telling his flock of stupids that they had to listen to every word he said, otherwise they would be damned. Except his words made absolutely no sense.
It was actually scary listening to him. Not his content, as I suspect I am immune, but the very fact that people would seek out this idiot and listen to his radio sermons as though they were truthful and accurate.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)Last edited Wed May 20, 2015, 12:10 PM - Edit history (2)
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#339966; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #98fb98; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"] University of
As founding member, I hereby claim the title of Vermin Bruce #1 (aka Vermin Bruce Prime) (on the pretense and presumption that I have actually traveled to Wollongong {voluntarily no less} in real life {RL}) and declare the following rules:
1) No poofers! (aka gods, or those entities with the propensity to cause, create or invoke phantom poof-ing which subsequently instills unreasonable awe, devotion and/or admiration from the faithiests, FSM excepted).
2) No member of the faculty is to maltreat the "faithiests" in any way whatsoever, if there's anyone watching.
3) No poofers!
4) For this term, I don't want to catch anyone not drinking in their room after lights out.
5) No poofers!
6) There is no... rule six.
7) No poofers!
8) Enumerating what meager nuggets of wisdom or irrationality, folly or thoughtlessness (as the case may be) that might have been inadvertently excavated by the faithiests in the other forum over the previous week, and
9) Engage in copious drinking
Right,
That concludes the readin' of the rules, Bruce.
This here's the wattle, the emblem of our land. You can stick it in a bottle, you can hold it in your hand.
Here at the UofW, we shall (but not only):
Discuss the history, development, advancement, debauchment, confinement, improvement and practice of Philosophy,
Sing our favorite song,
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#ccffcc; border:1px solid #98fb98; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]
Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: 'I drink, therefore I am.'
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed,
and drink copious beverages
Any takers?
Are there any other Vermin Bruces who would like to become members of the faculty?
nil desperandum
(654 posts)I could be in for the no poofers and the copious drinking, long drunken conversations over the fine points of Mencken's or Nietschze's observations could be entertaining as long as there are no (or at least not too many) bouts of fisticuffs.
Oh and I am well versed in the debauchery aspect of philosophy, some would say it's because of my lack of faith that I have no ability to ascertain appropriate morally correct behavior.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...Bruce #2 is now an official member of the DU Campus of the University of Woolloomooloo, Philosophy Department!
Oiy!
mr blur
(7,753 posts)NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...Alcohol is not required, merely recommended for those who wish to imbibe.
You are hereby known as Bruce #3!
Hey Everyone!
Bruce #3 is now an official member of the DU Campus of the University of Woolloomooloo, Philosophy Department!
Oiy!
mr blur
(7,753 posts)William King
(42 posts)[_]) Cheers.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)You are hereby named Bruce #4
Hey Everyone!
Bruce #4 is now an official member of the DU Campus of the University of Woolloomooloo, Philosophy Department
Oiy!
olddots
(10,237 posts)then most of them would pee in it .
Rob H.
(5,570 posts)Criticism of people because of their position on religion is more dangerous than any religion itself, which is the laugh-out-loud stupidest thing I've ever read on DU (or anywhere else, for that matter).
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and then something like that appears. Just fucking insane. I wonder if that person realizes that their logic would make DU the most hateful, bigoted website in existence? I mean, the amount of criticism leveled at Republicans and conservatives is off the charts. Surely that's MUCH WORSE than the Republican philosophy and agenda!
mr blur
(7,753 posts)as you'll have noticed mocking Mormons is acceptable. I don't know why - ask the ones who make the rules.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But don't you dare make fun of other Christians' beliefs.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)That's the reason I was given when I pointed out precisely the same thing.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Wow, just wow.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)then have at it.
onager
(9,356 posts)#3 - What church leaders think of gay marriage is irrelevant, because most believers are okay with it.
And no church leaders are currently financing anti-gay efforts. Or organizing their followers in such efforts. Or lobbying their legislators for anti-gay laws. Which wouldn't matter anyway because those churches are just a tiny minority of Fundamentalist Assholes.*
*Anti-gay Catholics excepted. Because WonderPope. Also history, awe & majesty.
Rob H.
(5,570 posts)If you're a member of a local church whose global parent church gives vast sums of money to anti-gay efforts, there's no need to worry that any of the money you give makes its way up the chain to the parent church to fund those donations. I mean, that's just like when you buy an iPhone or other Apple product at your local Apple store, right? Not one thin dime of any of that money goes back to Apple, Inc., does it?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)institutions that hate and repress women and gays means that YOU YOURSELF are a HATER and a BIGOT and HOW DARE YOU criticize FAITH and religious BELIEFS because that is OBNOXIOUS and it ALIENATES people and by the way did you not realize that some DEMOCRATS are RELIGIOUS and by criticizing religion you probably single-handedly handed the next election to the REPUBLICANS?
Rob H.
(5,570 posts)...even if it has numerous sincere adherents.
*Note: Only applies to religious people referring to religions of which they are not members; bonus points if progressive believers do this while remaining seemingly unaware how this makes them exactly like their right-wing counterparts.
Iggo
(48,285 posts)Response to Act_of_Reparation (Original post)
Iggo This message was self-deleted by its author.
Rob H.
(5,570 posts)that they're live and let live, the more likely they are to berate the people who criticize religion.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)...and it keeps getting repeated as if it makes the least bit of sense.
It's basically a circular argument which relies on the assumption that organized religion is inherently positive. Nobody can criticize religion, because its goodness must be accepted and any dissent from this idea is a direct attack on those who hold such beliefs. All such arguments really prove is some believers fear such criticism because it challenges the aforementioned assumption.