Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why try to disprove people's beliefs?
ChristianJuggalo 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 56
From: United States
Joined: 02-21-2008


Message 61 of 72 (460924)
03-20-2008 1:13 PM


What's up?
Hey admin and moderators. I'm not the only one who got off of topic. People get off of topic all of the time and attack other people. Why don't they get suspended?

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved"- John 3:17
If God didn't create the universe, then how did it just get here?

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 72 (460926)
03-20-2008 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ChristianJuggalo
03-20-2008 1:10 PM


Re: Current times people.
I'll just reply to the one point that is on topic.
If you find Dawkins' comments offensive, I think you'd be better off if you don't read them and don't watch him.

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ChristianJuggalo, posted 03-20-2008 1:10 PM ChristianJuggalo has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 63 of 72 (460931)
03-20-2008 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ChristianJuggalo
03-20-2008 1:10 PM


Re: Current times people.
ChristianJuggalo writes:
By the way, I hope I get banned.
Wish granted.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ChristianJuggalo, posted 03-20-2008 1:10 PM ChristianJuggalo has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 64 of 72 (460984)
03-20-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ChristianJuggalo
03-19-2008 9:39 AM


Re: Current times people.
Just in case the object lesson is lost on you: Be careful what you ask for because you just might receive it.
In the future, whether you're eventually allowed back here or you venture out on other fora, try to be more considerate to others by indicating to whom you're replying. It also generates much less confusion. Here, as in most other fora (depending on their software), that is done with the Reply button. It's the one on the left, marked "Reply".
I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about right now.
I am talking about right now. Why are you assuming that I'm not?
Also, I have never said that I have been persecuted or attacked you moron. Also, I don't care to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone. Also, I don't care if a store says season greetings, happy holidays. I could give a fuck less. Quit assuming shit.
I never made such an assumption. Instead, you made the idiotic and utterly groundless assumption that you were being personally accused of such things and so you lashed out and ended up getting banned (well, you did explicitly ask for that one). I would recommend that you learn what a petard is (Petard - Wikipedia, so you can more fully appreciate how you had hoisted yourself by your own petard.
At the very least, I would recommend that you start to follow Pharisee teachings, especially the one known as "The Golden Rule." You may have heard of it. It was taught by Rabbi Hillel circa 20 BC.
Oh yeah, you have it so bad being an atheist don't you? HA! Yeah right. You aren't the one that is constantly being made fun of (current times not past)in the media, schools, television. So don't start bitching and crying.
Oh, let's see. On the one hand, you're upset about having been laughed at and about your religion not being taken seriously.
On the other hand, atheists are subjected to very real and active discrimination. That includes threats of violence and acts of violence, summary expulsion from public organizations that advertise themselves as being open to all, inability to find redress through the court system, active resistance against them by elected government officials, extremely hateful villification by the press and the public, inability to get elected (only Muslims fare worse in this respect, but that's a recent development), and having their very citizenship and patriotism denied publically by the Command-in-Chief (documented case was George H. Bush -- BTW, I am now in my 32nd year of continuing honorable military service, all of them served as an atheist). I have personally suffered much of that and have witnessed others suffer that and more. Including 8-year-old boys villified by the press and by the public and who received threats for trying find redress for their having been victimized.
As the Irish proverb says, "Níl aon tin tinn mar do thin tinn fhéin." ("There's no sore bum like your own sore bum") Sure, you have experienced getting laughed at, so you think that you're getting far worse treatment than the atheists who are routinely and actively discriminated against, denied their basic rights and freedoms, and suffering villification and violence. But I'm sure that you are the only person to think that.
So don't start bitching and crying.
I wasn't. There you go, assuming again!
You asked why atheist would attack the beliefs of others. So I offered an answer: out of self-defense. It's not the only answer, but it is a main one. And I briefly touched upon why they would feel a need to defend themselves. But instead of accepting the answer and thinking about it, you launched into a tirade. Still, I'm going to sit you down and explain to you how the cow ate the cabbage (if you're not from Texas, then go look it up).
The first thing to get straight is just who it is who actively attack the beliefs of others: Christians. Especially evangelical Christians, because that is part of their theology: "The Great Commission" (Great Commission - Wikipedia) to spread their religion throughout the world and to convert others. I cannot speak for you particular congregations, but many actively train and organize their members to go out and proselytize. When my boss' third generation fundamentalist son complained about no social life at his out-of-state college, I suggest that he might find fellowship in one of many Christian clubs (I had certainly seen several on campus). He said that he had already tried that, but those clubs did nothing but plan how to convert the rest of the student body. Who is attacking whose beliefs? It's the Christians who are attacking everybody else's beliefs.
We especially saw it escalate in the 1970's with the emergence of the "Jesus Freak" movement (self-named, so don't go into yet another tizzy over it), hippies who "got turned on to Jesus" and joined fundamentalist churches, sparking the growth of mega-churches. You couldn't turn around without some idiot in your face trying to convert you to fundamentalism. As a result, we normals developed a very strong aversion to Christians and a very low opinion of them. When a local megachurch's singles ministry held a big swing dance, I had a hard time convincing my wife to go because she was convinced that they were going to proselytize to us. That wasn't blind prejudice, but rather an attitude created by years of bitter personal experience with an endless stream of fundamentalist proselytizers.
Faced with such incessant proselytizing, all we wanted was to get them to just shut up and get out of our faces. One way to accomplish that would be to prove them wrong. Since the lynchpin of their entire approach was believe in the Bible as being magical, disproving the Bible became to be a common approach. That is a main reason why such efforts are made to disprove the Bible. Because they believe that the Bible is magical and perfect and we can see that that is not true, so if we expose the truth about their beliefs then we can make them go away and stop bothering us.
Though I have found a slightly different approach. Instead of attacking the Bible, address their false beliefs about the Bible. One creationist who emailed me made several stock claims; eg, the Bible is does not contain even a single error, and if it did contain even one single error then the entire Bible would be false and it should be thrown onto the nearest trash heap and he should become a hedonistic atheist. I pointed out that theologies are man-made; even if a theology had started out with actual divine Revelation, the resulting doctrine would still have been created by Man and consisting of Man's fallible attempts to interpret and understand that Revelation. He denied accepting the Word of Man and insisted that he only believed in the Word of God (ie, in the Bible). So I directly quoted a few of his claims and asked him to show me where in the Bible that it says that. He couldn't disappear quickly enough, much as he wanted to.
Though part of what is being viewed as trying to disprove the Bible could instead by the approach that I just described. Rather than actually disproving the Bible, they could be addressing their undrestanding of fundamentalists' beliefs about what the Bible says or about how to use the Bible (eg, biblical literalism). As I learned with that creationist, fundamentalists seem to have difficulty distinguishing between that they believe and what the Bible says. Now, the opponents (not all of them are atheists, BTW; duh?) using this approach could very well not understand fundamentalist beliefs correctly, in which case your appropriate response should be to correct them. Politely this time, please.
BTW, I became an atheist 45 years ago because I read the Bible. I found that I could not believe what it said and so I left peacefully. I am generally supportive of the spiritual efforts of others and have traditionally had many fundamentalist friends. Mutual respect is very important; there is none coming from proselytizers.
In addition to having to deal with proselytizers, the 1980's brought on the Radical Religious Right (RRR), which sought to gain political power in order to impose their beliefs on the entire nation. One of the "benefits" to having been proselytized at (AKA "beaten over the head to a pulp by Bibles") is that we have become very aware of what their beliefs are and what's in store should they ever take over the government -- perhaps me more so, since I was a "fellow traveller" with friends how had converted to fundamentalism (refer to the history of McCarthyism for an explanation of that term). Coupled with the attempts to subvert the teaching of science, fundamentalists came to be viewed as a political danger to the American way of life. Especially as we became aware of the Christian Reconstructionist movement (Christian reconstructionism - Wikipedia), the political mentors of the RRR, whose goal was to convert America into an Old Testament theocracy.
While all that helps to explain the main atmosphere that fundamentalists have created, it does not fit all cases, because different atheists have had different experiences. Most atheists just don't bother, finding it much safer to keep a low profile -- even non-proselytizers have been known to react strongly to discovering that someone is an atheist. Yes, they will try to find some way to ward off a proselytizer, but they'll be more passive about it.
Some atheists have had very bad experiences with religion which have left them bitter. Most of this group are ex-Christians who were either betrayed or lied to by their religion or their religious leaders. This is the kind of atheist that is most likely to be produced by "creation science", predicated as it is upon lies and deception. This is the type of atheist who is more likely to go on the offensive.
Since you specifically named Richard Dawkins, then we would need to learn what his experience and motivation is. Just what is his story? Is it in reaction to the shenanigans of creationists? Or is there something more?

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ChristianJuggalo, posted 03-19-2008 9:39 AM ChristianJuggalo has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 65 of 72 (460985)
03-20-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ChristianJuggalo
03-19-2008 9:39 AM


Re: Current times people.
Also, I have seen people get laughed at or made fun of in my school for questioning evolution. Why laugh? Are that stuck up?
No, rather because most attempts at questioning evolution are so utterly ludicrous ("laughable, ridiculous"). I'm pretty sure that there might be a few creationist claims that aren't ludicrous ... gee, none come to mind at the moment.
Even though none of your detractors are likely to have any understanding of what was wrong with your attempt at questioning evolution, their reaction was, I'm sure, fostered by their general long-standing experience with such objections and claims, most of which are indeed seen by them as being ludicrous. It's almost as if our minds work differently. Dan Barker (born and raised fundamentalist and former fundamentalist minister, now atheist and co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation -- Dan Barker - Wikipedia -- ; I once heard his song, "You Just Can't Win With Original Sin") described the condition in fundamentalists as "when your theology becomes your psychology".
I especially encountered this when, in order to keep me in their singles ministry dance class where they needed me, a fundamentalist friend talked me into going through divorce care there. It was nearly worse than worthless. Geared towards Baptists and above (or below, depending on your perspective), the tape presentations were filled with emphasizing that only Jesus could help you and recovery without Jesus was impossible and all your motivation was in doing what Jesus wanted you to do, etc. For those of that faith, it was probably what they needed to hear and could relate to. But for non-Christians, that was nothing but a load of bullshit! Though I usually express it as a mountain of chaff that made it almost impossible to winnow out the few kernels of grain that it had to offer.
Similarly, two Christian counselors had for about 15 years offered programs for singles at another local megachurch and she kept trying to get me to attend, but it conflicted with my West Coast Swing class which was far more important for my mental health. I did attend a few times, though. The psychology that they offered was basically what other counselors offer, but yet again they kept piling on a lot of religious chaff (eg, your motivation for improving is because Jesus wants you to; the definition of a good person is someone who brings you closer to God; etc). Nowhere near as much chaff as DivorceCare shovelled, but it still detracted greatly. Again, it was all things that made complete sense to the Christians in the audience and helped to direct them and motivate them, but to a non-Christian it was just simply nonsense that had the opposite effect.
So when you attempt to "question evolution", just because your theology/psychology has you thinking that what you're saying makes perfect sense, that doesn't mean that it makes any sense to anyone else not of the same theology/psychology.
One thing that might really help your attempts would be for you to learn everything you possibly can about evolution and then direct your questions to actual features of evolution, not to imagined or manufactured "problems" with "the evolution model" (which is a "creation science" fabrication that is little more than a caricature of evolution). Know your enemy, and know yourself.
I also hate the fact that atheists are trying to force evolution down childrens throats.
No, they are not. Atheists cannot get elected, remember? The school boards establish what students need to learn in school. Among other subjects, they require science, including biology. Evolution is the foundation of biology. Teaching biology without evolution makes no more sense than teaching math without multiplication (more on that below).
They want them to believe evolution and not believe in God.
No, that is totally false.
First, science does not require believing or not believing in any god or gods; it simply cannot employ them in its methodology.
Second, requiring belief is contrary to the goals of science education. The stated goal of science education (as given in a late 1980's edition of the California Science Framework) is for the student to understand the concepts presented, not to compel belief.
For example, when I attended the US Air Force Communications Command NCO Academy, we were taught Communism. Was it their intent for us to believe in Communism? Of course not! The intent was for us to know our enemy. To understand what we were fighting, not to become it. Duh?
So, science does not require students to not believe in God and the schools do not require the students to adopt new beliefs. Your statement is totally false.
QED
ChristianJuggalo;Message 55 writes:
The reason I don't want evolution (or creation) taught in school is because it causes too much controversy.
There is no real controversy. All the "controversy" that exists is a fabrication of the creationist movement.
Here's an extended analogy:
Assume a church which has serious misgivings about sex. Members discover what is being taught in their children's math class and they are horrified. Those innocent young children are being taught how to multiply! Every day the teacher leads the entire class in multiplication drills! (I hadn't noticed that particular double-entendre before) The entire class, as a group! Orally! Boys and girls together. Girls with girls. Boys with boys! And then they learn how to do it by hand! And then later, after they've gotten real good at it, they're taught how to multiply using logs! Why, that's downright pornographic!
So to protect their children, this church tries to get multiplication removed from the curriculum. Everybody who knows anything about math can see that they're spouting utter nonsense and are in a tizzy over absolutely nothing. But a lot of the general public don't know much math and that church has some very persuasive-sounding speakers -- some of their members are programmers and calculator salesmen whom they trot out before the public as "math experts" -- , so they are able to get a grass-roots movement going.
First they just try to get multiplication banned, but the math teachers testify that that would destroy math education and the school board rejects the motion outright. So the anti-multiplication movement next presents an "alternative" to replace multiplication -- I can't even begin to describe it, but it's complete nonsense and it most definitely does not work at all. And for good measure, since they were always highly suspicious of "irrational numbers" (certain to promote irrational behavior in the students), they also promote a biblical view of pi that sets it equal to 3 (Indiana was supposed to have actually tried to do this in the late 1800's). They just want "balanced treatment" and/or to "teach the controversy"; if the school keeps in multiplication, then their "alternative" must have equal time, or neither need be taught (mark this tactic, which was used in the 1981 "balanced treatment" Arkansas and Louisiana laws, because you just attempted it yourself; see below). The school remains intransigent, so the church starts training and coaching their children to interrupt the math class by "questioning multiplication". And when they do so, these kids who were mistaught that there's something so very wrong with multiplication even though they don't understand it themselves, the other kids laugh at them for presenting such ludicrous objections and for objecting to "issues" that don't even exist.
On the plus side, all this fuss gets the non-church kids to thinking there's something naughty and forbidden about multiplication, so when that part of class starts they are extra attentive and they work hard and diligently at learning. As a result, the school's math scores go way up.
So you see, no controversy except in the minds of the anti-evolution movement, who have it all wrong.
Oh, and regarding that "plus side". One professor who's been involved in the debate scene would actually look forward to debating a creationist, because he would present the same material as he would in his regular lectures, but the audience would always be much more attentive and interested in what he was saying than the students in his class would be.
All they need to do, is cast out evolution and creation in schools and not worry about the shit anymore.
Around 1990 on NPR I heard them interview the Governor of Mississippi about the education reforms he was trying to promote. He justified those reforms by pointing out "we've tried ignorance, so we already know that that won't work!"
You are advocating ignorance, which we already know does not work. In particular, you most of all need to learn everything you can about evolution. If you are to oppose it, raise objections to it, how could you possibly do that effectively if you are so ignorant of it?
Here's a passage that you surely have not been given in Bible study:
quote:
31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
Scroll III (Offensive Strategy), The Art of War, by Sun Tzu
You are ignorant both of your enemy (evolution and atheists) and of yourself. You will be in peril in every battle you enter into and you will be laughed at every time. You need to change that.
Learn evolution. Learn everything you can about it. Also learn everything you can about your own belief system, what your beliefs are, why, and where those beliefs really come from. Also learn how science works and what its relationship really is to religion. Then work out what evolution and science really does mean for your religion. It will take a lot of studying and thinking and work, but you really must do it if you are ever going to be effective and not just a laughing stock.
Read Steve Smith's personal story at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ssmith.htm and how he as a young-earth creationist (YEC) studying geology in college was saved from spiritual death by a God-loving professor. Hint: it was his YECism that would have caused that spiritual death as it has done to so many others. Glenn Morton, a geologist whose YEC beliefs drove him to the verge of atheism, post other such testimonials on his site at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm, including his own.
We already know that ignorance doesn't work. Know your enemy and know yourself.
Oh yeah, almost forgot. The anti-evolution movement started around WWI (yes, "One") and culminated in the 1920's with the "monkey laws" that outright banned the teaching of evolution in four states and created an atmosphere of self-censorship in the rest of the country and among the public school textbook publishers. Then Sputnik scared us into trying to close "the science gap" by improving and promoting science education, which led to a biology textbook being written by biologists instead of by textbook hacks, which meant that the cornerstone of biology, evolution, was presented. When that textbook was adopted in Arkansas, one of the "monkey law" states, a teacher sued (if she didn't use the book, she'd be fired, but if she did use it then she'd be in violation of the law), which led to the US Supreme Court striking down the "monkey laws" and allowing evolution to be taught once more. As a response, the anti-evolution movement mobilized again and created "creation science", a deception to maneuver around the courts. Which pretty much brings us to where we are, except that in 1981 the courts found "creation science" to be religious and then more recently Dover found "intelligent design" to be "creation science" and hence also religious. Read a more complete, albeit pre-dover, outline of a presentation I gave at church one morning in the "early bird" meeting: No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/EarlyBird.html
The thing is that the goal of "creation science" has been as expressed by Paul Ellwanger, the author of the 1981 Arkansas and Louisiana laws:
quote:
... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already.
The "monkey laws" removed evolution from the public schools. "Creation science" first pushed to have evolution removed "for purely scientific reasons" (part of their deception; it was actually for purely religious reasons but they were playing "Hide the Bible").
When that failed, they started pushing "balanced treatment" in which their "creation model" had to be presented and given equal time and treatment with evolution, or you wouldn't have to if you didn't present evolution. That is what the Arkansas law said too. And that is what you proposed. And it would meet their primary goal which was to remove evolution from the schools and to keep the students ignorant.
Then when that didn't work, they wanted to at least be able to present "negative evidences" against evolution whenever evolution was being taught. But that is literally all that "creation science" is, so it would have been the same thing as "balanced treatment".
Do you see now what you were actually proposing? Or was that part of your plan, part of the deception that you are enmeshed in? Know yourself.
That last thing you should want is for evolution to not be taught. How else will you learn what it is so that you can oppose it effectively? Know your enemy.
And remember, we already know that ignorance doesn't work.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ChristianJuggalo, posted 03-19-2008 9:39 AM ChristianJuggalo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Taz, posted 03-20-2008 11:22 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 66 of 72 (461002)
03-20-2008 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by dwise1
03-20-2008 7:55 PM


I just want to bring attention to this again.
I can't stress this enough, people. Look at the wise one's words. Same damn thing I've been saying for a long time.
Atheists cannot get elected, remember?
With a christian majority population in place, it is almost impossible for an atheist to get elected into any kind of office. I'm just sick and tired of seeing this persecution complex in christians over and over again. Let me repeat myself. Don't blame atheists for the policies that other christians came up with. The fact that I'm an atheist automatically disqualifies me from most public offices. So stop with the rant already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 03-20-2008 7:55 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 03-21-2008 1:44 AM Taz has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 67 of 72 (461009)
03-21-2008 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Taz
03-20-2008 11:22 PM


Re: I just want to bring attention to this again.
I don't know whether it's an appropriate topic to start up, but we are clearly looking at pure prejudice here. It's not so much that there's a Christian majority. I don't know the current figures, which have been polarizing between evangelicals and the unchurched, but at least as of 1987 (I have an almanac from that year) the US and Canada had 51% of the population as members of Christian denominations. But even a lot of the unchurched nominally consider themselves to be Christian, so we could argue that Christian teachings and traditions and attitudes do hold sway over the majority of the US population. Even though it's been pointed out by Barna that most such "Christians" have beliefs that disagree with Christian doctrine (which I've reprinted that at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/religion/survey.html, since the reported claim of "all other religions actually worship our god" is one of the things that the Boy Scouts, Inc, have used to falsely claim that they're "absolutely nonsectarian" at the same time that they arbitrarily impose a sectarian "belief in a Supreme Being" rule that doesn't even exist and which they have reputiated twice).
In my opinion, an atheist's inability to get elected to public office is not due to any deliberate actions by the Christian community, but rather because of ingrained prejudices against atheists. Prejudices that I'm sure originate from Christian teachings, or at the very least gets repeated from the pulpit. Prejudices that, I'm sure, are bolstered by false Christian teachings about morality (namely, the lie of "no God, no morality"). I also seem to recall two Bible verses that make false statements about atheists' motives, etc (which, by being false, also would serve to disprove the entire Bible in accordance with the unrealistic test that the fundamentalists themselves impose on the Bible and on their religion), but I did not catch book/chapter/verse (saw it on an ex-Christians forum, but could not locate the post a second time).
I have frequently encountered false statements about atheists from creationists, so I would assume that many nominal "Christian" members of the general population assumes the same prejudices.
BTW, as reported on Bill Maher's show about a month ago, 10% of the US population would vote for a Muslim and 30% would vote for a Mormon. Atheists rated somewhere inbetween. So we're no longer at the absolute bottom of the heap. Woo hoo! (doop-tee-do)
Edited by dwise1, : I forget what I added, because the server chose to crap out at that point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Taz, posted 03-20-2008 11:22 PM Taz has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 68 of 72 (461011)
03-21-2008 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ChristianJuggalo
03-19-2008 10:26 AM


Re: Current times people.
Just look at shows like family guy, simpsons, southpark, (basically any cable show) and a lot of comedians these days. I don't see them saying shit about atheists.
Ever notice that most of the computer viri attack Microsoft systems? Is that because Microsoft is so vulnerable? No, it's because Microsoft presents such a huge target.
Why aren't atheists a target? Because everybody is prejudiced against them anyway. They're a small target. Why is religion such a a big target? Because they're so pretentious and hypocritical. That's a big target! Why pretend to be so surprised?
Now, if you had ever actually watched the Simpsons, then you would know that they skewer everybody. Yes, Ned Flanders is a comic character, but he also has far more integrity than anybody else on the show, usually. One thing we have noticed are the Unitarian jokes. So it's not only your own pig that's being gored, buddy.
And how's your sci-fi? Ever watch Star Trek? Especially Next Generation? How did they handle religion? Not overtly hostilely, and yet not very sympathetically. At one point, I remember Picard make an anti-superstition outburst in reaction to a religious statement (an alien religious statement, BTW, so no tizzies, please). As I understand, Gene Roddenberry was a humanist and certainly Next Generation, which was somewhat under his direct control until he died, was very humanist in flavor. I remember the fundamentalist programmers I worked with at the time would watch it religiously (no pun intended nor committed) and then complain about it the next day.
Now, ever watch Babylon 5? Great show. Unfortunately, his "Star Trek" strategy didn't work (as he would say on CompuServe building up interest among lurkers (a term he carried over for the "homeless" on the station) before the show was picked up -- I was there and that is where I first learned of the show -- , what saved Star Trek was that third season, which gave it enough episodes to live forever in syndication, where it picked up a huge audience after the demise of the original series, which is the only thing that led to the subsequent movies and series). But besides a run on SciFi Channel at a non-prime-time slot, I haven't seen Babylon 5 replay. Pity, such an exceptional show.
Anyway, Alien religions and even human religions were treated very intelligently and with respect. Yes, some main characters would on occasion rail against religion, but they were immediately put in their place and respect for religion won out, always. JMS, AKA "J. Michael Straczynski", was the show's creator, executive producer, and principal writer. It was entirely his vision. He had the entire 5 years planned out from before the beginning, back there on CompuServe. In the final episode, he was even the one who threw the switch that completely shut down the station -- said Security Officer Zach, "I'll be here when they throw the switch to shut the whole thing down" (paraphrased from memory). To have treated religion so well and with so much understanding and so much respect, what church to you think he belonged to? None! He was and is an atheist! Did you hear that? An atheist!
And to think of it, who else but an atheist could have pulled it off? I mean, if he were a Christian, then he would have twisted every single religious reference to favor Christianity. Or to be indistinguishable from Christianity. I mean, how could anyone except an atheist possibly treat an alien religion with the respect due it? Any religion with the respect due it?
Let's face it, how could anyone with a religious bias possibly treat all religions intelligently and with respect? Only an atheist could possibly be up to that task. With the possible exception of a truly exceptional religionist, but I cannot conceive of such a perfect person existing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ChristianJuggalo, posted 03-19-2008 10:26 AM ChristianJuggalo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 03-21-2008 8:41 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 69 of 72 (461071)
03-21-2008 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by dwise1
03-21-2008 3:15 AM


Re: Current times people.
You're kidding, right? Straczynski made damn sure throughout the show that an explanation is given for every "alien" religion out there while leaving christianity completely alone. Even in the episode where Kosh had to leave his encounter suit to rescue Sheridan there was absolutely no christian present to realize that any supernatural being even remotely related to the judeo-christian god was actually a Vorlon.
In fact, all the episodes that had christian monks and basically just christians were completely absent of any Vorlon or Shadow. So, while Straczynski wanted to have the storyline show that the conflict between 2 of the oldest races in the galaxy was the true origin of all religions, he very subtly implied that christianity was an exception.
Same thing with star trek. Off the top of my head I can think of at least a dozen episodes where the topic of religion was presented and how it always resulted in letting us know the true origin of the religion is actually technologically advance alien race visiting Earth in the far past. In one particular episode in star trek voyager, Chekotee made contact with an alien race that turned out to be the "sky people" that is the basis for native American religions because they apparently visited Earth thousands of years ago.
The same theme is seen in stargate sg-1. Every religion that has ever existed in human history is specifically mentioned by name and how those deities were actually technological advance aliens seeking to enslave people... that is every religion except for christianity. In fact, the creators of stargate sg-1 throughout the last 10 years have been exceptionally careful in not mentioning christianity at all while giving us several episodes that specifically say buddhism is one such religion that originated with advance alien beings and the buddha is actually an alien.
I honestly don't know how you can see these sci fi series as neutral when in fact they are blatantly and obviously pro-christian, not to mention they have a hint of anti-evolution.
In star trek enterprise, captain archer was presented with a dilemma. An entire race of alien people was dying because of a genetic defect. Doctor flox told archer that evolution has chosen to kill off these people so another race of people on the same planet could have a chance to evolve out of their stone age. Even though flox have found a cure to save 1 billion + people from certain death, the son of a bitch actually adviced archer to leave and let these people die so evolution could have its way. At one point, archer said his conscience couldn't let him do that, and flox said "I say we let nature decide..." In the end, archer left and let a billion people die so a few stone age people could evolve.
I find these shows entertaining but at the same time grossly pro-christian and anti-evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by dwise1, posted 03-21-2008 3:15 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 72 (461113)
03-22-2008 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ChristianJuggalo
03-19-2008 12:22 PM


Re: Current times people.
ChristianJuggalo writes:
That's an asshole comment to me ... you moron ... moron ... assholes like you ... sarcastic prick.
ChristianJuggalo writes:
Why would he get hostile if he is so secure with his beliefs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ChristianJuggalo, posted 03-19-2008 12:22 PM ChristianJuggalo has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 71 of 72 (461148)
03-22-2008 8:31 PM


Whilst I agree with much of what has been said about the difficult position in which American atheists find themselves, I feel that there is another important reason to challenge the beliefs of others, especially within the context of religion.
Anti-atheist prejudice is nowhere near as marked over here in the UK. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that a politician's lack of religious belief would be a serious hindrance to achieving political office. Indeed, the new Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has recently said that he does not believe in God, with no particular ill-effect. Overt expression of religious belief is even seen as somewhat distasteful within politics (as Alastair Campbell said,"We don't do the G-word"). I recognise that this is more problematic in the US and elsewhere in the world, but this isn't the main reason why I choose to challenge religious belief.
I challenge belief in religion simply because I think it's wrong, that is to say false, not true, inaccurate. I also believe that religion is harmful (on balance) and that the actions of certain believers are dangerous, but this merely gives added impetus. I think that falsehood should always be challenged, since falsehood is its own form of iniquity. That I consider religion to be false is reason enough for me to oppose it by peaceful means, and try, through reasoned debate and civil discussion, to dissuade others from believing it. I don't really see what further justification is necessary.
Why should I be forced to justify my right to freedom of expression?

Mutate and Survive

  
willietdog
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 72 (461165)
03-23-2008 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ChristianJuggalo
02-23-2008 6:03 PM


Christians try to prove God because it is part of religion to convert others so that no one is lost. It is also a method of self defence from attacks by other religions/athiests.
Atheists don't all try to disprove God but I would say the people who do are very fact oriented people who like to show people the truth (not that what they are saying is the truth or not just their version of the truth).
I myself have "a thing" where I can't stand letting people be wrong about something. If you say something I know or believe to be wrong I must correct you. Its just who I am and many people, especially scientists and other fact oriented people, are like this.
The simple answer to you'r question is someone has to be right (or as I beleive both are right). And we are all in an endless debate over who is right. and it comes down to christians are trying to convert athiests while at the same time athiests are trying to convert us. This is the way religions work.

I Am A: "Christian Evolutionist"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ChristianJuggalo, posted 02-23-2008 6:03 PM ChristianJuggalo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024