Anything But An Atheist. How come?

[Epimethean]

Absolute value of atheism is positive. Theism might be represented as square root of -1.

[twocompulsive]

In the film the question was asked what do
atheists believe in ? I believe in the Sermon On
The Mount I believe in the Seven Commandments
I believe in the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights
I believe in the Golden Rule. Christians believe in these too
We should therefore look at what unites rather than separates us

[Epimethean]

I think that tends to happen until there is time to reflect on difference, which is as important as similarity. Diversity is necessary, even if it comes in the form of the delusional standing aloof from the cynical.

[Norfolk And Chance]

In the film the question was asked what do
atheists believe in ? I believe in the Sermon On
The Mount I believe in the Seven Commandments
I believe in the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights
I believe in the Golden Rule. Christians believe in these too
We should therefore look at what unites rather than separates us

Two questions.

How do you do it? And why?

[twocompulsive]

I think that tends to happen until there is time to reflect on difference, which is as important as similarity. Diversity is necessary, even if it comes in the form of the delusional standing aloof from the cynical

I am all in favour of referencing difference
But only as long as it is done without recourse
to ignorance or prejudice. I totally defend the right
of anyone to believe anything no matter what and also
to criticise anything I believe in. But that can be done in an
atmosphere of basic respect toward my fellow man. There just
is absolutely no justification for hating someone simply because they
happen to possess a different world view to you. I myself respect every
one no matter what their opinion. You only attack the belief not the individual

[downbeatplumb]

I
am
Finding
This pyramid
Writing thing a
Annoyingly grating

[Epimethean]

What the hell makes
it do that thing,
anyway,
eh?

[Ziploc Surprise]

I
agree
It's fucking
annoying writing.

[Ziploc Surprise]

---

Oh god, I can't believe this. Do I really need to spell this out for you? Do I really need to go point by point and show you where you were wrong? Do you have any analytical ability?

1) I assume you said "You still haven't shown where religious beliefs are opposed to critical thought and where religious people fear critical thought"
a) In the video the man was skeptical, the reasons for his skepticism were listed. The believer opposed the skeptic in that she reacted emotionally instead of have a non emotional point by point civil discussion on the matter. As pointed out a belief can cause such emotions.
2) I will group the next two together "b, Some Christians do exactly the opposite of what Jesus wants them to do.
c. Unwavering faith wouldn’t feel threatened by atheism. Again doesn’t apply to all Christians." The purpose of the thread is to whine and also to theorize reasons for the negative reactions to atheists. b describes the behavior but not the cause/reason for the behavior which has been theorized to be rejection and fear. furthermore we aren't addressing those you say have "unwavering faith" because these people, if they exist and perhaps they do, would logically not be abusive because they theoretically would obey the teachings of Jesus regarding dealing with people who hurt you and they won't feel threatened because they so strongly believe that god will win in the end.
3) quote: "Ignorance is accepted because the majority are ignorant, regardless of their theological views. Address education not theological belief." Compare theological views with those of Science. Theological views are ignorant because Theology chooses unprovable stories over proven fact. If you are going to believe in, for example, the fundamentalist theology on the Genesis stories then you must ignore science and numb your critical thinking; this is ignorance.
4) You are confusing freedom of speech with the separation of church and state. While they go well together they are not the same thing. I was referring to the irrational practice of breaking the separation of church and state in order to impose Christianity on other people. The separation of church and state is the thing that protects Christianity. It is irrational to break the thing which protects you. Christians routinely do this, the practice of doing this is preached and supported in many churches. What is mind numbing is how they don't see how irrational this is. Mandatory school prayer (which I is what I was addressing) is one of those areas where the line has been crossed, intelligent design is another .
On some points Atheists (and some non atheists) have crossed the line as well and disallowed Bible reading and prayer during free time in public school (though quite a lot of schools don't enforce these rules) this practice is acknowledged by other atheists to be crossing the line and is criticized. Irrationality is not in just practice and policy it is also in unwillingness to self regulate.
b) "I agree in the past it was forced, which is wrong in public school, but if your child goes to a religious based private school, should you really expect them to ban bible reading and prayer so your delicate ears don’t have to hear?" Private school is a choice....and an expensive one at that. It is not mandatory. Public school is mandatory. Those who put their child in private school have consented to any religious education that may have come with that schools curriculum. If you don't agree with the curriculum then choose a different school or homeschool your child. Your inclusion of this last point makes no sense and does not support your argument.
5) Quote: "Why am I not free to express myself and my religious practices [here on this forum]? Simple, because atheists don’t want to hear it here. I fully support that. Why then in a larger society would the minority not expect to have their opinions censured? " You are confusing public with private domains. This forum, though it is on the internet and viewable to visitors, is technically a private domain. It is a place, like a private house, where atheists can let down their hair, so to speak and say things that are not acceptable in the public domain like the grocery store, work, etc. It is a place where things that are not socially acceptable in the public domains because they infringe upon the rights of others are acceptable because it is assumed (and rightly so) that those of like beliefs would not be offended by like beliefs. If you come here you should expect some impolite behavior. People are letting off steam. If you don't want to deal with this don't come here. In the same way, if I were to go on a Christian forum and express my disbelief, I would expect to get a lot of abuse and censure. Christian forums are their private domain where things that are not socially acceptable in the public domains because they infringe upon the rights of others are acceptable because it is assumed (and rightly so) that those of like beliefs would not be offended by like beliefs. In public domains, what is socially acceptable is different because you run the risk of being around those who might be offended at your comments or infringing on the rights of other's. In other words it is socially acceptable to let off steam and confide with others in private but it is inappropriate to do these things in public.

---

1a)so belief causes emotions. I agree, lack of belief doesn't? atheists aren't emotional then?
2b&c) So we agree then that it's logically not sound that those with unwavering faith would be abusive.
2e)You still haven't addressed yet. I still hold not questioning your beliefs is a Muslim practice, not a Christian one.
3) Theology and Science are not similar in respect to the properties of purpose and scope therefore it is a false analogy. I do agree with your point that literal interpretation fundamentalist theology does deny scientific evidence, especially in young Earth Creationism. That would apply to young Earth fundamental Christians though, and not to all, or even mainstrem Christianity. Ignoring presented, validated evidence is ignorant we can agree on.
4) I agree that breaking the separation of church and state in order to impose Christianity on other people is as irrational as preventing Religious expression. Mandatory school prayer (which is not something I experienced in public school) is as bad as not being allowed to say grace at the lunch table. Mandatory school prayer in a private religiously based school, is within the rights of the school and should be expected.
5)Let me give an example to illustrate my point. Let's suppose for this argument (not true in reality) that I am an avid racist. I spout hate speech all day within the confines of my private home. It has private access so there is no one to be offended. Let's say I post up a huge sign with hate speech on my front lawn on a main thoroughfare. Aside for putting my family at risk, it's my private property, but there is public access to it. People are offended in the community and attempt a petition to censure my free speech. Regardless of the legality/success, an attempt at censure would be made because there was an offender and offendee (public access to private domain).
6)You made the point that "Atheism is somehow associated with loosing the right to practice whatever religion you wish". If atheists truly didn't want to censure public speech or public displays of religious practice, why are there groups protesting the creationist museum. Why petition to ban prayer prior at town council meetings? Wouldn't the null position be to just not pray or let the ignorant believe what they like?
Freedom of Speech is grounded in utilitarianism, not in an inalienable right, as rights are granted by the society they govern. If you want to not pray over your meal in a restaurant, fine I have never put any pressure on anyone to do anything they were opposed to. I've never seen anyone forced to pray, even in Church. I think what it really boils down to is that some atheist feel offended at religious expression because they feel the internal compulsion to conform. I'm sorry, but with Public access your freedom to express, or lack thereof, should be allowed, unless it damages society. I think a lot of the feelings of victimization or being offended stems from atheist by default assuming theists are wrong/ don't like being subjected to expressions of religious belief. Perhaps we'd make progress if you started by showing an instance of mandatory prayer, as have no experience with it.

As far as the ad hominems and broad generalities go, feel free to "whine" all you like as this is an atheist forum, I'll stick to addressing the points.

Ok, I finally have time to deal with this bs. The private home analogy was to illustrate choice. In a private home the stuff that goes on there usually stays within the confines of that house. If it goes outside the confines of the house then it gets dealt with appropriately. One chooses whether to enter a private house or not. Since everyone is welcome on this forum it's like having an open invitation into the house. Once you get onto the home page it's analogous to stepping over the threshold of a house. The sign on private property does not fit the analogy. You should know this. I don't know why you brought it up. I could assume that you are either incapable of following analogies or you are just trying a ploy to win an argument. I don't put up with this sort of bs. I have been a Christian for 30 years. Christians are used to following analogies and metaphors. You hear them every Sunday in church and you get them every time you read the Bible. Unless you are autistic or something you can't tell me that you are unable to follow the analogy. You'd really have to convince me that you are having difficulty following such a simple analogy.

As for the mandatory prayer thing. Unless you have been living under a rock or something Christian activist groups have been pushing for mandatory school prayer for decades. Obviously this is what I was talking about.

As for the other things, you seem to be having difficulty seeing where the boundary line is between church and state. This inability makes it difficult to tell at what point a practice or display crosses this boundary. A lot of people have this problem and I have difficulty understanding why. It's not that difficult to delineate.

Ziploc quote: "Ignorance is accepted because the majority are ignorant, regardless of their theological views. Address education not theological belief." Compare theological views with those of Science. Theological views are ignorant because Theology chooses unprovable stories over proven fact. If you are going to believe in, for example, the fundamentalist theology on the Genesis stories then you must ignore science and numb your critical thinking; this is ignorance.
Tackattackquote: " Theology and Science are not similar in respect to the properties of purpose and scope therefore it is a false analogy."

If you want to mince words then I suppose I should have used the word "contrast". If you were to put my statement in context the meaning of it should have been clear to you. Also, to mince words, it was not an analogy it was a specific example, but I understood what you meant because I read you're sentence in context.


Now lets cut the crap. I want to have some reasonable explanation for you're poor debating ability. I will give you opportunity to defend yourself. Are you having difficulty with the English language because it is not your native tongue? This would be a reasonable explanation and one that I would gladly accommodate. Furthermore is there anything else that I ought to know and be sensitive toward (for example autism)?
I apologize if I sound harsh, recall that I have given opportunity for you to defend yourself. If I have acted inappropriately to someone who needs special accomidation (like a language barrior) I will appoligize for that as well. In my defense I will bring up my 30 year stint in the Christian church. I am not unused to the ploys, they have been tried on me numerous times. I didn't put up with them then and I don't put up with them now.


Now I think it's time to ask advice from other forum members. Though these question are meant for other forum members, you of course, are welcome to defend yourself here as well.
1) First question. For anyone who has been following the back and forth between Tackattack and I, is this sort of run around something I must expect or is Tackattack just off his game, so to speak, here?
2) Is Tackattack's runaround intentional or is there some reasonable explanation for this behavior that I ought to be sensitive to and accommodate?
3) If Tackattack's behavior is an intentional runaround what is the best way to deal with it? Should I ignore him/her or is there any usefulness in debating with him/her?

[Erinome]

He
can't
help it.