WTF???

[Shell B]

Sorry, Honey. Even though I have a lot of time on my hands I don't live next to the computer.

I didn't suggest that you did. You answered several posts that came after Adrian's. It had become obvious that you were honing in on the replies that you felt warranted an angry reply.

I did answer Adrian's post

I noticed that. Very good. It still came after my post, though.

and it turns out that we have a lot in common.

Perhaps, but certainly not temperament.

I am not 'holier than thou', I am 'live and let live.'

That is not the impression that I got from you. I am sure that, if you read back through this thread, you would see mine was a logical conclusion. You came across as crass and unwilling to conduct your conversations without a level of condescension. I hope your live and let live attitude shines through more in future posts.

If you don't want to have a conversation, that's fine with me. You are the one doing the projecting here. You fail psych 101. Get a grip.

[Scarface]

I haven't read the whole of this thread and I don't pretend to have followed it but I must say that the OP raises a valid point. I have had numerous conversations about the existence of god, religious beliefs and such, with both people who are very into their religion and atheists. With those who are into their religion the conversation tends to end amicably, and with atheists it usually doesn't.

For the most part I would say that religious people trying to impress their views on others is an outdated notion, a stereotype, and one which atheists are increasingly, and sadly, beginning to fulfill. I often hear atheists state that religion is dangerous but in my opinion what is truly dangerous is a society in which everyone attempts to convert (or deconvert) each other. Live and let live is a motto which would serve everyone.

[Tiberius]

Talking about our views and trying to impress them on others are very different things. Unless you have any actual examples of atheists trying to "teach atheism" or trying to de-convert people, then you don't have much of a case.

As for your conversations, I suspect that it is your own views on the issues that contribute to your conclusion. To explain, for every conversation you have where you see an atheist as having ended it badly, I've had one where I see a theist ending it badly. People who have opposing viewpoints (such as theists / atheists) will always find it hard to have amicable conversations with each other on those viewpoints.

For theists, it appears as if the atheists are at fault. For atheists, it appears as if the theists are at fault. Put simply; your interpretation of how a conversation went is very subjective, and largely depends on your own personal beliefs.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

and one which atheists are increasingly, and sadly, beginning to fulfill.

Not something I've noticed. I HAVE noticed a small number of outspoken militants being given disproportionate attention. Many of those seem to be the same people who have made celebrities out of Dawkins and Hitchens.


Here in Australia, it's considered crass to wear one's personal beliefs on one's sleeve. (except for sports of course) Most normal people treat religious proselytisesr and militant atheists with a kind of amused contempt.

My own views are more common than not:I really don't care what others believe and will not argue with an agenda. I will sometimes give an opinion if asked a direct question,but only if I have some regard for the interlocutor.

Internet forums are a different world;anonymous and safe to express honest views..

[Scarface]

I sort of agree with that, Padraic. Although there should be no problem with someone wearing their views on their sleeve. I guess there's a good and a bad way to go about it. Most of my friends and acquaintances have strong views and it makes for great discussions, but there's one guy I know who is an atheist (I'm not picking on atheists but he happens to be one) and he doesn't understand the difference between an amicable albeit heated and lively conversation and a verbal confrontation. Needless to say, he's one of those people who is best taken in small doses. He always seems to have, to use your term, an agenda.

[Shell B]

Well, in defense of those "angry" atheists, it is easy to understand their anger, if you look at some of the common reasons for it. Religion is seen as superstitious hogwash by most of us. Now, that is no excuse in itself to be angry. However, the Crusades, the Palestinian conflict, the modern Catholic pedophilia issues, Jonestown, the Inquisitions, etc., leave some of us with a bitter taste in our mouths. It is hard to listen to someone saying "Yay, my god is so awesome. I will pray for you and life will be totally great." when the reality of the situation is that many religious beliefs have led to some of the most fucked up situations in the human history of the planet.

I'm not saying that I would approach conversations with any theist with anger. However, I do find it hard not to be pissed that someone could follow such obviously bloody, ignorant, power-hungry religions. For example, when someone says "I'm a Catholic." I often think, "You're either an asshole or you didn't pay attention in history class." That doesn't mean I say it, but I can't blame people who do.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Ignorance, obstinance and stupidity. Obstinance most of all, because stupidity can't be helped and ignorance can be cured.

Quite true.

As a deist, I believe in a creator based upon observable, tangible phenomena.

I would be too, if there were any, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

It seems to me that atheists are preoccupied with impressing their beliefs upon others, much like fundamentalist Christians do.

I'm sure many have done so in some manner of frivilous action against religious groups, but it hasn't been my experience that that sort of thing is common among atheists, but I suppose common sense would tell me that atheists are probably just as uppity like every other human being on the planet.
Being right or wrong on their beliefs is irrelevant in light of determining who is and is not a douchebag.

Atheists, and the un-American Criminal Liberties Union in particular, seem to spend a great deal of time and energy fighting things like recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and public prayer.

The ACLU is interested in protecting everyone's civil liberties, as others have noted here in this thread whether you're christian or atheist in the respect that the United States is a secular nation and they readily enforce the seporation of church and state, which means that they defend peoples' right to have or perform whatever religious actions or otherewise in the public setting and not have the state tell you what to do in that matter.
The reason the pledge is such a hot issue is because the pledge of allegence is something every student in virtually every classroom has to do and one of those things you have to do is acknowledge god. Personally, I don't think 'under god' should be in the pledge. Personally, I think prayer should be allowed in any public setting (where appropriate) as long as the state isn't enforcing a prayer or telling you not to prayer.
The ACLU's actions in these matters is always to defending the civil liberties of people, so if a student refuses to pledge because he doesn't want to say "under god" (regardless of the child's faith, or lack thereof) then the ACLU may choose to get involved or if it's something a bit more obvious, like a teacher forcing his or her class to prayer and getting students into serious trouble. If it's the school or even the state that's allowing this, then the ACLU (among other groups) would most certainly say "hell no".
I think 'defending our constitutional rights' of not being forced, by the state, to do one thing religious or another is exactly why the ACLU is one of the US's great defenders of our freedom.

The reason you hear of them being 'unamerican' is probably because you've been watching FOX news, because they're sure as hell going to give a trial airtime if the ACLU is involved in defending an atheist and you'll hear a lot about how evil that organization is in the process. If the ACLU is defending a christian's right to make prayer in a school, FOX will certainly report on the incident. You'll hear about how evil the school is but you'll be lucky to hear anyone utter "ACLU" except maybe in passing.

By the by, don't listen to FOX news. They're so biased for the republican/tea party that other programs like Jon Stewart and the Daily Show (a fake news program) is actually closer to being a real news program in contrast.

CNN and MSNBC don't seem to be much better, but their programs are far less ludicrous than FOX's (even if their commentators and talk shows are left-leaning.)
Personally, I watch MSNBC's Racheal Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and a few others on that channel occasionally, but I get most of my actual news from the Internet.

Will somebody please tell me where in the Constitution it states that there shall be freedom FROM religion? I don't get it. The Constitution simply states that Congress shall establish no State religion.

That is freedom from religion. We can't have the freedom to our own religion without it.

[Entropist]

Here in Australia, it's considered crass to wear one's personal beliefs on one's sleeve. (except for sports of course) Most normal people treat religious proselytisesr and militant atheists with a kind of amused contempt.

Culturally speaking, the attitude about religion is remarkably different in developed countries other than the US. There is a reason why foreigners often speak of "American-style Christianity" which usually means charismatic churches or other fundamentalist variety churches that tend to be more outspoken in public on religious issues.

It isn't just that there are less religious people in some of these other countries-- even among the religious, the attitude is different. Speaking from experience, living in New Zealand briefly back in 2007, I was surprised to see (as Padraic says) that religious and non-religious attitudes was not something worn on one's sleeve as it is in the US. No weird church signs, no weird bumper stickers (no bumper stickers at all, really), no t-shirts shouting out an opinion. It was refreshing actually.

Religion there seems to be more laid back, less in your face, and religion is not even an issue the politicians bring up. Kiwis find it odd, the US "Gawd bless America" nonsense that every US politician is expected to parrot. The last prime minister (Helen Clark) and the current one (John Key) aren't even religious (though its really considered bad taste to even ask the question because it is irrelevant to the position).

This is a country that recently had a MP, Georgina Byers. Georgina used to be George-- got a sex change some time ago-- and also was a former prostitute (I'm not sure if she was a prostitute before or after it was legalized there)-- and even wrote a book about her past-- this was not something she needed to be ashamed of. She was elected more than once. Nobody had a problem with this-- could you imagine THIS happening in the US?

One other story-- at the time I was living there, the big news was controversy over "child smacking" (spanking-- NZ sadly has really high rates of child abuse). It had been proposed to enact a law similar to Norway's which made child smacking illegal. I have mixed feelings on the issue myself, but that's beside the point. It was very controversial (still is, actually) and there was quite a lot of opposition to the bill. I saw in the paper that there was a demonstration being held by a bunch of churches. Being a US American, I thought to myself, "Well, here come the nutters with their 'Its my god-given right to beat the crap out of my child whenever I want to, gawd says so in the Bible!' schtick." I was mistaken. I had to re-read the article because my pre-conception as a US American was confusing me: No, these Christians were out in SUPPORT of the bill. Again, if this were the US, you know it would be the other way around.

NZ has one US American-style church, the "Destiny Church" which is a charismatic church modeled on the "prosperity gospel." They even have their own political party. They are nobodies and most kiwis think they are wacko. But in the US, idiots like this have a far stronger voice (and remember Dobson's regular meetings with Bush?).

I imagine it is much the same in Europe: Religion is simply irrelevant. Like when Oprah went to the Netherlands (atheists! socialists! potheads!) and was baffled how religion was simply dismissed with a shrug. Like these countries should fall off into the ocean, or why aren't they murdering and raping one another gleefully?

The only thing I can think of is that after centuries of religious (and in the 20th century, ideological) wars over the smallest quibbling nuance, much of Europe was simply exhausted from it all. They learned the hard way, by bitter experience, but as a consequence, religion and atheism are both largely unimportant. The experience in the US, for better or for worse, tells a very different story. Like the measles, getting it once immunizes one from it, but if you have never had it before-- well, that's what I find worrying about the prevalence of religious nuts in the US ("measles" here being religious wars, not "religion" per se). We have yet to learn what Europe has learned. There are also other (political) reasons why religion is less prominent in these countries but I won't get into that here.

I don't think people become enlightened by embracing rationality. Rationality is merely a tool to be used or abused. Its the best tool we have. But humans are NOT rational animals-- no one ever converted to religion because of an apologist's syllogism. Humans seem to learn only after a sufficiently large slaughter has occurred-- and I don't mean one event (9/11 changed nothing in the US-- it only made US Americans only more xenophobic and insular than they already were).

It is for this reason, I can't dismiss the teabaggers too lightly. These nuts used to be heard only on AM radio at 2 in the morning back in the early 90s. It has changed-- big money is involved. The teabaggers themselves are just tools. But to establish the sort of thing they want, it doesn't require intelligence. All it requires is people to line up. Might doesn't make right, but it does make history. Ideas, even great ideas, are irrelevant in the face of a mob.

I'm just rambling now and I've had one beer to many...

[AngryBiker]

---

Apparently you are ignorant of all the cases the ACLU has taken to court on behalf of Christians as well.

The first amendment is quite simple, but obviously understanding nuance is a rare ability, especially among US Americans... The violation of the first amendment can swing in two different directions, both of them equally bad:

Scenario 1:
A teacher at a public (i.e. taxpayer funded) school leads a class in morning prayer. The teacher is an employee of the state. The teacher is in violation of the first amendment because as a representative of the state she is establishing her religion in the classroom (even if she allows other students to sit out of the prayer).

Scenario 2:
A student at a public school is privately praying over his lunch in the cafeteria. A teacher comes over to him, asks him what he is doing. He says he is praying. The teacher then says you cannot pray here. Again, the teacher is in violation of the first amendment, being a representative of the state. The teacher (and by extension, the state) has no say in the student's beliefs or lack thereof.

The ACLU has gone to court over BOTH scenarios, and things similar to it.

That you fail to grasp this very simple concept means you either (a) fell asleep in civics class or (b) had a crappy civics teacher (probably a coach).

---

Yes, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. Big whoop.

---

I haven't read the whole of this thread and I don't pretend to have followed it but I must say that the OP raises a valid point. I have had numerous conversations about the existence of god, religious beliefs and such, with both people who are very into their religion and atheists. With those who are into their religion the conversation tends to end amicably, and with atheists it usually doesn't.

For the most part I would say that religious people trying to impress their views on others is an outdated notion, a stereotype, and one which atheists are increasingly, and sadly, beginning to fulfill. I often hear atheists state that religion is dangerous but in my opinion what is truly dangerous is a society in which everyone attempts to convert (or deconvert) each other. Live and let live is a motto which would serve everyone.

'For the most part I would say that religious people trying to impress their views on others is an outdated notion'

I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt and I heartily disagree. All your other points are spot on, though. Cheers. BTW, what's the OP?

[Eilonnwy]

An OP is "Original Poster" or "Original Post", which in this case would be you.