U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-10-2013, 11:44 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,501 times
Reputation: 1317

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post

The only difference I see between modern, current day militant Theists and militant Atheist is their belief in a God of some description or the lack of belief.

They are two sides of the same coin......when the obsession with non existence becomes so over encompassing that you feel the need to sue others over it, it has become a sort of religion in it's own right.
You are either not stopping to look critically at this, or just sticking you fingers in your ears. No one is being sued over the issue of the existence of a god. Not by the ACLU, not by the FFRF, not by American Atheists, not by anyone that I am aware of. What is being litigated is using the power and influence of the government to endorse religion and the right of businesses open to the public to discriminate based on religion. The political and social battles are about legal rights and social acceptance, not the actual question of the existence of a god.

I am just not sure where you are getting this from. The difference between you and the FFRF is not your belief in a higher power, it is that you feel that the line is in a different place regarding separation of church and state. It is a difference in politic and approach, not some distinction between atheist and agnostic.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2013, 03:16 AM
 
39,202 posts, read 10,880,280 times
Reputation: 5095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
Correct me all you like, it will fall on deaf ears.
Because the continued insistence on being factually correct about the dictionary definitions comes off as nothing more than condescending arrogance and pseudo intellectualism for it's own sake.

The fact is I really don't care, so feel free to take your toys and play in another sandbox.
I don't even need to translate that.

Correction of errors in thinking, logic and fact is dismissed as 'arrogance'. Explanations will fall on 'deaf ears' and you claim the right to 'not care' what we explain and go off retaining all your prejudices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
Everything you say has here as much credence as anything I might answer with.
I never said that a "higher power" must be some form of religious based Deity.....but I do not insist that it is not either.

I use the term higher power simply because it would be just that, higher on a scale of understanding than I am capable of.....and I'm sure if you asked others they might say it's also because I'm a knuckle dragging cretin with a limited vocabulary.
One last time ? Nor do we. We know nothing about what it might be and haven't seen any credible evidence presented for its existence. Thus 'don't know' is the only credible knowledge position and not to believe in what we don't know - and haven't seen any credible evidence for - that's the point - is the only logically valid position, and you cannot believe and not believe at the same time. That is not the matter of bad courtroom dramas but of being able to think straight.

None of this is anything to do with organized religion, so it is irrelevant to the campaign to get 'In God we trust' off the currency. Now, you can either take our 'toys' to another sandpit or use them as the proper grown -up mental tools that we use to carve out reliable facts from a mess of claims.

The exchange has just shown that we are being more reasonable, logical and indeed open -minded. You can be willing to listen and learn and become a better human being. We all learn. I learn all the time. Refusal to listen and learn only hurts you, not us.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-11-2013 at 03:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
8,132 posts, read 2,788,478 times
Reputation: 4393
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
You are either not stopping to look critically at this, or just sticking you fingers in your ears. No one is being sued over the issue of the existence of a god. Not by the ACLU, not by the FFRF, not by American Atheists, not by anyone that I am aware of. What is being litigated is using the power and influence of the government to endorse religion and the right of businesses open to the public to discriminate based on religion. The political and social battles are about legal rights and social acceptance, not the actual question of the existence of a god.

I am just not sure where you are getting this from. The difference between you and the FFRF is not your belief in a higher power, it is that you feel that the line is in a different place regarding separation of church and state. It is a difference in politic and approach, not some distinction between atheist and agnostic.

-NoCapo
You are correct, I did not mean to imply that people are being sued over the issue of the existence of God.......But it was late and I was tired.

What I should have said was "When the obsession with non existence becomes so over encompassing that you feel the need to start non profit organizations whose mission is to sue others over where symbols of religion are placed in public view, that degree of Atheism becomes sort of a religion in it's own right".
And the the lawsuits, court orders and insistence of the use of milktoast, non denominational phrases like "Holiday Tree" becomes sort of your Crusade.
This type of Atheism has become tied in with the increasingly secular nature of politics and society in general and has led to a certain degree of Christian bashing becoming a socially acceptable prejudice for many.
Many of these same people would never dream of speaking ill of Muslims for example, and would be the first to jump up and point a finger of racism at anyone who dares point out the obvious facts that most terrorists are Muslim or the way that the horrible treatment of women is considered acceptable in Muslim culture .....because the truth does not matter if it's not politically correct and pointing something like that out is a cardinal sin in the religion of Secularism.
And before anyone responds with the wrongs that Christianity has wrought on the world, e.g. the Crusades etc......I have already acknowledged that.
And you have to remember that the Crusades were quite a long time ago....I'm talking about now, today.....and for the life of me, I can't seem to recall the last time The Inquisition knocked on my door.

But I am starting to ramble.....


A few have asked if I agree with the separation of church and state, and you point out that I am just drawing the line in a different place....Again, you are correct.

I do believe in the separation of church and state but not to the same degree that many Atheist or Secular Humanists do.
Most of them I talk to love quote the Establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" But they also conveniently leave out the Free Exercise part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
I draw the line further into the second part, giving a lot of leeway into what I consider "Free Exercise".

I am quite adamant about the Establishment clause, the government has no business telling me or anyone else what, if any religion to follow. However I do not subscribe to the notion that putting a Christmas tree on public property is forcing me to be Christian or to follow Christian dogma.
Partly because I am confident in my own free will and partly because I think that Christmas has become an American tradition that does not necessarily have to be joined at the hip to Christianity.
And even though I don't like organized religion in general, I do have some admittedly biased feelings for the traditions of Christianity, again simply because thats how I was raised and because these traditions have become so ingrained into American culture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
8,132 posts, read 2,788,478 times
Reputation: 4393
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I don't even need to translate that.

Correction of errors in thinking, logic and fact is dismissed as 'arrogance'. Explanations will fall on 'deaf ears' and you claim the right to 'not care' what we explain and go off retaining all your prejudices.



One last time ? Nor do we. We know nothing about what it might be and haven't seen any credible evidence presented for its existence. Thus 'don't know' is the only credible knowledge position and not to believe in what we don't know - and haven't seen any credible evidence for - that's the point - is the only logically valid position, and you cannot believe and not believe at the same time. That is not the matter of bad courtroom dramas but of being able to think straight.

None of this is anything to do with organized religion, so it is irrelevant to the campaign to get 'In God we trust' off the currency. Now, you can either take our 'toys' to another sandpit or use them as the proper grown -up mental tools that we use to carve out reliable facts from a mess of claims.

The exchange has just shown that we are being more reasonable, logical and indeed open -minded. You can be willing to listen and learn and become a better human being. We all learn. I learn all the time. Refusal to listen and learn only hurts you, not us.


I do not need you to "correct my thinking".

What some of you don't get is that I am not trying to convince you that my opinions and definitions of Atheist VS Agnostic are correct and that yours are wrong.

Again, it is my OPINION that the concepts that the words represent are not based on any provable facts and therefore are only a statement or description of a system of beliefs or lack of beliefs based on thought, conjecture and OPINION....therefore I have as much right to my definition of what constitutes Agnostic as anyone else does.......I am not here because I wish to change your opinion or your beliefs, and I do not require having my opinions or beliefs fiddled with because I am not Prothletising.

But apparently some of you feel that "correcting my thinking" is necessary by insisting on the dictionary definitions of Atheist VS Agnostic are the only correct ones, even when the vast majority of the unwashed masses that I'm apparently a part of uses the same definitions that I do.

Do you not see how this can come across as lecturing and condescending?

Refusal to listen is a two way street.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 08:23 AM
 
7,378 posts, read 6,735,065 times
Reputation: 1253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
I do not need you to "correct my thinking".

What some of you don't get is that I am not trying to convince you that my opinions and definitions of Atheist VS Agnostic are correct and that yours are wrong.

Again, it is my OPINION that the concepts that the words represent are not based on any provable facts and therefore are only a statement or description of a system of beliefs or lack of beliefs based on thought, conjecture and OPINION....therefore I have as much right to my definition of what constitutes Agnostic as anyone else does.......I am not here because I wish to change your opinion or your beliefs, and I do not require having my opinions or beliefs fiddled with because I am not Prothletising.

But apparently some of you feel that "correcting my thinking" is necessary by insisting on the dictionary definitions of Atheist VS Agnostic are the only correct ones, even when the vast majority of the unwashed masses that I'm apparently a part of uses the same definitions that I do.

Do you not see how this can come across as lecturing and condescending?

Refusal to listen is a two way street.
You can have your opinions, but when you publicly label individuals as something they are not or misrepresent yourself because of your opinions , expect to be corrected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
8,132 posts, read 2,788,478 times
Reputation: 4393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
You can have your opinions, but when you publicly label individuals as something they are not or misrepresent yourself because of your opinions , expect to be corrected.
What exactly is it about this sentence:

What some of you don't get is that I am not trying to convince you that my opinions and definitions of Atheist VS Agnostic are correct and that yours are wrong.


That is so difficult to understand?

My misrepresenting anything exists solely between your ears....so feel free to correct me if it makes you feel skippy but do not expect me to take your criticisms of my opinion based definitions seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 08:56 AM
 
39,202 posts, read 10,880,280 times
Reputation: 5095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
I do not need you to "correct my thinking".

What some of you don't get is that I am not trying to convince you that my opinions and definitions of Atheist VS Agnostic are correct and that yours are wrong.

Again, it is my OPINION that the concepts that the words represent are not based on any provable facts and therefore are only a statement or description of a system of beliefs or lack of beliefs based on thought, conjecture and OPINION....therefore I have as much right to my definition of what constitutes Agnostic as anyone else does.......I am not here because I wish to change your opinion or your beliefs, and I do not require having my opinions or beliefs fiddled with because I am not Prothletising.

But apparently some of you feel that "correcting my thinking" is necessary by insisting on the dictionary definitions of Atheist VS Agnostic are the only correct ones, even when the vast majority of the unwashed masses that I'm apparently a part of uses the same definitions that I do.

Do you not see how this can come across as lecturing and condescending?

Refusal to listen is a two way street.
You need somebody to correct your thinking. Essentially you are doing the not very original trick of defining for us what we are and what we think and then bashing us for it and when we correct you, you pull this overbearing arrogance thing.

And don't try the 'Just telling you about it' ploy. Anyone who comes here (never mind with the hypercritical tone of the OP - and I repeat, this is us you are talking about, because suggesting that 'get God off the money' types and holiday tree advocates are some kind of lunatic fringe like the Westoboro lot was wrongheaded) and sets out their case can expect to get it questioned. And you are not listening, you are wriggling. And we have listened very carefully and that your arguments are false, illogical and somewhat two hatted, is hardly our fault.

P.s I can understand your argument that opposing public Christmas traditions is overdoing it, we had the same thing here with a wrangle about British Airways staff wearing Christian symbols. The fact is that thin wedge ends have to be pushed back and sometimes it fails because the public agrees with you rather than us, but I am not going to say that the effort was wrong or that they are some kind of atheist lunatic fringe. This is all part of the need for reliigion to abide by the rules rather than claim exemption.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-11-2013 at 10:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 09:40 AM
 
7,378 posts, read 6,735,065 times
Reputation: 1253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
What exactly is it about this sentence:

What some of you don't get is that I am not trying to convince you that my opinions and definitions of Atheist VS Agnostic are correct and that yours are wrong.


That is so difficult to understand?

My misrepresenting anything exists solely between your ears....so feel free to correct me if it makes you feel skippy but do not expect me to take your criticisms of my opinion based definitions seriously.
Your actions don't match your words. Certainly you are trying to convince us that your definitions are correct and ours are wrong, by bashing us and trying to separate yourself from us by redefining words. You can't hold a candle against some of the intellectuals on this forum (myself not included), and this seems to intimidate you. Maybe you'd do better by finding new words to redefine yourself instead of redefining the words you'd like to define yourself with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 10:29 AM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,501 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
You are correct, I did not mean to imply that people are being sued over the issue of the existence of God.......But it was late and I was tired.

What I should have said was "When the obsession with non existence becomes so over encompassing that you feel the need to start non profit organizations whose mission is to sue others over where symbols of religion are placed in public view, that degree of Atheism becomes sort of a religion in it's own right".
You might still be tired. Public view is a non issue, even for those atheist devils at the FFRF, Public funding and government endorsement, those are an issue and are what we are talking about, not public display. Believers can still wear their religious jewelry, have their nativities, their menorahs, whatever. Just not at city hall, and not at the taxpayer's expense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
And the the lawsuits, court orders and insistence of the use of milktoast, non denominational phrases like "Holiday Tree" becomes sort of your Crusade.
Again to be fair, I looked at the active FFRF cases and did a quick google. Usually the "happy holidays" thing is not a lawsuit, it is an employer directive to try to keep a culturally diverse group of people in the stores and buying stuff. None of this has anything to do with your original scapegoat, the FFRF, and very little can be laid at the feet of "atheists"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
This type of Atheism has become tied in with the increasingly secular nature of politics and society in general and has led to a certain degree of Christian bashing becoming a socially acceptable prejudice for many.
Many of these same people would never dream of speaking ill of Muslims for example, and would be the first to jump up and point a finger of racism at anyone who dares point out the obvious facts that most terrorists are Muslim or the way that the horrible treatment of women is considered acceptable in Muslim culture .....because the truth does not matter if it's not politically correct and pointing something like that out is a cardinal sin in the religion of Secularism.
And before anyone responds with the wrongs that Christianity has wrought on the world, e.g. the Crusades etc......I have already acknowledged that.
And you have to remember that the Crusades were quite a long time ago....I'm talking about now, today.....and for the life of me, I can't seem to recall the last time The Inquisition knocked on my door.

But I am starting to ramble.....
As a matter of fact, the "PC" crowd has a big problem with "hardcore atheists", because they do call down other religions! There was a huge salon article a while back lambasting folks like Dawkins and Hitches for their harsh criticism of Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a notable figure, braving death threats and violence to speak out against the oppression of women in the name of Islam in her home country of Somalia. Political Atheist activism is not about being "mean" to Christians, it is about ensuring that no religious group is able to abuse the law and the coercive power of government!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
A few have asked if I agree with the separation of church and state, and you point out that I am just drawing the line in a different place....Again, you are correct.

I do believe in the separation of church and state but not to the same degree that many Atheist or Secular Humanists do.
Most of them I talk to love quote the Establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" But they also conveniently leave out the Free Exercise part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
I draw the line further into the second part, giving a lot of leeway into what I consider "Free Exercise".

I am quite adamant about the Establishment clause, the government has no business telling me or anyone else what, if any religion to follow. However I do not subscribe to the notion that putting a Christmas tree on public property is forcing me to be Christian or to follow Christian dogma.
Partly because I am confident in my own free will and partly because I think that Christmas has become an American tradition that does not necessarily have to be joined at the hip to Christianity.
And even though I don't like organized religion in general, I do have some admittedly biased feelings for the traditions of Christianity, again simply because thats how I was raised and because these traditions have become so ingrained into American culture.
I quite agree with everything you have here. If any one was suing to be free of Christmas trees, I would roll my eyes and think that was kind of dumb.

It is a good thing that that is not generally what is going on. Religious symbols like crosses, National days of prayer, public funding of religious organizations, sectarian religious education in public schools, religious discrimination, these are the issues being litigated. These are important issues, and while they are certainly more trivial than Somalian female genital mutilation, that doesn't mean that should not and cannot be addressed.

To be honest the two things that both me the most here is your reliance on strawmen, and the conflation of political action with atheism itself.
You really seem to be clutching to a caricature of atheism, that we are trying to destroy religion, that we hate Christianity (and Christianity only) that we are somehow to be conflated with politically correct "liberals" (Never read much Hitchens, have you? ) This is what I thought when I was a Christian. It was what was fed to me by Focus on the Family, the ACLJ, the HSLDA, and other politically active Christian organizations. It is what was drilled into my head for two weeks a Summit ministries. It is quite frankly, untrue. Atheist come in all flavors. At the core is only the simple lack of belief in a god or gods. Not saying you are, but if you sources for understanding atheism are coming from politcally right or religious sources, please take the time to look further. The strawman you are attacking is the kind you normally see at WorldNetDaily, Fox News, or religious groups. It just isn't accurate.

The second thing is that you seem to equate political activism with some sort of "fundamentalist" atheism. It really doesn't have anything to do with it. Unlike religion, with is differing rules, and varying degrees of observance, atheism is simple. Just unbelief. There is no hardcore unbelief or liberal unbelief, or charismatic unbelief. Just unbelief. The political and social activism of groups like FFRF and American Atheists are because these individuals are personality-wise campaigners and crusader, folk who want to rally behind a cause. Has nothing to do with being a "hardcore" atheist. Us libertarian-ish non-joiner atheists have exactly the same atheism, we just don't like politics. There just isn't such a thing as "hardcore" or "fundamentalist" atheism. Its all the same thing, simple unbelief.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
8,132 posts, read 2,788,478 times
Reputation: 4393
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
You need somebody to correct your thinking. Essentially you are doing the not very original trick of defining for us what we are and what we think and then bashing us for it and when we correct you, you pull this overbearing arrogance thing.

And don't try the 'Just telling you about it' ploy. Anyone who comes here (never mind with the hypercritical tone of the OP - and I repeat, this is us you are talking about, because suggesting that 'get God off the money' types and holiday tree advocates are some kind of lunatic fringe like the Westoboro lot was wrongheaded) and sets out their case can expect to get it questioned. And you are not listening, you are wriggling. And we have listened very carefully and that your arguments are false, illogical and somewhat two hatted, is hardly our fault.
I have repeatedly said that my comments in the OP are not directed at all Atheists but rather the Harcore, Activist type Atheist.
What makes you think that when I talk about Activist Atheist that I am bashing all Atheists?

And I have no idea what the "just telling you about it ploy: is.

I certainly do not mean accuse all of you who have responded to this thread of being overbearing and arrogant, but as I have said, all my arguments are based on my opinions, so like it or not, when some of you bash my opinions as "false, illogical etc. or make comparisons to Unicorns and Leprechauns it does come off as overbearing arrogance to anyone who does not share your opinions

That may not be the way you intend it, but thats the way it comes out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top