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.
Well, religion inspires evil deeds in some people. Perhaps yes, certain personality types will drift to a religion that encourages their evil actions, but any religion that destroys self esteem, teaches a person that they are a total failure, evil, sinner , lost etc and needs the religion and only the religion that speaks for their Deity, then yes, poor self esteem, self loathing can project into evil and hatred of the world.
I have met many hateful Christians in my life, and some try to use the Bible or their faith to justify their hatred.
I would speak up in that some religions stand in the way of a person reaching self-actualization and optimal mental health. Some stand in the way of happiness or success, or in allowing a person to fully enjoy their human experience. I would argue about that, just to prove a point. Not out of hatefulness but just to point out that sometimes in some cases, religion fails to bring hope and peace into a person's life.
I am quite content and happy as an atheist and so much more peaceful now than when I was a believer., I would want to warn people about known charlatans and con-artists that latch onto a religion as a way to defraud the public. If I see a problem, and I have a concern out of love for someone's well being and safety, then I will speak up.
I am sympathetic, KingCat. Changing the way the world works, as LearnMe calls it the slow maturing of humanity, is a messy business that does involve our individual efforts to improve it. The poet Ginsburg revealed the truly evocative power of poetic imagery when describing changing the world, IMO. He said: "The world is a mountain of S H I T and if it is to be moved at all it must be taken by handfuls."
Your choice of words/acknowledgment is telling i.e. ‘have to fight’; point being, ‘fighting’ is ineffective communication. Why do you feel as though you have no other options than to fight or have a tea party, lol? There’s plenty of reasonable middle ground to be had; or even better, simply don’t engage if others’ beliefs rile you - as they have every right to have said beliefs no matter how foolish they are, or how badly you want them to believe as you do.
As an atheist myself, I’m wary of those who ‘preach’/argue atheism with an anti-theistic (or excessively personal) slant. There is always a reason/need behind one’s behavior; and, when it involves anger/hate, it usually comes down to psychological dysfunction, as a whole. At the end of the day, per the thread, much of it has little to do with religion or atheism.
I guess the OP's word was argue, we can run with that if you like. The point is still valid.
In my experience and observation the slightest failure to agree (not even active disagreement) is seen as mean, nasty, rude, and fighting and arguing by many here. It gets hackles up even when it's not personal or snarky. And I think the reason for this tactic are legion but one of them is that it probably is somewhat effective in shutting down or at least inhibiting any opposition. And religious persons have, historically, been accustomed to zero opposition because they had social hegemony on their side to the point that they could get people greatly harmed, even killed, by simply declaring speech against the faith as "blasphemy". Fortunately almost all blasphemy laws are (for now anyway) retired, but many believers act like they aren't, or shouldn't be.
If the religious can get over themselves sufficiently to not be surprised and offended when someone fails to agree with them, if they would not escalate accordingly, I think that would take care of at least 90% of the "arguing" in this space. Don't confuse your beliefs with your identity. Don't confuse difference with existential jeopardy. Allow others to be as they are, listen and believe and respect them when they discuss their thinking even while disagreeing. It's not that hard. Indeed, it should in theory be easier for believers, as they are the ones who claim to have both the truth and to be "new creations".
I notice that many of the threads are ongoing arguments between believers of [enter something here] and non-believers.
Neither side will ever convince the other of their position, so I ask: why respond? Is it a visceral need to be right and to be acknowledged as being right?
Each side disputes the validity of the others' arguments. Each side argues from their "higher moral ground" position.
Why does anyone care what anyone else believes or thinks?
I am part of a minority in my religious beliefs, and it would never occur to me to tell someone else they are wrong and then try to "prove" it. I am not diminished by people not believing as I.
My mordant curiosity is asking these questions.
BECAUSE that is how religions were created in the first place.
Early members were faced with overwhelming task of converting the minds of someone who did not believe in every single example.
I want to thank many of the posters for their thoughtful responses. I originally viewed these verbal tussles as fighting to be right, but I now see that some posters are struggling (in their own way) to "save" others.
I am not the judge of the veracity of these claims, but I acknowledge that it may be the motivating factor for some people.
I hardly ever post in these forums, but this headline question grabbed me.
The question is a good one not just for religion, but also for politics.
I guess I would answer for politics, we argue because we're trying to convince people of a better way to do something. Whether it's a better way to live, govern, deal with crime, approach foreign policy, etc. We're trying to affect change.
In religion, I have spent long chapters of my life on different sides of the question. I have been agnostic/atheist, I have been religious and evangelist. I have strained and lost important relationships on both sides arguing about it.
I realized one day, talking with a religious friend during an agnostic chapter, that nothing I believe can replace what she has. The peace she has, the faith she has. It's a peace I have felt. I saw that to try to make her doubt that faith was remarkably selfish and cruel of me. Especially because I can offer nothing that would be of comfort to her in its place.
I understand why the religious want to save the unbeliever, and it's a moral goal, though it should never be uninvited or unwanted.
I can support the agnostic doubter seeking proof, if the motive is to understand the beliefs of others. It is healthy and part of the process to question and seek confirmation.
I can't condone the atheist wanting to take the faith of the believer. Those seeking to confront the faithful and talk them out of their belief. What are you giving them? If you can't replace their God with something better, then why would you take it from them? If you change their mind, you gain nothing. They lose everything. A nice person should never want to do that.
I can't condone the atheist wanting to take the faith of the believer. Those seeking to confront the faithful and talk them out of their belief. What are you giving them? If you can't replace their God with something better, then why would you take it from them? If you change their mind, you gain nothing. They lose everything. A nice person should never want to do that.
That's my perspective.
Good post.
As for the above, i never can understand that either. The only explanation that comes to mind is misery loves company. Converting someone validates one’s own condition.
If the religious can get over themselves sufficiently to not be surprised and offended when someone fails to agree with them, if they would not escalate accordingly, I think that would take care of at least 90% of the "arguing" in this space.
Your every statement appears to be biased/aggressive i.e. ‘if the religious can get over themselves’. Who cares if they don’t? It’s absolutely nonsensical, from my perspective, to place the blame on either side i.e. it takes two to argue (although some appear to do so with themselves, lol).
In other words, a person who invests their emotional energy/time into arguing personal opinion (over something that doesn’t even exist, from my perspective) is doing so for some underlying (psychological) reason, particularly relative to an offensive/repetitive stance. I certainly understand defending/arguing our rights as atheists; that said, I don’t understand the personal/intensive arguments relative to opinion/threads which essentially all sound the same. It’s more than clear many are grounded in antitheism; and, obviously, it’s extremely short-sighted to attack/argue/hate another’s right to believe if we want to protect our right not to. Relative to law (and psychological health), it’s common sense.
I can't condone the atheist wanting to take the faith of the believer. Those seeking to confront the faithful and talk them out of their belief. What are you giving them? If you can't replace their God with something better, then why would you take it from them? If you change their mind, you gain nothing. They lose everything. A nice person should never want to do that.
That's my perspective.
Excellent post. I would direct this portion specifically to the atheist Thrillobyte! HEY THRILL, WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO THIS POST???
Excerpt:
...I can't condone the atheist wanting to take the faith of the believer.
Those seeking to confront the faithful and talk them out of their belief.
What are you giving them?
If you can't replace their God with something better, then why would you take it from them?
If you change their mind, you gain nothing. They lose everything. A nice person should never want to do that.
That's my perspective.
Wow...you go girl!
I can understand, yet, not exactly condone....changing some 'off' beliefs...but often they are replaced
by 'better' beliefs...ok ... What I mean is ...Say, someone believes that God is a punishing, wrathful God...
I think it is just dandy to try to change their belief to:
'He' is simply Pure Love and always wants the best for us.
............
Btw, thrill has given his reason for this apparent mission of his a few times here.
I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.
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.
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.
3-4 posts back
... 
