Organized Religion seems harmful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The minister was even careful to use language like "what a spiritual person might call..." and "I think". I really don't see how anybody even half-way sincere could take offense at what somebody else is being extra careful to frame as their own views.

I am more than half-way sincere and can see how someone could take offense. I do take offense at immediate pp's put-down of previous pp's viewpoint. There is room for much misunderstanding of religious viewpoints. In the US, we have worked over the years to be understanding and accepting of people of other religions. Now I think we could use some work at being more understanding and accepting of people of no religion. We have always been around. Now there are more of us and more are openly identifying as non-religious. We tend to be upstanding and law-abiding citizens and even if we weren't, we deserve to be treated with the same respect as people who hold a god belief.

Of course, and your desire for respect is completely understandable and valid. I too think atheists deserve more respect.

But atheist pp is asserting that a religious person shouldnt say "I think..." and "religious people think..." because even telling you what they think is somehow offensive. On a thread claiming that organized religion is harmful and scripture is bs, no less.

If you want respect, you have to give respect. That goes for judgemental religious people and it goes for DCUM's atheists as well.

I don't think atheist pp said that. Reading back, it was an interpretation someone made about atheist pp's reaction to the minister.

I do have a problem with the terminology "DCUM's atheists" - as if we are all alike and need to be chastised. Imagine talking about "DCUM's African Americans" or "DCUM's gays" that way.

The atheist is the one who put bold highlights over those two phrases. As if a believer even expressing what she "thinks" is offensive to this poor atheist's sensitive wars.

There's one atheist on DCUM who is a babyish a$$. That "don't tell me what you think" pp is probably her. Unfortunately, without usernames, her behavior has the potential to stain other atheists. I think most of us have her number, though, and write her off as a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The minister was even careful to use language like "what a spiritual person might call..." and "I think". I really don't see how anybody even half-way sincere could take offense at what somebody else is being extra careful to frame as their own views.

I am more than half-way sincere and can see how someone could take offense. I do take offense at immediate pp's put-down of previous pp's viewpoint. There is room for much misunderstanding of religious viewpoints. In the US, we have worked over the years to be understanding and accepting of people of other religions. Now I think we could use some work at being more understanding and accepting of people of no religion. We have always been around. Now there are more of us and more are openly identifying as non-religious. We tend to be upstanding and law-abiding citizens and even if we weren't, we deserve to be treated with the same respect as people who hold a god belief.

Of course, and your desire for respect is completely understandable and valid. I too think atheists deserve more respect.

But atheist pp is asserting that a religious person shouldnt say "I think..." and "religious people think..." because even telling you what they think is somehow offensive. On a thread claiming that organized religion is harmful and scripture is bs, no less.

If you want respect, you have to give respect. That goes for judgemental religious people and it goes for DCUM's atheists as well.

I don't think atheist pp said that. Reading back, it was an interpretation someone made about atheist pp's reaction to the minister.

I do have a problem with the terminology "DCUM's atheists" - as if we are all alike and need to be chastised. Imagine talking about "DCUM's African Americans" or "DCUM's gays" that way.

The atheist is the one who put bold highlights over those two phrases. As if a believer even expressing what she "thinks" is offensive to this poor atheist's sensitive wars.

There's one atheist on DCUM who is a babyish a$$. That "don't tell me what you think" pp is probably her. Unfortunately, without usernames, her behavior has the potential to stain other atheists. I think most of us have her number, though, and write her off as a troll.

PP is an exception. As a rule, Christians are not so nasty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI to the minister -- your last few communications have been with a different poster.

Getting back to your #4 - are you saying you regularly see "deathbed conversions"? Maybe not always to an established religion, but from people who have said they were atheists who when close to death say they they now believe in "god"?

If so, I'd imagine this would be a common occurrence in Hospice and would think there'd be a lot written about it.
I didn't find anything in a cursory google search. Could you direct me to information on this?

Thanks

We were just talking about exactly this at my Hospice Center. There are four Ministers working at the center. One of them is a more traditional protestant minister. One is a Catholic Nun. One is an AME Pastor. And then me. I am an Interfaith Minister. I am one they call for anyone who isn't mainline Protestant or Catholic. I am trained to minister to people of all faiths. I by default, get all the Atheists (along with a lot of people from Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist faiths). To me, it's all the same.

I don't see what most people would describe as "deathbed conversions". Not in the sense of people asking for my help to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior". I have literally never had that happen. However, most of the people I spend time with at the end of life seem to become more spiritual as they approach their final days. Maybe not religious, but certainly interested in talking about after-life, benevolent God, forgiveness, etc.

BUT - and I think this is really important - Keep in mind that I am a minister. I visit everyone who comes into our center regardless of faith at least a couple of times. I introduce myself, do a quick spiritual assessment, talk with the family, and let them know there is a minister on call any time they might need us. I can't visit every patient every day. We have 50 patients in our center and between 30 and 50 under Home Hospice Care. A lot of my visits are at the request of the family or the patient. If a patient has asked to see me or has asked that I remain bedside, chances are they are already thinking about religious or spiritual issues. A person who is not interested in talking about religion is not likely asking to see a minister.

I guess my answer would be that in my experience even atheists who had no interest in talking with me when they were admitted to Hospice often ask for me when death becomes more of a reality. But it's less about a "conversion" and more a need to express renewed interest in spirituality. Really it's not that different than the Catholic who hasn't been to Mass in many years - They will often ask me to give them Holy Eucharist. Or they'll ask for a Priest to come in and give them Last Rites.

My discussion with my fellow Minsters led us to a couple of possible conclusions - The most obvious is that an atheist who was raised in a religious family finds comfort in the familiarity of religious sacrament. Another is that the atheist who was raised in an evangelical church starts to question. And that's scary. I know how powerful those images of hell are. I was raised Southern Baptist. The patient may be seeking that "Blessed Assurance". But more often, I see patients who begin to experience and feel things they can't explain. They aren't interested in hearing me read the Bible or preach. But they do want to talk about God.

Thanks for this look into hospice life. Please tell me, regarding my original question -- what do you know about writings on atheists regularly becoming more religious or spiritual in hospice.

Reminder to the hospice minister -- could you respond to the above question?

[Anonymous]

OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.

I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.

The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.

I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.

The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.

Did you see the posts where the minister apologized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.

I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.

The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.

Did you see the posts where the minister apologized?

Yes, just addressing the follow-up posts from others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.

I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.

The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.

Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.

If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI to the minister -- your last few communications have been with a different poster.

Getting back to your #4 - are you saying you regularly see "deathbed conversions"? Maybe not always to an established religion, but from people who have said they were atheists who when close to death say they they now believe in "god"?

If so, I'd imagine this would be a common occurrence in Hospice and would think there'd be a lot written about it.
I didn't find anything in a cursory google search. Could you direct me to information on this?

Thanks

We were just talking about exactly this at my Hospice Center. There are four Ministers working at the center. One of them is a more traditional protestant minister. One is a Catholic Nun. One is an AME Pastor. And then me. I am an Interfaith Minister. I am one they call for anyone who isn't mainline Protestant or Catholic. I am trained to minister to people of all faiths. I by default, get all the Atheists (along with a lot of people from Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist faiths). To me, it's all the same.

I don't see what most people would describe as "deathbed conversions". Not in the sense of people asking for my help to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior". I have literally never had that happen. However, most of the people I spend time with at the end of life seem to become more spiritual as they approach their final days. Maybe not religious, but certainly interested in talking about after-life, benevolent God, forgiveness, etc.

BUT - and I think this is really important - Keep in mind that I am a minister. I visit everyone who comes into our center regardless of faith at least a couple of times. I introduce myself, do a quick spiritual assessment, talk with the family, and let them know there is a minister on call any time they might need us. I can't visit every patient every day. We have 50 patients in our center and between 30 and 50 under Home Hospice Care. A lot of my visits are at the request of the family or the patient. If a patient has asked to see me or has asked that I remain bedside, chances are they are already thinking about religious or spiritual issues. A person who is not interested in talking about religion is not likely asking to see a minister.

I guess my answer would be that in my experience even atheists who had no interest in talking with me when they were admitted to Hospice often ask for me when death becomes more of a reality. But it's less about a "conversion" and more a need to express renewed interest in spirituality. Really it's not that different than the Catholic who hasn't been to Mass in many years - They will often ask me to give them Holy Eucharist. Or they'll ask for a Priest to come in and give them Last Rites.

My discussion with my fellow Minsters led us to a couple of possible conclusions - The most obvious is that an atheist who was raised in a religious family finds comfort in the familiarity of religious sacrament. Another is that the atheist who was raised in an evangelical church starts to question. And that's scary. I know how powerful those images of hell are. I was raised Southern Baptist. The patient may be seeking that "Blessed Assurance". But more often, I see patients who begin to experience and feel things they can't explain. They aren't interested in hearing me read the Bible or preach. But they do want to talk about God.

Thanks for this look into hospice life. Please tell me, regarding my original question -- what do you know about writings on atheists regularly becoming more religious or spiritual in hospice.

Good afternoon. Minster here. I'm honestly a little afraid to answer. I don't want to come across as condescending or as a "know it all" because that's not the person I ever want to be. And I don't mean that in a snarky way. I hold the belief that none of us really have the answers and none of us likely ever will. We are all on our own paths and I don't view mine as more sacred than anyone else's. I was really trying to be clear about that. I became a minister after many of years of religious and spiritual struggle. I can't in integrity say that I was ever truly atheist. Maybe at one point agnostic. I worked in churches for several years. I became a Hospice Minister after I walked with my best friend through her diagnosis of cancer, her treatments, and finally her death. I struggled with trying to understand why a loving God would take someone like my friend. She was so good. She spent her life in service to others. She was not perfect, but she lived her life with compassion and love for others. She was a New Thought (Unity) Minster who truly loved everyone. I could not figure out why God would take her and leave the guy that broke into my church and stole the computer, for example. That struggle is what ultimately led me to work for Hopsice.

I feel strongly that our life experiences shape our beliefs. For the Christian to insist that Jesus is the only way ignores the very real effect of family and culture on religion. If I had been born in Saudi Arabia, I would likely be Muslim for example. We don't escape those early life experiences easily. Most people are the religion they are because of their parents.

How does that answer your question? People often (not always) become religious and/or spiritual when faced with a life crisis. Or, if they are already religious, they change their religious beliefs or reject religion altogether. Death certainly qualifies as a life crisis both for the patient and for the family. I'm not sure if you are asking for peer reviewed studies on religion and spirituality at death. There have been many, many books written on the subject. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by providing a list of google results.

My role at Hospice is not to "save" anyone. First, I don't believe people need to be saved. I believe every single person on this planet is inherently good. And second, that's not what dying people need. And my primary role is to hold a space for a peaceful transition. People who are at peace spiritually, die better. We know this as fact. That's why I have a job. We see less terminal restlessness, less struggle, and better pain control with people who are at peace spiritually. An atheist who is completely at peace with his belief isn't struggling with issues of God and spirituality and therefore is unlikely to ask for a minister. However, I have never spent time with a dying patient (and I have been with hundreds and hundreds of them) who did not want to talk about some aspect of spirituality in the weeks and months before death. It's not about religion or Bible verses or salvation. It's a need to make sense of a life. It's a life review process that always seems to lead to spiritual discussion. It's a need for discussion of big picture. Of relationships. Of forgiveness and closure. And almost always of some type of "God".

Again, I'm simply sharing my personal (really important, these are my own) experiences as someone who is with dying patients almost every single day. The patient I was with about two hours ago was Buddhist. He and his friend wanted me to share meditations on impermanence. Many Buddhists would consider themselves atheists. However, are they really? If you think about the beliefs of the Mahayana Buddhist, for example, Spirit is a huge part of that tradition. In sharing a meditation on impermanence, we are acknowledging that the body dies but the spirit remains. We are acknowledging a path towards goodness through repeated lifetimes. He may not believe in a God as in a man with a beard sitting on a throne judging sin. But I would argue that God for him is the process of rebirth. (*I would like to add that I am not an expert in Buddhism. As an interfaith minister I need to know a little about a lot of faith paths.)

I really, really hope I don't sound condescending this time. I would ask the readers to understand that too often we lose tone in internet discussion. I love to talk about spirituality and religion and apologize for taking so long to respond. Obviously, my patients and their families take priority while I am at work. Also, please remember that I am not interested in writing a peer reviewed paper on atheists and death. There are many and you can find them with a simple google search. I was simply sharing my personal experiences working with the dying. Spirituality, God, religion, forgiveness, life-meaning, etc are always issues that come up with any patient well enough to talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.

I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.

The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.

Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.

If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.

I have posted on other threads (and maybe this one?) that I believe religion is net negative. I haven't posted much else on this thread. Sorry if you feel that is disrespectful but it's not a personal statement about you, an individual, and your beliefs. It's my observation (as an outsider) generally about religions over the course of mankind. The minister was making generalizations for all atheists/all people, as individuals and their experiences. And it was off-base for me. It's understandable because she grew up in a deeply religious family. All of her references tie back to religion/faith/etc. None of that works in my framework. Not just the terminology.

I get that she was trying to be polite about it, but she was still trying to connect dots that don't need to be connected for some people. Presuming that those dots NEED to be connected. And I did find her tone condescending - she wrote as if she had it all figured out, but clearly doesn't. Which is fine - none of us do. But don't write as if you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.

I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.

The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.

Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.

If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.

Quick question - what did you mean by this? You think I should have bolder it as something that wasn't true? Or something else? I didn't get the reference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.

I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.

The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.

Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.

If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.

I have posted on other threads (and maybe this one?) that I believe religion is net negative. I haven't posted much else on this thread. Sorry if you feel that is disrespectful but it's not a personal statement about you, an individual, and your beliefs. It's my observation (as an outsider) generally about religions over the course of mankind. The minister was making generalizations for all atheists/all people, as individuals and their experiences. And it was off-base for me. It's understandable because she grew up in a deeply religious family. All of her references tie back to religion/faith/etc. None of that works in my framework. Not just the terminology.

I get that she was trying to be polite about it, but she was still trying to connect dots that don't need to be connected for some people. Presuming that those dots NEED to be connected. And I did find her tone condescending - she wrote as if she had it all figured out, but clearly doesn't. Which is fine - none of us do. But don't write as if you do.

And I didn't write it but back on page 8, 13:30 captured a lot of my thoughts on this.

[Anonymous]

Minister here - I would love to go back to the OPs original topic. "Organized Religion Seems Harmful". I totally agree with that. I think organized religion has been the cause of more conflict that just about any other institution. But I think it can be a very powerful force for good. The problems arise when members of a religious group are intolerant. That intolerance seeps out of our churches and into every area of our life. It affects our workplace, our families, our politics, and almost every social issue out there. For the non-believer, religious (and to a lesser extent spiritual) people can come across as judgmental. And even for those of faith, people from other religions can seem dismissive. My own church is guilty of that. I am guilty of that.

That's where I think it's important to remember the differences between organized religion (and as a minister, obviously I see value in religious institutions) and spirituality. Some of the most spiritually mature people I know don't attend church. And some of the people who seem most in need of spiritual maturity are in the pew every Sunday. The dilemma is this - Religious organizations provide the structure necessary for people to work together towards a common good. We don't do that very well as individuals. The examples are obvious but I'll name the ones that were important to the churches I led - We feed the poor. We provide financial assistance for power bills, rent payments, etc. We have doctors who operate clinics on a sliding fee based on income. We have a daycare. We hold diversity seminars in an attempt to help people understand the importance of inclusively and acceptance. We have trained therapist who work with those struggling with grief and loss. We have outreach programs to help new moms. We have a meals program for those who are ill or recovering from surgery. We have people in our church who help those seeking employment. And that's just a few examples. All of the things could easily be done by non-religious entities. But it certainly helps to have our churches involved.

I think instead of deciding that all organized religion is bad, we need to work to ensure our churches are focusing on things that are good. The Bible is great! I love the Bible. But people can't eat the Bible. We need to be boots on the ground in our communities. I agree that our churches often miss the mark. But that's only because they are run by humans. Church leaders are not perfect. The failure you see in organized religion has nothing to do with religion or God and everything to do with people and power.

Just my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.

I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.

The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.

Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.

If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.

I have posted on other threads (and maybe this one?) that I believe religion is net negative. I haven't posted much else on this thread. Sorry if you feel that is disrespectful but it's not a personal statement about you, an individual, and your beliefs. It's my observation (as an outsider) generally about religions over the course of mankind. The minister was making generalizations for all atheists/all people, as individuals and their experiences. And it was off-base for me. It's understandable because she grew up in a deeply religious family. All of her references tie back to religion/faith/etc. None of that works in my framework. Not just the terminology.

I get that she was trying to be polite about it, but she was still trying to connect dots that don't need to be connected for some people. Presuming that those dots NEED to be connected. And I did find her tone condescending - she wrote as if she had it all figured out, but clearly doesn't. Which is fine - none of us do. But don't write as if you do.

So it's ok for you to write that religion is a net negative, and it's ok for you to make sweeping generalizations about why somebody believes (according to you, it's because she grew up in a "deeply religious family").

But it's wrong for the minister to state her beliefs, even if she couches them in "I believe" or "religious people believe" language, because your sensitive eyes apparently can't read this sort of thing. Uh, ok.

How about, if her views don't resonate with you, you simply state that? "I don't agree." See, that's simple to say. But instead, you accuse her of all sorts of nefarious motives that frankly don't seem to be there and toss out words like "condescension." And while you're at it, stop pretending that I'm offended by the rants of some rando atheist like you--I'm not, what I'm actually offended by are your sleazeball character assassination tactics here, instead of you trying to honestly and openly debate her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.

I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.

The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.

Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.

If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.

I have posted on other threads (and maybe this one?) that I believe religion is net negative. I haven't posted much else on this thread. Sorry if you feel that is disrespectful but it's not a personal statement about you, an individual, and your beliefs. It's my observation (as an outsider) generally about religions over the course of mankind. The minister was making generalizations for all atheists/all people, as individuals and their experiences. And it was off-base for me. It's understandable because she grew up in a deeply religious family. All of her references tie back to religion/faith/etc. None of that works in my framework. Not just the terminology.

I get that she was trying to be polite about it, but she was still trying to connect dots that don't need to be connected for some people. Presuming that those dots NEED to be connected. And I did find her tone condescending - she wrote as if she had it all figured out, but clearly doesn't. Which is fine - none of us do. But don't write as if you do.

So it's ok for you to write that religion is a net negative, and it's ok for you to make sweeping generalizations about why somebody believes (according to you, it's because she grew up in a "deeply religious family").

But it's wrong for the minister to state her beliefs, even if she couches them in "I believe" or "religious people believe" language, because your sensitive eyes apparently can't read this sort of thing. Uh, ok.

How about, if her views don't resonate with you, you simply state that? "I don't agree." See, that's simple to say. But instead, you accuse her of all sorts of nefarious motives that frankly don't seem to be there and toss out words like "condescension." And while you're at it, stop pretending that I'm offended by the rants of some rando atheist like you--I'm not, what I'm actually offended by are your sleazeball character assassination tactics here, instead of you trying to honestly and openly debate her.

She commented. I commented. She commented. We're moving on, but you still seem very angry. "Sleazeball character assassination tactics"?? Okey dokey! You sound like the atheist hater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.

I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.

The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.

Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.

If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.

I have posted on other threads (and maybe this one?) that I believe religion is net negative. I haven't posted much else on this thread. Sorry if you feel that is disrespectful but it's not a personal statement about you, an individual, and your beliefs. It's my observation (as an outsider) generally about religions over the course of mankind. The minister was making generalizations for all atheists/all people, as individuals and their experiences. And it was off-base for me. It's understandable because she grew up in a deeply religious family. All of her references tie back to religion/faith/etc. None of that works in my framework. Not just the terminology.

I get that she was trying to be polite about it, but she was still trying to connect dots that don't need to be connected for some people. Presuming that those dots NEED to be connected. And I did find her tone condescending - she wrote as if she had it all figured out, but clearly doesn't. Which is fine - none of us do. But don't write as if you do.

So it's ok for you to write that religion is a net negative, and it's ok for you to make sweeping generalizations about why somebody believes (according to you, it's because she grew up in a "deeply religious family").

But it's wrong for the minister to state her beliefs, even if she couches them in "I believe" or "religious people believe" language, because your sensitive eyes apparently can't read this sort of thing. Uh, ok.

How about, if her views don't resonate with you, you simply state that? "I don't agree." See, that's simple to say. But instead, you accuse her of all sorts of nefarious motives that frankly don't seem to be there and toss out words like "condescension." And while you're at it, stop pretending that I'm offended by the rants of some rando atheist like you--I'm not, what I'm actually offended by are your sleazeball character assassination tactics here, instead of you trying to honestly and openly debate her.

different atheist poster here. The pp atheist is more blunt than I am but I don't really disagree. I know the minister is trying. In a religiously oriented society, it can be hard to see the "other's" point of view. Think of all the racist and sexist stuff that was and is part of the culture. It's the same with religion. Now more non-religious people are speaking up about it and more sensitive religious people, like the hospice minister, are trying to understand and adjust. It's a journey, with a lot of missteps.