Who has changed their minds about religion on this forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The atheists who post here are usually far more close minded and tedious than the atheists I know in real life. They engage in patronizing, gross oversimplifications and reductive thinking that actually puts me off atheism. I remain open to agnosticism since we can’t prove metaphysical beliefs one way or the other.

You've expressed your opinion, and now I'll express mine: I don't care if your characterization of anything anyone says here "puts you off atheism". I hope no one is religious or non-religious because they were "put off" by someone. I think being put off by someone is a terrible reason for believing or not believing.

We know a tree by the fruits it bears.

I pay a lot of attention to character. Not a religious literalist and don’t resonate with dogmatism in either religion or atheism.

There's no dogmatism in atheism because there's no dogma. It's simply lack of belief in theism (any religion).

.

Many of the atheists who post here are extremely dogmatic, patronizing and unnecessarily antagonistic.

If you are a religious person who is sure you are right, despite total lack of evidence and lots of faith, then simply ignore anyone who doesn't see things your way.

I have good friends and family members IRL who are atheists. We have wonderful relationships based on mutual respect.

Many atheists who post in this forum are extremely patronizing and disrespectful with a disdain for nuance.

How would you describe the "believers" who post often on this forum?

One glaring difference I have noticed is that a majority of religious posters speak only for themselves and their path to religion while many atheist posters appear to speak for not only for themselves, but for all of atheism and the many different kinds of religious beliefs and experiences. Further religion as a whole is conflated with evangelism and biblical literalists.

This could be just a few obsessed atheists doing other atheists a disservice though.

I was asking about “believers”.

How would you describe the tone of their posts?

As reflected in the observation that they usually just speak for themselves or their specific faith tradition, they have diverse tones. I am not comfortable with biblical literalism, proselytization or evangelism and don’t resonate with dogmatic takes from either religious people or atheists. I just see less less overarching dogma from the religious posters in this forum.

Dogma can be both secular and religious. The Latin word dogma means “philosophical tenet” derived from Ancient Greek (dógma, “opinion, tenet”).

I was curious if you were going to provide an objective observation. Guess not. You can't seem to respond without finding a way to trash atheists.

There are bible literalists pushing dogma. There absolutely is overarching dogma re: Christianity. And there are disrespectful believers with not an ounce of nuance.

DP. What would constitute an "objective observation" in this case? I've read PP to be saying that atheists on this forum (whom they differentiate from atheists IRL) are more dogmatic overall than religious posters, who they see as offering more variety of religious beliefs and tone of the comments. PP said they see "less overarching dogma from religious posters" which doesn't mean there isn't any, just that it appears less monolithic than atheists here. Did you want them to start quoting other threads? I'm not sure what else you're looking for.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The atheists who post here are usually far more close minded and tedious than the atheists I know in real life. They engage in patronizing, gross oversimplifications and reductive thinking that actually puts me off atheism. I remain open to agnosticism since we can’t prove metaphysical beliefs one way or the other.

You've expressed your opinion, and now I'll express mine: I don't care if your characterization of anything anyone says here "puts you off atheism". I hope no one is religious or non-religious because they were "put off" by someone. I think being put off by someone is a terrible reason for believing or not believing.

We know a tree by the fruits it bears.

I pay a lot of attention to character. Not a religious literalist and don’t resonate with dogmatism in either religion or atheism.

There's no dogmatism in atheism because there's no dogma. It's simply lack of belief in theism (any religion).

.

Many of the atheists who post here are extremely dogmatic, patronizing and unnecessarily antagonistic.

If you are a religious person who is sure you are right, despite total lack of evidence and lots of faith, then simply ignore anyone who doesn't see things your way.

I have good friends and family members IRL who are atheists. We have wonderful relationships based on mutual respect.

Many atheists who post in this forum are extremely patronizing and disrespectful with a disdain for nuance.

How would you describe the "believers" who post often on this forum?

One glaring difference I have noticed is that a majority of religious posters speak only for themselves and their path to religion while many atheist posters appear to speak for not only for themselves, but for all of atheism and the many different kinds of religious beliefs and experiences. Further religion as a whole is conflated with evangelism and biblical literalists.

This could be just a few obsessed atheists doing other atheists a disservice though.

I was asking about “believers”.

How would you describe the tone of their posts?

As reflected in the observation that they usually just speak for themselves or their specific faith tradition, they have diverse tones. I am not comfortable with biblical literalism, proselytization or evangelism and don’t resonate with dogmatic takes from either religious people or atheists. I just see less less overarching dogma from the religious posters in this forum.

Dogma can be both secular and religious. The Latin word dogma means “philosophical tenet” derived from Ancient Greek (dógma, “opinion, tenet”).

I was curious if you were going to provide an objective observation. Guess not. You can't seem to respond without finding a way to trash atheists.

There are bible literalists pushing dogma. There absolutely is overarching dogma re: Christianity. And there are disrespectful believers with not an ounce of nuance.

It's still acceptable, in US culture, to trash atheists. It's also expected to be outwardly accepting of other religions, with the assumption that everyone has SOME religion, and only the non-religious atheist types are bad guys. That will change eventually. It already has thru much of Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The atheists who post here are usually far more close minded and tedious than the atheists I know in real life. They engage in patronizing, gross oversimplifications and reductive thinking that actually puts me off atheism. I remain open to agnosticism since we can’t prove metaphysical beliefs one way or the other.

You've expressed your opinion, and now I'll express mine: I don't care if your characterization of anything anyone says here "puts you off atheism". I hope no one is religious or non-religious because they were "put off" by someone. I think being put off by someone is a terrible reason for believing or not believing.

We know a tree by the fruits it bears.

I pay a lot of attention to character. Not a religious literalist and don’t resonate with dogmatism in either religion or atheism.

There's no dogmatism in atheism because there's no dogma. It's simply lack of belief in theism (any religion).

.

Many of the atheists who post here are extremely dogmatic, patronizing and unnecessarily antagonistic.

If you are a religious person who is sure you are right, despite total lack of evidence and lots of faith, then simply ignore anyone who doesn't see things your way.

I have good friends and family members IRL who are atheists. We have wonderful relationships based on mutual respect.

Many atheists who post in this forum are extremely patronizing and disrespectful with a disdain for nuance.

How would you describe the "believers" who post often on this forum?

One glaring difference I have noticed is that a majority of religious posters speak only for themselves and their path to religion while many atheist posters appear to speak for not only for themselves, but for all of atheism and the many different kinds of religious beliefs and experiences. Further religion as a whole is conflated with evangelism and biblical literalists.

This could be just a few obsessed atheists doing other atheists a disservice though.

I was asking about “believers”.

How would you describe the tone of their posts?

As reflected in the observation that they usually just speak for themselves or their specific faith tradition, they have diverse tones. I am not comfortable with biblical literalism, proselytization or evangelism and don’t resonate with dogmatic takes from either religious people or atheists. I just see less less overarching dogma from the religious posters in this forum.

Dogma can be both secular and religious. The Latin word dogma means “philosophical tenet” derived from Ancient Greek (dógma, “opinion, tenet”).

I was curious if you were going to provide an objective observation. Guess not. You can't seem to respond without finding a way to trash atheists.

There are bible literalists pushing dogma. There absolutely is overarching dogma re: Christianity. And there are disrespectful believers with not an ounce of nuance.

It's still acceptable, in US culture, to trash atheists. It's also expected to be outwardly accepting of other religions, with the assumption that everyone has SOME religion, and only the non-religious atheist types are bad guys. That will change eventually. It already has thru much of Europe.

Huh? I'm from the DMV. It's not been a thing here as long as I've lived here for it to be acceptable to trash atheists. Maybe in other parts of the country, but not here. I'm deeply religious, but I've known many thoughtful and intelligent atheists who have challenged me and been great friends to me since high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The atheists who post here are usually far more close minded and tedious than the atheists I know in real life. They engage in patronizing, gross oversimplifications and reductive thinking that actually puts me off atheism. I remain open to agnosticism since we can’t prove metaphysical beliefs one way or the other.

You've expressed your opinion, and now I'll express mine: I don't care if your characterization of anything anyone says here "puts you off atheism". I hope no one is religious or non-religious because they were "put off" by someone. I think being put off by someone is a terrible reason for believing or not believing.

We know a tree by the fruits it bears.

I pay a lot of attention to character. Not a religious literalist and don’t resonate with dogmatism in either religion or atheism.

There's no dogmatism in atheism because there's no dogma. It's simply lack of belief in theism (any religion).

.

Many of the atheists who post here are extremely dogmatic, patronizing and unnecessarily antagonistic.

If you are a religious person who is sure you are right, despite total lack of evidence and lots of faith, then simply ignore anyone who doesn't see things your way.

I have good friends and family members IRL who are atheists. We have wonderful relationships based on mutual respect.

Many atheists who post in this forum are extremely patronizing and disrespectful with a disdain for nuance.

How would you describe the "believers" who post often on this forum?

One glaring difference I have noticed is that a majority of religious posters speak only for themselves and their path to religion while many atheist posters appear to speak for not only for themselves, but for all of atheism and the many different kinds of religious beliefs and experiences. Further religion as a whole is conflated with evangelism and biblical literalists.

This could be just a few obsessed atheists doing other atheists a disservice though.

I was asking about “believers”.

How would you describe the tone of their posts?

As reflected in the observation that they usually just speak for themselves or their specific faith tradition, they have diverse tones. I am not comfortable with biblical literalism, proselytization or evangelism and don’t resonate with dogmatic takes from either religious people or atheists. I just see less less overarching dogma from the religious posters in this forum.

Dogma can be both secular and religious. The Latin word dogma means “philosophical tenet” derived from Ancient Greek (dógma, “opinion, tenet”).

I was curious if you were going to provide an objective observation. Guess not. You can't seem to respond without finding a way to trash atheists.

There are bible literalists pushing dogma. There absolutely is overarching dogma re: Christianity. And there are disrespectful believers with not an ounce of nuance.

It's still acceptable, in US culture, to trash atheists. It's also expected to be outwardly accepting of other religions, with the assumption that everyone has SOME religion, and only the non-religious atheist types are bad guys. That will change eventually. It already has thru much of Europe.

Huh? I'm from the DMV. It's not been a thing here as long as I've lived here for it to be acceptable to trash atheists. Maybe in other parts of the country, but not here. I'm deeply religious, but I've known many thoughtful and intelligent atheists who have challenged me and been great friends to me since high school.

Certainly some religious people on DCUM think it's acceptable. DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The atheists who post here are usually far more close minded and tedious than the atheists I know in real life. They engage in patronizing, gross oversimplifications and reductive thinking that actually puts me off atheism. I remain open to agnosticism since we can’t prove metaphysical beliefs one way or the other.

You've expressed your opinion, and now I'll express mine: I don't care if your characterization of anything anyone says here "puts you off atheism". I hope no one is religious or non-religious because they were "put off" by someone. I think being put off by someone is a terrible reason for believing or not believing.

We know a tree by the fruits it bears.

I pay a lot of attention to character. Not a religious literalist and don’t resonate with dogmatism in either religion or atheism.

There's no dogmatism in atheism because there's no dogma. It's simply lack of belief in theism (any religion).

.

Many of the atheists who post here are extremely dogmatic, patronizing and unnecessarily antagonistic.

If you are a religious person who is sure you are right, despite total lack of evidence and lots of faith, then simply ignore anyone who doesn't see things your way.

I have good friends and family members IRL who are atheists. We have wonderful relationships based on mutual respect.

Many atheists who post in this forum are extremely patronizing and disrespectful with a disdain for nuance.

How would you describe the "believers" who post often on this forum?

One glaring difference I have noticed is that a majority of religious posters speak only for themselves and their path to religion while many atheist posters appear to speak for not only for themselves, but for all of atheism and the many different kinds of religious beliefs and experiences. Further religion as a whole is conflated with evangelism and biblical literalists.

This could be just a few obsessed atheists doing other atheists a disservice though.

I was asking about “believers”.

How would you describe the tone of their posts?

As reflected in the observation that they usually just speak for themselves or their specific faith tradition, they have diverse tones. I am not comfortable with biblical literalism, proselytization or evangelism and don’t resonate with dogmatic takes from either religious people or atheists. I just see less less overarching dogma from the religious posters in this forum.

Dogma can be both secular and religious. The Latin word dogma means “philosophical tenet” derived from Ancient Greek (dógma, “opinion, tenet”).

I was curious if you were going to provide an objective observation. Guess not. You can't seem to respond without finding a way to trash atheists.

There are bible literalists pushing dogma. There absolutely is overarching dogma re: Christianity. And there are disrespectful believers with not an ounce of nuance.

It's still acceptable, in US culture, to trash atheists. It's also expected to be outwardly accepting of other religions, with the assumption that everyone has SOME religion, and only the non-religious atheist types are bad guys. That will change eventually. It already has thru much of Europe.

Huh? I'm from the DMV. It's not been a thing here as long as I've lived here for it to be acceptable to trash atheists. Maybe in other parts of the country, but not here. I'm deeply religious, but I've known many thoughtful and intelligent atheists who have challenged me and been great friends to me since high school.

Certainly some religious people on DCUM think it's acceptable. DP.

Pretty sure they are responding more to the downright meanspirited and insulting attitude displayed by individual posts than judging a group in the abstract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The atheists who post here are usually far more close minded and tedious than the atheists I know in real life. They engage in patronizing, gross oversimplifications and reductive thinking that actually puts me off atheism. I remain open to agnosticism since we can’t prove metaphysical beliefs one way or the other.

You've expressed your opinion, and now I'll express mine: I don't care if your characterization of anything anyone says here "puts you off atheism". I hope no one is religious or non-religious because they were "put off" by someone. I think being put off by someone is a terrible reason for believing or not believing.

We know a tree by the fruits it bears.

I pay a lot of attention to character. Not a religious literalist and don’t resonate with dogmatism in either religion or atheism.

There's no dogmatism in atheism because there's no dogma. It's simply lack of belief in theism (any religion).

.

Many of the atheists who post here are extremely dogmatic, patronizing and unnecessarily antagonistic.

If you are a religious person who is sure you are right, despite total lack of evidence and lots of faith, then simply ignore anyone who doesn't see things your way.

I have good friends and family members IRL who are atheists. We have wonderful relationships based on mutual respect.

Many atheists who post in this forum are extremely patronizing and disrespectful with a disdain for nuance.

How would you describe the "believers" who post often on this forum?

One glaring difference I have noticed is that a majority of religious posters speak only for themselves and their path to religion while many atheist posters appear to speak for not only for themselves, but for all of atheism and the many different kinds of religious beliefs and experiences. Further religion as a whole is conflated with evangelism and biblical literalists.

This could be just a few obsessed atheists doing other atheists a disservice though.

I was asking about “believers”.

How would you describe the tone of their posts?

As reflected in the observation that they usually just speak for themselves or their specific faith tradition, they have diverse tones. I am not comfortable with biblical literalism, proselytization or evangelism and don’t resonate with dogmatic takes from either religious people or atheists. I just see less less overarching dogma from the religious posters in this forum.

Dogma can be both secular and religious. The Latin word dogma means “philosophical tenet” derived from Ancient Greek (dógma, “opinion, tenet”).

I was curious if you were going to provide an objective observation. Guess not. You can't seem to respond without finding a way to trash atheists.

There are bible literalists pushing dogma. There absolutely is overarching dogma re: Christianity. And there are disrespectful believers with not an ounce of nuance.

It's still acceptable, in US culture, to trash atheists. It's also expected to be outwardly accepting of other religions, with the assumption that everyone has SOME religion, and only the non-religious atheist types are bad guys. That will change eventually. It already has thru much of Europe.

Huh? I'm from the DMV. It's not been a thing here as long as I've lived here for it to be acceptable to trash atheists. Maybe in other parts of the country, but not here. I'm deeply religious, but I've known many thoughtful and intelligent atheists who have challenged me and been great friends to me since high school.

Certainly some religious people on DCUM think it's acceptable. DP.

Pretty sure they are responding more to the downright meanspirited and insulting attitude displayed by individual posts than judging a group in the abstract.

Guess you haven’t been here long. Some “believers” on here can get pretty nasty. Starting threads to disparage atheists, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The atheists who post here are usually far more close minded and tedious than the atheists I know in real life. They engage in patronizing, gross oversimplifications and reductive thinking that actually puts me off atheism. I remain open to agnosticism since we can’t prove metaphysical beliefs one way or the other.

You've expressed your opinion, and now I'll express mine: I don't care if your characterization of anything anyone says here "puts you off atheism". I hope no one is religious or non-religious because they were "put off" by someone. I think being put off by someone is a terrible reason for believing or not believing.

We know a tree by the fruits it bears.

I pay a lot of attention to character. Not a religious literalist and don’t resonate with dogmatism in either religion or atheism.

There's no dogmatism in atheism because there's no dogma. It's simply lack of belief in theism (any religion).

.

Many of the atheists who post here are extremely dogmatic, patronizing and unnecessarily antagonistic.

If you are a religious person who is sure you are right, despite total lack of evidence and lots of faith, then simply ignore anyone who doesn't see things your way.

I have good friends and family members IRL who are atheists. We have wonderful relationships based on mutual respect.

Many atheists who post in this forum are extremely patronizing and disrespectful with a disdain for nuance.

How would you describe the "believers" who post often on this forum?

One glaring difference I have noticed is that a majority of religious posters speak only for themselves and their path to religion while many atheist posters appear to speak for not only for themselves, but for all of atheism and the many different kinds of religious beliefs and experiences. Further religion as a whole is conflated with evangelism and biblical literalists.

This could be just a few obsessed atheists doing other atheists a disservice though.

I was asking about “believers”.

How would you describe the tone of their posts?

As reflected in the observation that they usually just speak for themselves or their specific faith tradition, they have diverse tones. I am not comfortable with biblical literalism, proselytization or evangelism and don’t resonate with dogmatic takes from either religious people or atheists. I just see less less overarching dogma from the religious posters in this forum.

Dogma can be both secular and religious. The Latin word dogma means “philosophical tenet” derived from Ancient Greek (dógma, “opinion, tenet”).

I was curious if you were going to provide an objective observation. Guess not. You can't seem to respond without finding a way to trash atheists.

There are bible literalists pushing dogma. There absolutely is overarching dogma re: Christianity. And there are disrespectful believers with not an ounce of nuance.

It's still acceptable, in US culture, to trash atheists. It's also expected to be outwardly accepting of other religions, with the assumption that everyone has SOME religion, and only the non-religious atheist types are bad guys. That will change eventually. It already has thru much of Europe.

Huh? I'm from the DMV. It's not been a thing here as long as I've lived here for it to be acceptable to trash atheists. Maybe in other parts of the country, but not here. I'm deeply religious, but I've known many thoughtful and intelligent atheists who have challenged me and been great friends to me since high school.

Certainly some religious people on DCUM think it's acceptable. DP.

Pretty sure they are responding more to the downright meanspirited and insulting attitude displayed by individual posts than judging a group in the abstract.

Guess you haven’t been here long. Some “believers” on here can get pretty nasty. Starting threads to disparage atheists, etc.

Well that's fun. And I'm being 10000% sarcastic there.

And pointless, to boot, not to mention against the principals of at least Christianity (I don't know enough about other faiths to comment on their behalf).

But lately I don't think that's the vibe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read this entire thread, and the only part I see atheists speaking for all atheists is stating that atheists believe in science rather than fairy tales.

It is disingenuous to say that atheists in this thread (or this forum) try to speak for all atheists. Just seems like another way the religious folk try to beat down anyone who doesnt believe like them - "othering" atheists. Annoying and transparent.

Science and religion are not diametrically opposed. It's not a "science rather than religion" dichotomy and setting it up as such shows a lack of understanding of religion.

They just don't exist in the same space at all. One is based on reality and the other in supernatural forces.

Religion has been used to explain scientific phenomena for millennia. As we make more scientific discoveries, the need for religion becomes smaller.

You're speaking as if the only thing "religion"* does is try to explain natural phenomena when a huge chunk of "religious" teaching is about human interaction with each other and with the physical world. Which scientific discovery lessens the need for the lessons of "honor your father and mother" or "treat others as you want to be treated" or "love your neighbor as yourself" or "whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity"? Many scientific discoveries can help us be better stewards of the earth, which is another common "religious" ideal. The need for these religious teachings is not diminished because we now know how evolution works and we can study astrophysics and we can use medical science to detect cancer.

It's debatable whether "religion" is necessary to learn these lessons or not, but the idea that "religion" is going to become obsolete because science will answer all of life's questions is just not true and, again, betrays a misunderstanding of "religion."

*I use "religion" in quotes throughout, because it's ridiculous to generalize ALL religions into one category, but for the sake of the point you're trying to make, I will play along. The theological examples I quoted come from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read this entire thread, and the only part I see atheists speaking for all atheists is stating that atheists believe in science rather than fairy tales.

It is disingenuous to say that atheists in this thread (or this forum) try to speak for all atheists. Just seems like another way the religious folk try to beat down anyone who doesnt believe like them - "othering" atheists. Annoying and transparent.

Science and religion are not diametrically opposed. It's not a "science rather than religion" dichotomy and setting it up as such shows a lack of understanding of religion.

I didn't say it was. I said that is the only time I saw any atheists in this thread speaking for other atheists. Not sure why you are trying to twist my words into something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read this entire thread, and the only part I see atheists speaking for all atheists is stating that atheists believe in science rather than fairy tales.

It is disingenuous to say that atheists in this thread (or this forum) try to speak for all atheists. Just seems like another way the religious folk try to beat down anyone who doesnt believe like them - "othering" atheists. Annoying and transparent.

Science and religion are not diametrically opposed. It's not a "science rather than religion" dichotomy and setting it up as such shows a lack of understanding of religion.

They just don't exist in the same space at all. One is based on reality and the other in supernatural forces.

Religion has been used to explain scientific phenomena for millennia. As we make more scientific discoveries, the need for religion becomes smaller.

You're speaking as if the only thing "religion"* does is try to explain natural phenomena when a huge chunk of "religious" teaching is about human interaction with each other and with the physical world. Which scientific discovery lessens the need for the lessons of "honor your father and mother" or "treat others as you want to be treated" or "love your neighbor as yourself" or "whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity"? Many scientific discoveries can help us be better stewards of the earth, which is another common "religious" ideal. The need for these religious teachings is not diminished because we now know how evolution works and we can study astrophysics and we can use medical science to detect cancer.

It's debatable whether "religion" is necessary to learn these lessons or not, but the idea that "religion" is going to become obsolete because science will answer all of life's questions is just not true and, again, betrays a misunderstanding of "religion."

*I use "religion" in quotes throughout, because it's ridiculous to generalize ALL religions into one category, but for the sake of the point you're trying to make, I will play along. The theological examples I quoted come from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

It's not ridiculous to generalize all religions into one category. They are all bunk. Every. Single. One. I grant that if you take away the supernatural elements from buddhism, it is a good general philosophy of how to live ones life.

This is also not to say that religions have not contributed to philosophy and ethics or that they have nothing worth learning. However, going forward, laws/morality/ethics don't need to be based on any religious beliefs/teachings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read this entire thread, and the only part I see atheists speaking for all atheists is stating that atheists believe in science rather than fairy tales.

It is disingenuous to say that atheists in this thread (or this forum) try to speak for all atheists. Just seems like another way the religious folk try to beat down anyone who doesnt believe like them - "othering" atheists. Annoying and transparent.

Science and religion are not diametrically opposed. It's not a "science rather than religion" dichotomy and setting it up as such shows a lack of understanding of religion.

There is a whole other thread debating this point. And, I would argue they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read this entire thread, and the only part I see atheists speaking for all atheists is stating that atheists believe in science rather than fairy tales.

It is disingenuous to say that atheists in this thread (or this forum) try to speak for all atheists. Just seems like another way the religious folk try to beat down anyone who doesnt believe like them - "othering" atheists. Annoying and transparent.

Science and religion are not diametrically opposed. It's not a "science rather than religion" dichotomy and setting it up as such shows a lack of understanding of religion.

They just don't exist in the same space at all. One is based on reality and the other in supernatural forces.

Religion has been used to explain scientific phenomena for millennia. As we make more scientific discoveries, the need for religion becomes smaller.

You're speaking as if the only thing "religion"* does is try to explain natural phenomena when a huge chunk of "religious" teaching is about human interaction with each other and with the physical world. Which scientific discovery lessens the need for the lessons of "honor your father and mother" or "treat others as you want to be treated" or "love your neighbor as yourself" or "whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity"? Many scientific discoveries can help us be better stewards of the earth, which is another common "religious" ideal. The need for these religious teachings is not diminished because we now know how evolution works and we can study astrophysics and we can use medical science to detect cancer.

It's debatable whether "religion" is necessary to learn these lessons or not, but the idea that "religion" is going to become obsolete because science will answer all of life's questions is just not true and, again, betrays a misunderstanding of "religion."

*I use "religion" in quotes throughout, because it's ridiculous to generalize ALL religions into one category, but for the sake of the point you're trying to make, I will play along. The theological examples I quoted come from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

It's not ridiculous to generalize all religions into one category. They are all bunk. Every. Single. One. I grant that if you take away the supernatural elements from buddhism, it is a good general philosophy of how to live ones life.

This is also not to say that religions have not contributed to philosophy and ethics or that they have nothing worth learning. However, going forward, laws/morality/ethics don't need to be based on any religious beliefs/teachings.

Why do you say this? Why is it "good"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The atheists who post here are usually far more close minded and tedious than the atheists I know in real life. They engage in patronizing, gross oversimplifications and reductive thinking that actually puts me off atheism. I remain open to agnosticism since we can’t prove metaphysical beliefs one way or the other.

You've expressed your opinion, and now I'll express mine: I don't care if your characterization of anything anyone says here "puts you off atheism". I hope no one is religious or non-religious because they were "put off" by someone. I think being put off by someone is a terrible reason for believing or not believing.

We know a tree by the fruits it bears.

I pay a lot of attention to character. Not a religious literalist and don’t resonate with dogmatism in either religion or atheism.

There's no dogmatism in atheism because there's no dogma. It's simply lack of belief in theism (any religion).

.

Many of the atheists who post here are extremely dogmatic, patronizing and unnecessarily antagonistic.

If you are a religious person who is sure you are right, despite total lack of evidence and lots of faith, then simply ignore anyone who doesn't see things your way.

I have good friends and family members IRL who are atheists. We have wonderful relationships based on mutual respect.

Many atheists who post in this forum are extremely patronizing and disrespectful with a disdain for nuance.

How would you describe the "believers" who post often on this forum?

One glaring difference I have noticed is that a majority of religious posters speak only for themselves and their path to religion while many atheist posters appear to speak for not only for themselves, but for all of atheism and the many different kinds of religious beliefs and experiences. Further religion as a whole is conflated with evangelism and biblical literalists.

This could be just a few obsessed atheists doing other atheists a disservice though.

I was asking about “believers”.

How would you describe the tone of their posts?

As reflected in the observation that they usually just speak for themselves or their specific faith tradition, they have diverse tones. I am not comfortable with biblical literalism, proselytization or evangelism and don’t resonate with dogmatic takes from either religious people or atheists. I just see less less overarching dogma from the religious posters in this forum.

Dogma can be both secular and religious. The Latin word dogma means “philosophical tenet” derived from Ancient Greek (dógma, “opinion, tenet”).

I was curious if you were going to provide an objective observation. Guess not. You can't seem to respond without finding a way to trash atheists.

There are bible literalists pushing dogma. There absolutely is overarching dogma re: Christianity. And there are disrespectful believers with not an ounce of nuance.

It's still acceptable, in US culture, to trash atheists. It's also expected to be outwardly accepting of other religions, with the assumption that everyone has SOME religion, and only the non-religious atheist types are bad guys. That will change eventually. It already has thru much of Europe.

Huh? I'm from the DMV. It's not been a thing here as long as I've lived here for it to be acceptable to trash atheists. Maybe in other parts of the country, but not here. I'm deeply religious, but I've known many thoughtful and intelligent atheists who have challenged me and been great friends to me since high school.

Certainly some religious people on DCUM think it's acceptable. DP.

Pretty sure they are responding more to the downright meanspirited and insulting attitude displayed by individual posts than judging a group in the abstract.

Guess you haven’t been here long. Some “believers” on here can get pretty nasty. Starting threads to disparage atheists, etc.

When is the last time there was a thread on here started to disparage atheists? On the first page of the forum right now, there are only two threads about atheists and both were started by atheists to discuss being atheist (the one about talking to little kids and the one about how you became atheist). I'm sure there are some rude comments from "believers" in the talking to little kids thread, but it's long and I didn't follow the whole thing, and either way, it wasn't STARTED to bash atheists. The how did you become atheist thread is all positive stories of atheists sharing how they became atheist. I'm not saying there aren't "believers" on here who get nasty, just that they're not starting threads to do it. I was going to say that it's more common to see threads started by atheists to bash religion, but looking through the first page of the forum again, I wouldn't really be able to back up that statement either. The "wives submit to your husbands" thread and the Trump voters who are Christian thread were pretty explicitly created to bash Christianity, but really most of the threads are just people asking about different religious practices/theologies (changes to Catholic Mass, why people go to confession, what's the Trinity, etc) or prayer requests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read this entire thread, and the only part I see atheists speaking for all atheists is stating that atheists believe in science rather than fairy tales.

It is disingenuous to say that atheists in this thread (or this forum) try to speak for all atheists. Just seems like another way the religious folk try to beat down anyone who doesnt believe like them - "othering" atheists. Annoying and transparent.

Science and religion are not diametrically opposed. It's not a "science rather than religion" dichotomy and setting it up as such shows a lack of understanding of religion.

I didn't say it was. I said that is the only time I saw any atheists in this thread speaking for other atheists. Not sure why you are trying to twist my words into something else?

Sorry, I wasn't saying YOU are doing that. I realize I wasn't clear and I apologize. I should have said that the atheists making the argument of "science rather than fairy tales" are setting up a false dichotomy between science and religion that doesn't exist and that when they frame it that way, it shows how little they understand religion. Sorry again. I didn't mean to imply that you were saying those things. I suppose I should also note that this isn't a problem that I've run into with all atheists, though it does seem to be prevalent on this forum.

[Anonymous]

"Human rights created by social contract are useless. If we create them by majority vote, we can remove them by majority vote - then how can they protect minorities? Unless human rights are THERE - objectively, apart from human decision or cultural creation - they can't do their job." - Tim Keller