Who has changed their minds about religion on this forum?

[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.

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

What would your argument be?

[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.

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.

+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:

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.

+1

[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.

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

What would your argument be?

Not going to rehash here. Go through the arguments in that thread. I assume you were the poster there that argued about them being different domains and therefore not in opposition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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

Under this reasoning, nothing we do by social contract is useful. If you're talking about the UDHR, no rights exist without some authority to enforce or protect them.

[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.

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

What would your argument be?

Not going to rehash here. Go through the arguments in that thread. I assume you were the poster there that argued about them being different domains and therefore not in opposition?

I don't remember the thread, so it probably wasn't me.

[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:

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.

Why did you conveniently leave out "Why don’t some atheists like the religious freedom that America has?" which is a thread making sweeping judgements and sh*tting on atheists.

[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:

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.

Why did you conveniently leave out "Why don’t some atheists like the religious freedom that America has?" which is a thread making sweeping judgements and sh*tting on atheists.

Oh, sorry, honest mistake. I didn't see it there between David Brooks and unveiling. Thanks for the correction. So, on the first page of threads, there's one created to bash atheists and two created to bash Christians. Three out of 26 that were created to bash each other is not that bad, actually. I'm surprised.

[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 the only thing that religion does but it’s the relevant part when discussing how it relates to science (or not).

There are secular solutions for the other aspects of religion. Moral code, community, controlling the masses, 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:

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.

Like I said, guess you haven’t been here long.

Either that or you aren’t being objective.

[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:

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.

Why did you conveniently leave out "Why don’t some atheists like the religious freedom that America has?" which is a thread making sweeping judgements and sh*tting on atheists.

+1

There is a steady stream of people hating on atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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

This is so silly.

All agreements are executed by social contract. People who have to agree to abide by what is written. And often they don't, otherwise we'd be following things like this:

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

[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:

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.

Like I said, guess you haven’t been here long.

Either that or you aren’t being objective.

I'm very interested in comparative religion and discussion of morality and faith, so I lurk here more often than I would care to admit over the past 4 years. I've also just skimmed back over the last 6 pages of topics. As someone else pointed out, I had missed a thread bashing atheists about religious freedom on page 1. But other than that one, I didn't see any posts created to bash atheists, though, again, I might have missed one. Of course, bashing atheists ends up happening on a lot of threads, but it's not actually accurate to say that threads are created for that purpose. Certainly not any more than threads that are created to bash religion. In both cases, there are fewer threads than I would have thought whose goal is to bash each other.

Which threads, other than the religious freedom one, were started to bash atheists? Or would you like to amend your complaint to be about how threads often devolve into bashing? You can certainly make a stronger case for the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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

I hope he's not trying to say that the Bible is the originator of human rights.

It would be like saying the Bible is the originator of kindness, or any other positive human attribute.

[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 the only thing that religion does but it’s the relevant part when discussing how it relates to science (or not).

There are secular solutions for the other aspects of religion. Moral code, community, controlling the masses, etc.

But when the claim is that scientific discoveries will eventually remove the need for religion (which was the claim upthread), then the other aspects of religion are relevant. I certainly don't believe that you have to have religion to be a moral person, or that you can't find community in secular places (though secular community organizations, like Lions Club/Kiwanis/Elks and bowling leagues are on the decline) and I'm genuinely happy for the people who have found those things elsewhere. I just don't think religion, which packages those things in one place, is going to go extinct because of science or because people are getting their community engagement box checked somewhere else.