Do "believers" only believe because they are conforming? [ATHEISTS ONLY]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

Parody poster here. Of course I noticed. Did people not notice? I've been reading this thread through the filter of everyone being aware of that - I guess that was me making the same assumption (i.e. knowing the backstory) that I've accused others of. My bad.

So does that mean some folks are being serious in being offended? The lack of tone and identifying users really makes it hard to follow along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Is anyone else ever annoyed by the amount of religiousity in this country? We'd be so much better off with a more secular setup like Sweden. Instead, noooooooo we get the left with the vestiges of Puritanism. England sent all its rejects over and now their descendants want to enshrine intelligent design into our school system, retard scientific progress, and criminalize forms of pleasure they find morally objectionable. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I honestly feel bad for indoctrinated children. They're too young to know any better, especially at such an important time of memory formation.

I have wondered what it would be like to grow up in a more secular country.

We have family friends who converted to a hard core church (born again?) several years ago and now their young children say some shocking things. Like asking my kids if they know they are going to go to hell if they don't accept JC as their savior (or something like that). I just feel really bad for the kids that think it's ok to go around saying such hateful things to others. We don't hang out with them much anymore. I hope the kids get some external influences at some point in their life to realize that not everyone thinks that is ok to say that to someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's an issue of conformity so much an issue of sentimentality, emotional attachment (even if the experience growing up was negative).

It's very hard for someone to discard completely religious ideas they were raised on just like it's difficult for someone to cut ties with family, even when that family is cruel to them and their experience was unhappy.

It is the familiar. It's very difficult to walk away from the familiar.

It's not so much an issue of conforming to an ideal because that implies that you have to actively do something. It's the fact that inertia takes hold, as does a fear of having to completely remake your worldview.

It's far easier to simply fall back on what has been handed to you and sort of drilled into you, even if you aren't completely satisfied with it.

I think it's the same with all aspects of life, not just religion. Even people who aren't really suited or happy with typical family life end up walking the same path that they grew up seeing (getting married, buying a house, having kids).

It's not so much that they are actively conforming but, rather, that it takes a lot more effort and energy and uncertainty to forge an unfamiliar path.

This all makes a lot of sense.

Holds true for me too - wasn't brought up with religion so I do find that comfortable. And while I'm not dissatisfied I really haven't put any effort into exploring other paths. There just never seemed to be any point IMO.

OP

This presumes that theists don't actually believe, instead they're all doing it for the hegge/comfort and are lying to boot. So instead it doesn't make sense and it's also insulting. Two birds, good job.

Not that PP. no, that's not what PP is saying. Though likely *some* theists (not all!) do it for that reason. Stop trying to be reductionist to assume that all people who fall under a certain label get there the same way. It's just as faulty logic applied to human belief systems as it is when applied to dogs (all German Shepherds are dogs but not all dogs are German Shepherds).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"That said, I don't think PP should go to church if she disagrees with it. Even if she just thinks it's s waste of her time and would rather find peace sitting in her garden with a cup of coffee. I find your tone offensive, and I say that as a believer."

Of course as you call yourself a believer, I understand perfectly why an atheist "faking it" in church for their mom's sake would be very offensive to you. But that's not the issue. The issue is why it would be offensive to the atheist, who thinks the whole religion thing is a sham anyway. If an atheist believes everything going on in a church is a giant delusional sham anyway, the sham isn't made any worse by an atheist pretending to be part of it.

Why not? If it would make the atheist's mom happy, why not go to church and sit there next to mom for an hour? To an atheist, it should be exactly like going to a movie you don't want to see with your mom, just to keep her company and to make her happy. As far as I am aware that doesn't violate any ethical principals.

PP here. I never said I would find it offensive for an atheist to sit in church faking it. I wouldn't.

But, faking it means going through the motions of kneeling and standing and singing and reciting at the right times. That's a lot to ask. I take your point that it might make her mom happy, but is lying to her mom really a good answer?

I'm an atheist, my mom knows. She likes me to attend mass with her because she thinks it will bring me back to the church. I enjoy traditions and songs I grew up celebrating. I don't go every week but I'll go when I'm with her on Sunday mornings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

There was a reasonable, diplomatic atheist on the other thread and one (or two) atheists just vomited insults all over her kind gestures and comments. It was pretty disparaging.

I felt like "speaking their language" might be more effective. Maybe not.

Maybe it's all just hopeless. The unhinged theists will continue to barrage atheists and we will continue to fall for their bait.

OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's an issue of conformity so much an issue of sentimentality, emotional attachment (even if the experience growing up was negative).

It's very hard for someone to discard completely religious ideas they were raised on just like it's difficult for someone to cut ties with family, even when that family is cruel to them and their experience was unhappy.

It is the familiar. It's very difficult to walk away from the familiar.

It's not so much an issue of conforming to an ideal because that implies that you have to actively do something. It's the fact that inertia takes hold, as does a fear of having to completely remake your worldview.

It's far easier to simply fall back on what has been handed to you and sort of drilled into you, even if you aren't completely satisfied with it.

I think it's the same with all aspects of life, not just religion. Even people who aren't really suited or happy with typical family life end up walking the same path that they grew up seeing (getting married, buying a house, having kids).

It's not so much that they are actively conforming but, rather, that it takes a lot more effort and energy and uncertainty to forge an unfamiliar path.

This all makes a lot of sense.

Holds true for me too - wasn't brought up with religion so I do find that comfortable. And while I'm not dissatisfied I really haven't put any effort into exploring other paths. There just never seemed to be any point IMO.

OP

This presumes that theists don't actually believe, instead they're all doing it for the hegge/comfort and are lying to boot. So instead it doesn't make sense and it's also insulting. Two birds, good job.

Not that PP. no, that's not what PP is saying. Though likely *some* theists (not all!) do it for that reason. Stop trying to be reductionist to assume that all people who fall under a certain label get there the same way. It's just as faulty logic applied to human belief systems as it is when applied to dogs (all German Shepherds are dogs but not all dogs are German Shepherds).

Exactly.

p.s. Hegge is my new favorite word. Did you read The NY Times article about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

Parody poster here. Of course I noticed. Did people not notice? I've been reading this thread through the filter of everyone being aware of that - I guess that was me making the same assumption (i.e. knowing the backstory) that I've accused others of. My bad.

So does that mean some folks are being serious in being offended? The lack of tone and identifying users really makes it hard to follow along.

Different poster -- I noticed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

23:08, a little further down on that same page was also....inspiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

There was a reasonable, diplomatic atheist on the other thread and one (or two) atheists just vomited insults all over her kind gestures and comments. It was pretty disparaging.

I felt like "speaking their language" might be more effective. Maybe not.

Maybe it's all just hopeless. The unhinged theists will continue to barrage atheists and we will continue to fall for their bait.

OP

,

I think I'm the diplomatic atheist. I think if both sides agreed not to have impressions of the other based on the worst behavior of a few it would help.

My issue was that the theists were acting like atheists were making up their experiences with nasty religious folks whole expecting us to own the nasty atheist folks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Parody poster here. Of course I noticed. Did people not notice? I've been reading this thread through the filter of everyone being aware of that - I guess that was me making the same assumption (i.e. knowing the backstory) that I've accused others of. My bad.

So does that mean some folks are being serious in being offended? The lack of tone and identifying users really makes it hard to follow along.

What part of other threads were "for believers only"?

Oh well, I'm a Christian and even I think some believers here need to be set straight. Not sure mockery is effective or appropriate. But when the subject is your own atheism I can totally see how you need to get involved! You

I've reproached off-base or nasty believers on this and other threads. 5-6 Christians piled into the table scraps poster in the other thread, including me and a minister. I almost never see one of you challenging a nasty atheist.

Now if only, instead of perpetuating these little wars, you guys would rein in the jerks in your own midst.

It's like you guys enjoy perpetuating these little wars. You find the faith vs. reason debate boring because ultimately there's no answer. So instead you start mockery threads like this one. And you disrupt, or stand by while others disrupt, threads between people of faith on things like free will or whatever. What's the point of mockery circle jerks like this one? You're part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Parody poster here. Of course I noticed. Did people not notice? I've been reading this thread through the filter of everyone being aware of that - I guess that was me making the same assumption (i.e. knowing the backstory) that I've accused others of. My bad.

So does that mean some folks are being serious in being offended? The lack of tone and identifying users really makes it hard to follow along.

What part of other threads were "for believers only"?

Oh well, I'm a Christian and even I think some believers here need to be set straight. Not sure mockery is effective or appropriate. But when the subject is your own atheism I can totally see how you need to get involved! You

I've reproached off-base or nasty believers on this and other threads. 5-6 Christians piled into the table scraps poster in the other thread, including me and a minister. I almost never see one of you challenging a nasty atheist.

Now if only, instead of perpetuating these little wars, you guys would rein in the jerks in your own midst.

It's like you guys enjoy perpetuating these little wars. You find the faith vs. reason debate boring because ultimately there's no answer. So instead you start mockery threads like this one. And you disrupt, or stand by while others disrupt, threads between people of faith on things like free will or whatever. What's the point of mockery circle jerks like this one? You're part of the problem.

An atheist did not start that other thread. And if you look at page 17 you'll see what inspired this thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

23:08, a little further down on that same page was also....inspiring.

OK, so now we're digging out individual stupid posts from 20-page threads and starting completely new threads just to mock them?

How many new threads can we expect from both sides today?

Is it because these little wars are so much more fun than, you know, actually talking to each other? Is it because the "faith vs reason" debate has no answer and so it's ultimate boring? Because it's so much more amusing to hold grudges and launch little salvos based on single dumb posts buried in long threads?

Yeesh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

23:08, a little further down on that same page was also....inspiring.

OK, so now we're digging out individual stupid posts from 20-page threads and starting completely new threads just to mock them?

How many new threads can we expect from both sides today?

Is it because these little wars are so much more fun than, you know, actually talking to each other? Is it because the "faith vs reason" debate has no answer and so it's ultimate boring? Because it's so much more amusing to hold grudges and launch little salvos based on single dumb posts buried in long threads?

Yeesh

I said I didn't think OP should have posted this but if you want to know why they did it that page is it