Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If something good happens to you, you can be thankful. The fact that bad things happen to people all over the world does not mean you can not be thankful to something good that happens to you. I thank God if I feel like it - and my life sure has not been all pink and rosy. I am still able to give thanks.

I am an atheist and I am very happy when something good happens to me. If I know who caused it, then I'm grateful to that person or persons, if I don't or it seems to be a stroke of luck, then I'm just happy.

When something bad happens, unless it's obvious that I could have done something to prevent it (like stop smoking) or it's someone else's fault (as in a car accident) I don't blame anyone. I just chalk it up to chance.

To those who believe in God -- when your prayers are not answered, or when something unexpected and negative happens, who do you blame? God? the devil?

When something good happens to me and I know who caused it I am thankful to that person and I am thankful to God for bringing that person into my life. If I don't know what or who caused it I am just thankful to God. Sometimes I am just happy without immediately thinking "Thank you God."
When something bad happens I don't blame God. Ever. If someone caused it, I blame them. If I caused it I blame myself. If it just happened I blame bad luck or whatever else I feel like blaming at that moment.
I am not the kind of person to pray and expect answers. I pray to focus myself on the task I am praying about, gathering strength and then doing my best to achieve whatever I was praying about. I don't think it's God's job to do anything for me at all. I am thankful when I pray and then I succeed...but I don't even think about it if I pray and nothing happens. Sure, sounds weird to an atheist - but I don't care It works for me, I think I am a very decent person most days and an okay person on the others. I do my best. That's all.

I don't have a problem with someone not believing in God. I am not a religious crazy, I don't go to church all the time, I don't pray all the time etc. I try to live as a good person and install that same in my children - that does not include "You can only be a good person if you believe in God." for me. I don't force anyone to believe in anything. Everyone can decide what they want to believe. I don't tell people "God exists.", I tell people "I believe that God exists." It's my choice to believe whatever I want as long as I am not harming anyone. I feel everyone should have that same choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s see – it’s OK for a Catholic priest to turn way an Episcopalian at the communion rail, because it’s against the rules of the church to serve someone from another Christian faith. We may not agree, but we respect the Catholics’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s OK for a southern Baptist to tell a gay family member that they are going to hell because the Baptists believe homosexuality is a sin. We may not agree, but we respect the Baptists’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s OK for certain Muslims to require women to cover their heads because they believe women should be subservient. We may not agree, but we respect the Muslims’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s not OK for atheists to make a factual statement about religion on an anonymous internet message board, because it might offend some religious people. Even if we agree with the statement, we do not respect the atheists’ right to state facts and to exercise their freedom of religion.

You just need to feel victimized, don't you.

Not pp, but that there is some cognitive dissonance, when religious people in the US claim persecution, despite being an overwhelming majority, and would least likely elect an atheist leader. Whether atheists in the US are victims are "victims" may be debatable, but people of faith are absolutely not, despite accusations of being "attacked." If your faith is so fragile that you can't handle some harmless discussion on the internet, perhaps you need to do some self reflection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Needlessly antagonizing. I did not even clue in to that.

Who knows, some wavering theist may have read that and been swayed a little toward atheism.

So... you admit you are proselytizing for atheism.

It's more like consciousness raising.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s see – it’s OK for a Catholic priest to turn way an Episcopalian at the communion rail, because it’s against the rules of the church to serve someone from another Christian faith. We may not agree, but we respect the Catholics’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s OK for a southern Baptist to tell a gay family member that they are going to hell because the Baptists believe homosexuality is a sin. We may not agree, but we respect the Baptists’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s OK for certain Muslims to require women to cover their heads because they believe women should be subservient. We may not agree, but we respect the Muslims’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s not OK for atheists to make a factual statement about religion on an anonymous internet message board, because it might offend some religious people. Even if we agree with the statement, we do not respect the atheists’ right to state facts and to exercise their freedom of religion.

You just need to feel victimized, don't you.

That's all you get from this careful exposition? What about the Episcopalian seeking communion, the gay Baptist seeking to familial acceptance, women's right to be treated equally? Is there no compassion for them - only accusations to the atheist drawing a comparison?

Anonymous wrote:Let’s see – it’s OK for a Catholic priest to turn way an Episcopalian at the communion rail, because it’s against the rules of the church to serve someone from another Christian faith. We may not agree, but we respect the Catholics’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s OK for a southern Baptist to tell a gay family member that they are going to hell because the Baptists believe homosexuality is a sin. We may not agree, but we respect the Baptists’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s OK for certain Muslims to require women to cover their heads because they believe women should be subservient. We may not agree, but we respect the Muslims’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s not OK for atheists to make a factual statement about religion on an anonymous internet message board, because it might offend some religious people. Even if we agree with the statement, we do not respect the atheists’ right to state facts and to exercise their freedom of religion.

You just need to feel victimized, don't you.

Let’s see – it’s OK for a Catholic priest to turn way an Episcopalian at the communion rail, because it’s against the rules of the church to serve someone from another Christian faith. We may not agree, but we respect the Catholics’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s OK for a southern Baptist to tell a gay family member that they are going to hell because the Baptists believe homosexuality is a sin. We may not agree, but we respect the Baptists’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s OK for certain Muslims to require women to cover their heads because they believe women should be subservient. We may not agree, but we respect the Muslims’ right to follow their beliefs and exercise their freedom of religion.

It’s not OK for atheists to make a factual statement about religion on an anonymous internet message board, because it might offend some religious people. Even if we agree with the statement, we do not respect the atheists’ right to state facts and to exercise their freedom of religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To those who believe in God -- when your prayers are not answered, or when something unexpected and negative happens, who do you blame? God? the devil?

It's not a question of "blame" -- it's a question of trying to understand God's will.

At a basic level, for example, a believer feels the death of a family member as a terrible loss, but from a religious perspective it's a transition for the deceased to a new and better phase. Belief isn't a simple, single state of saying, "OK, God chose to save my mom or not, so I believe or not." Instead for believers it's a constant state of questioning and interpreting what death means, how death fits with faith, et cetera.

That sure sounds like a lot of work, trying to justify death, which happens to everyone at some point. Don't some things just happen or do you think God is exerting his will in all aspects of your life -- and everyone's else's lives, even people who don't believe in him?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Needlessly antagonizing. I did not even clue in to that.

Who knows, some wavering theist may have read that and been swayed a little toward atheism.

So... you admit you are proselytizing for atheism.

Not OP and not proselytizing -- unless a quote favoring religion would be proseletizing, for instance:

“I pray to God every day thanking him for the blessings he has bestowed on me and my family. We are truly blessed thanks to the power of prayer and God’s favor.”

A person writing that on DCUM might be accused of being selfish, but not of proseletizing.

Even something like: “Please join my church to be closer to god” might not be considered proseletizing, but just a sincere invitation based on the writer’s deep religious beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

To those who believe in God -- when your prayers are not answered, or when something unexpected and negative happens, who do you blame? God? the devil?

It's not a question of "blame" -- it's a question of trying to understand God's will.

At a basic level, for example, a believer feels the death of a family member as a terrible loss, but from a religious perspective it's a transition for the deceased to a new and better phase. Belief isn't a simple, single state of saying, "OK, God chose to save my mom or not, so I believe or not." Instead for believers it's a constant state of questioning and interpreting what death means, how death fits with faith, et cetera.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Needlessly antagonizing. I did not even clue in to that.

Who knows, some wavering theist may have read that and been swayed a little toward atheism.

So... you admit you are proselytizing for atheism.

Anonymous wrote:Needlessly antagonizing. I did not even clue in to that.

Who knows, some wavering theist may have read that and been swayed a little toward atheism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Needlessly antagonizing. I did not even clue in to that.

believers are antagonized very easily, as in "how dare you question my completely unsubstantiated belief? It's my right to belief things for which there are no evidence!"

It is their right to believe whatever they choose, just as it's your right not to believe in a deity. When someone goes out of their way to poke at your belief/non-belief, it's annoying.

When Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons show up at your door (regardless of what you believe), or when someone pokes at your belief structure it's annoying, and under those circumstances you can launch with whatever arguments you choose, if you choose to engage.

Believers don't actually appreciate the constant societal drumbeat of organized religion that atheists are presented with, because it simply passes beneath conscious notice for them, but that doesn't mean that our pushing something back in their collective faces is the answer.

If the OP wanted to start a dialog, there were numerous ways to phrase it in an engaging way rather than just "Great quote about religion" followed by the text. If you want to get believers to think about/question this aspect of their belief structure, a bumper-sticker sound bite is unlikely to be the best way to do it.

So, either the OP genuinely wanted to start a dialog on the topic, but isn't sufficiently mature to understand why believers wouldn't react well to just having that sound bite thrown out there, or (and I think more likely) the OP saw this quote on an atheist site and decided to tweak the "illogical theists" with this awesome funny new idea he'd discovered.

There seems to be a presumption that OP should have the highest motives when mentioning anything about atheism, so they will be seen as a "good" atheist and be an example for other atheists. I don't see it that way. The "great quote" wasn't high minded, but it certainly was accurate - as you acknowledge. And you choose to protect beliefs you don't hold yourself.

Pushing something in their face may not be "the answer" but I think not pushing gets any minority group nowhere. Imagine if racial minorities or women hadn't gotten in people's faces where they'd be today. - still cow-towing to the folks in charge - that's where -and being congratulated for "knowing their place" or castigated when they got a little uppity. Sort of the way atheists are treated today.

We have a right in this country to freedom of religion -- that's good, but it can be dangerous when it gets interpreted to mean a privilege to disregard evidence in favor of believing in some alternative, unprovable reality - and when people with various conflicting supernatural beliefs automatically receive more societal respect than people who reject the supernatural in favor of observable reality.

I don't think atheists deferring to religious people is going to help us any more than women being ladylike would have helped the women's movement. Everyone can't be an activist, but without activists, nothing changes.

A few religious people being offended by a blunt but true statement on an internet message board seems OK to me and not something to be avoided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Needlessly antagonizing. I did not even clue in to that.

believers are antagonized very easily, as in "how dare you question my completely unsubstantiated belief? It's my right to belief things for which there are no evidence!"

It is their right to believe whatever they choose, just as it's your right not to believe in a deity. When someone goes out of their way to poke at your belief/non-belief, it's annoying.

When Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons show up at your door (regardless of what you believe), or when someone pokes at your belief structure it's annoying, and under those circumstances you can launch with whatever arguments you choose, if you choose to engage.

Believers don't actually appreciate the constant societal drumbeat of organized religion that atheists are presented with, because it simply passes beneath conscious notice for them, but that doesn't mean that our pushing something back in their collective faces is the answer.

If the OP wanted to start a dialog, there were numerous ways to phrase it in an engaging way rather than just "Great quote about religion" followed by the text. If you want to get believers to think about/question this aspect of their belief structure, a bumper-sticker sound bite is unlikely to be the best way to do it.

So, either the OP genuinely wanted to start a dialog on the topic, but isn't sufficiently mature to understand why believers wouldn't react well to just having that sound bite thrown out there, or (and I think more likely) the OP saw this quote on an atheist site and decided to tweak the "illogical theists" with this awesome funny new idea he'd discovered.

Anonymous wrote:Needlessly antagonizing. I did not even clue in to that.

believers are antagonized very easily, as in "how dare you question my completely unsubstantiated belief? It's my right to belief things for which there are no evidence!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Thanking God for the food you have while millions of people around the world starve every single day is like thanking a serial killer because he didn't kill YOU."

That is all.

Interesting my child, age ten,, determined very early in life that he God did not exist for him. No amount of talking, consoling, whatever has changed his views over the years. His early beliefs or non beliefs were manifested from the very circumstances derived from the your quote. He lost his first mom, dad, and siblings dipue to starvation. In his young mind a God would have provided him with food and water in his infancy and toddler years. God would have saved his first mother and brother. So every time I thank God for this or that,he says there is no God. I guess I am saying I get what the quote means for many.

And it sounds like you're not forcing your beliefs on him, but are respectful of how he arrived at his perspective. That's a very good thing.