The day you are saved - from religion

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This obvious fear and hatred and anger and belligerence towards outspoken activist atheism driving all this pathetic Concern Trolling stems from the realization that activist outspoken atheists are making a difference....

In this thread there are at least two accounts of people moving away from religion because of witnessing rational discussion on the subject. That's evidence for my position that reasoned debate can persuade people that their religious beliefs are wrong. Can you find, on the entirety of the internet, any accounts of people who say that they moved away from their religion because someone compared them to syphilis?

My issue with your approach is precisely the opposite of how you characterise it - I don't believe you are making a difference. Or, at least, not a positive one. Angrily attacking people is only likely to make them more entrenched in their views, whereas approaching them calmly and reasonably stands a chance of making them think critically.

But, then, you've already admitted in this thread that your aim is to make theists angry, rather than to educate, inform, or persuade them.

 

[pharphis]

There's a difference between discussing something and obsessing over it. The point I made about the posts before is interesting. Why would someone spend practically every single day of their lives discussing religion if they don't believe in it? It's when it is to the point of pathology that it crosses the line.




Well sorry but you trying to "nip it in the bud" because there's a "better way" is absolutely identical to the behavior of fanatical converter Christians.

The only difference is I happen to agree with your side.

Our beliefs don't always inform our actions. I know quite a few fundamentalist Christians who feel that marriage laws are none of their business and who don't judge gay people.
When people are religious fanatics I avoid them. I don't associate with them. I've quite a few times ended friendships with people who are aggressively Christian and behave in ways that hurt other people.

But when people keep their views to themselves it's not my business to pound the **** out of them for their stupidity.

My religious friends know I don't believe their beliefs. But basically the question I have is how is your life so perfect that you have energy to spend on "fixing other people." Why not focus on living a more productive life and empowering causes you do agree with.
Sorry but your rationalization is no different to me than a fundy Christian who KNOWS that I am wrong and they want to Save me from myself.

The only logical way this makes any sense to me is that the person was "indoctrinated" (to use your word) in a very religious household that the "right way to be" means you have to get everyone else to do it your way. You have to CONVERT PEOPLE< SAVE PEOPLE< HELP THEM SEE THE TRUTH


So when that person suddenly changes their belief system they keep acting the same way. Only this time it's a different belief system. In my opinion, real atheism is not a "belief system."

Wrong. That means that those people have beliefs regarding their non-interference with the rights of others, either for constitutional or other reasons.

Active scientific skepticism (and therefore antitheism) IS a cause I support. I've made this clear in multiple posts. I am doing what I can to better the world in this respect because I care.

You're right, atheism isn't a belief system. My atheism has nothing to do with my antitheism except tangentially. I believe religious beliefs are unsupported and often harmful and as a skeptic I seek to challenge and correct things which I know are wrong or at the very least unjustifiable.

My beliefs have been stated:
Our beliefs inform our actions (fact)
Many beliefs are unjustified or demonstrably false (fact)
This includes religious beliefs (fact)

Notice how that isn't BECAUSE of my atheism

 

[Loss Leader]

To me the Bible Belt and the Last Circle of Hell are one and the same. Changing planes in Atlanta was already too much to me.

Atlanta is fine. Half an hour outside the Perimeter is another story entirely. I experienced no culture shock in Atlanta or Athens. Driving between Atlanta and Athens, however, was another story.*


*Or it used to be before they extended the highway.

 

[truethat]

Wrong. That means that those people have beliefs regarding their non-interference with the rights of others, either for constitutional or other reasons.

Active scientific skepticism (and therefore antitheism) IS a cause I support. I've made this clear in multiple posts. I am doing what I can to better the world in this respect because I care.

You're right, atheism isn't a belief system. My atheism has nothing to do with my antitheism except tangentially. I believe religious beliefs are unsupported and often harmful and as a skeptic I seek to challenge and correct things which I know are wrong or at the very least unjustifiable.

My beliefs have been stated:
Our beliefs inform our actions (fact)
Many beliefs are unjustified or demonstrably false (fact)
This includes religious beliefs (fact)

Notice how that isn't BECAUSE of my atheism

Um I disagree that religious beliefs inform actions. Personal beliefs do. You are being academically dishonest to pretend that just because someone has a religious belief they automatically go along with that particular belief system.

Millions of Divorced Catholics or Catholics using birth control prove you wrong and are FACTS. You don't get to make up facts you like.

I'm not Anti THEIST because when believers (as most of the people I've encountered are) hold their religious beliefs as personal ones there's not a problem.

It is only when they try to use those beliefs to change public policy that I would feel the need to speak up.

Sorry but the evidence does not back up your claims. You are rationalizing attacking believers in general. In my opinion when people do this it is because of a psychological issue.

In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[3]

wiki

 

[pharphis]

Um I disagree that religious beliefs inform actions. Personal beliefs do. You are being academically dishonest to pretend that just someone has a religious belief they automatically go along with that particularly belief system.

Millions of Divorced Catholics or Catholics using birth control prove you wrong and are FACTS. You don't get to make up facts you like.

I'm not Anti THEIST because when believers (as most of the people I've encountered are) hold their religious beliefs as personal ones there's not a problem.

It is only when they try to use those beliefs to change public policy that I would feel the need to speak up.

Sorry but the evidence does not back up your claims.

That only means that they believe one things is more important than another. This is a third belief and it informs their actions.

My claim was never that every religious belief is never trumped by another belief. My claim is that beliefs inform our actions. Sometimes one belief will trump another but at least in SOME cases we have religious beliefs informing actions that directly cause harm to 1) the believer or 2) others.

Besides, it's not like public policy is the ONLY thing that matters. Our perception of others ("atheists are evil") affects the private sector and just about everything, honestly. It impacts people's jobs, their social life, health, etc.
This is why unreasonable beliefs should be addressed (gays don't deserve marriage equality) as well as the underlying reasons for said beliefs (god said so).

So, sorry, but you've completely strawmanned or misunderstood my position, and in fact supported my position by pointing out that the alternative (people not acting on a religious belief) is not the only possibility but sometimes the case ("millions" rather than all)

 

[pharphis]

Just saw your edit:

Please explain where, exactly, I am making excuses for a behavior. I will reiterate that I am NOT making an exception for religious beliefs like many people do. Medicine, conspiracies, pseudoscience, politics, etc. are all up for scrutiny in my opinion.

edit: and you have to be careful with what you mean by "attacking believers".

I attack beliefs, not people. Unfortunately, people identify AS their beliefs (especially religious ones) and interpret disagreement or challenging of a belief as an attack on a person, as you seem to have implied multiple times in this thread.

 

[tsig]

Oh come on, you know exactly what he means. I can pretty much bet that the majority of your posts on this site are on RELIGION So why would you obsess about something you purport not to believe?

The only way to rationalize it to yourself is pretending that you are standing up against the fanatical believers. But you don't really. You (not you personally btw you in general) You treat all believers the same way.

It kinda comes across as, "Well if I can't enjoy it, I'll ruin it for everyone else as well."

Pathological is a good word to describe it, don't you think?

Wrong again, I posted in the conspiracy section for years before I ever ventured into R&P.

Ruin what? Lifelong service to an imaginary being? Fear that the IB is going to send you to hell?

 

[tsig]

Why don't you short that to "neener, neener!" and save bytes. You talking of fallacies! Outrageous, now the birds are shooting to the shotguns!

I'll leave the "neener, neener" stuff to you. I noticed you did not show any fallacies but rather chose to post insulting stuff. Is this really all you got?

 

[truethat]

That only means that they believe one things is more important than another. This is a third belief and it informs their actions.

My claim was never that every religious belief is never trumped by another belief. My claim is that beliefs inform our actions. Sometimes one belief will trump another but at least in SOME cases we have religious beliefs informing actions that directly cause harm to 1) the believer or 2) others.

Besides, it's not like public policy is the ONLY thing that matters. Our perception of others ("atheists are evil") affects the private sector and just about everything, honestly. It impacts people's jobs, their social life, health, etc.
This is why unreasonable beliefs should be addressed (gays don't deserve marriage equality) as well as the underlying reasons for said beliefs (god said so).

So, sorry, but you've completely strawmanned or misunderstood my position, and in fact supported my position by pointing out that the alternative (people not acting on a religious belief) is not the only possibility but sometimes the case ("millions" rather than all)

I haven't misunderstood your position. You have stated that you feel you have a right and made it something of a noble effort to attack people for their "beliefs" because "beliefs" inform actions.

The beliefs in question here are "religious" beliefs. I have witnessed that most "believers" I know hold them as personal beliefs and don't generally go out of their way to shove them down other people's throats.

I know in other parts of the US people do. But I have seen many believers who do not follow their purported "beliefs" So your arguments that "beliefs" inform our actions. Um NOT TRUE.

(there's a whole term devoted to this called cognitive dissonance.)



Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. The majority of Christians "believe" that fornication is a sin, but most of them do it. The majority of Christians know that bowing down to engraven images is wrong but they still have Jesus and crucifixes that they like.

The majority of Christians know that divorce is wrong. They still do it.

So what evidence do you have to back up your claims? Kim Davis? Ok fine go attack Kim Davis and I'll give you a high five.

But you have deluded yourself into thinking that being mean, disrespectful and attacking of believers in general is some how a Super Hero move on your part.

You've rationalized abusive behavior as "honorable" "for the bigger plan" "the right thing to do"

You know.......just like the freaky fundamentalist converter Christians do.

 

[Leumas]

There's a difference between discussing something and obsessing over it.

When you do it, it is an occasional cursory curiosity.... but when others do it you quack-psychoanalyze them over the internet and label them psychologically damaged and obsessed?

The point I made about the posts before is interesting.

So says you... so it is so ordained?

Why would someone spend practically every single day of their lives discussing religion if they don't believe in it?

So entomologists must be insects.... a pharmacologist trying to find a cure for a virus must be the virus?

People who teach and study and write books about fiction and literature and Classical Greek or Roman religions and other religions must according to your illogic be believers in Zeus and all the other gods and fictive characters.

It's when it is to the point of pathology that it crosses the line.

But quack-psychoanalyzing people across the internet and declaring them all sorts of things because they do not share your views on things is totally healthy?

<snip... more claptrap bare assertions that it is pathological and fanatically mentally damaged to discuss religion on the internet>

 

[pharphis]

I haven't misunderstood your position. You have stated that you feel you have a right and made it something of a noble effort to attack people for their "beliefs" because "beliefs" inform actions.

The beliefs in question here are "religious" beliefs. I have witnessed that most "believers" I know hold them as personal beliefs and don't generally go out of their way to shove them down other people's throats.
I know in other parts of the US people do. But I have seen many believers who do not follow their purported "beliefs" So your arguments that "beliefs" inform our actions. Um NOT TRUE.
(there's a whole term devoted to this called cognitive dissonance.)



Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. The majority of Christians "believe" that fornication is a sin, but most of them do it. The majority of Christians know that bowing down to engraven images is wrong but they still have Jesus and crucifixes that they like.

The majority of Christians know that divorce is wrong. They still do it.

So what evidence do you have to back up your claims? Kim Davis? Ok fine go attack Kim Davis and I'll give you a high five.

But you have deluded yourself into thinking that being mean, disrespectful and attacking of believers in general is some how a Super Hero move on your part.

You've rationalized abusive behavior as "honorable" "for the bigger plan" "the right thing to do"

You know.......just like the freaky fundamentalist converter Christians do.

Here, once again, is the equating of challenging a belief with attacking a person. Not only that, but by doing so I am being "mean", "disrespectful" and "abusive".

Wrong. This isn't just about religious beliefs. This is about ALL beliefs. Nothing is off the table - so why is it that you zero in on religious beliefs as being exempt, exactly?

I've already addressed this. Our beliefs inform our actions. Sometimes beliefs come into conflict so we go with whichever one we weigh as more important for a given choice, and this can be amplified by "in the moment" scenarios such as sex, for example. I never said that all Catholics have to do X, all Muslims have to do Y, etc.

Please quit ignoring my rebuttals

 

[tsig]

Um I disagree that religious beliefs inform actions. Personal beliefs do. You are being academically dishonest to pretend that just because someone has a religious belief they automatically go along with that particular belief system.

Millions of Divorced Catholics or Catholics using birth control prove you wrong and are FACTS. You don't get to make up facts you like.

I'm not Anti THEIST because when believers (as most of the people I've encountered are) hold their religious beliefs as personal ones there's not a problem.

It is only when they try to use those beliefs to change public policy that I would feel the need to speak up.
Sorry but the evidence does not back up your claims. You are rationalizing attacking believers in general. In my opinion when people do this it is because of a psychological issue.




wiki

Like closing down Planned Parenthood? Denying transgendered equal rights? Refusing to issue marriage licenses?

 

[tsig]

and he follows up with vitriolic bashing of... well basically anyone who points out that his vitriolic bashing is quite counterproductive.

So you're bashing him for bashing?

I'd be a bit bashful about doing that.

 

[tsig]

You shouldn't put yourself down like that.

She doesn't seem to be talking to us since many of her replies have nothing to do with the post replied to.

 

[truethat]

Pharphis

I understand what you are saying. I know what you THINK you are doing but that's not how it comes across to everyone. (There are very obviously people who agree with you who would also see it that way)

But in my opinion, there must be an underlying psychological issue at play for a person to be "anti theist" to the point that they justify attacking believers (by that I mean verbally)

There's just seriously something wrong with a person who feels the need to "FIX" other people's beliefs.

You said this in your original reply. You think you are HELPING THEM.

Well so do the converter Christians. They think we can't see the "truth" and when we die we'll go to hell and not be saved.

One particularly ****** thing a friend of mine did to her father as he was dying was get him to "convert" and accept Jesus as his savior so he could get to Heaven. He only did it for HER and I was annoyed at her for doing it.

But she thought she was helping to save him.

 

[Leumas]

Like closing down Planned Parenthood? Denying transgendered equal rights? Refusing to issue marriage licenses?

Or like incessantly coming into threads about atheism and insisting that people who debate about the subject of religion are pathological psychologically damaged obsessive fanatics all with the aim of sabotaging the thread and discussion and degenerating the debate into base name calling and quack-psychoanalytical diagnoses of atheists as vengeful haters driven by memories of past abuses in their childhood.

 

[truethat]

Wrong again, I posted in the conspiracy section for years before I ever ventured into R&P.

Ruin what? Lifelong service to an imaginary being? Fear that the IB is going to send you to hell?

Um why are you denying something we call all look up in two seconds. If you are an atheist and you are not fanatically drawn to religious discussions, how do you explain your posting history?

Go to the Advanced Search. Type in your name. Click on Religion and Philosophy and then click Search Now.

You will see in black and white the numbers.

Now do the same thing for me. You will see in black and white the numbers.


So the question that's been asked is if you are an atheist why are you so focused on religion?

 

[Leumas]

Well this is what I mean. I would never consider trying "help others" leave their beliefs. It's none of my goddamned business. (excuse the pun)

This is why I say they are like fundamentalists or fanatics trying shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats under the guise that they are trying to "save" them.

I have no idea why you would want to do that to someone. Especially a stranger.

There's a difference between that type of person and the kind of person who just doesn't believe in god or theist beliefs and carry's on in their life. The only time I'd involve myself would be for example when people post about "UNDER GOD" being needed in the pledge of allegiance. Or denying gay marriage rights. Then I'll speak up about it.

But if someone wants to believe in a "Sky Daddy" what does it have to do with me?

I am not sure you realize this is an internet forum for discussion and debate.

People who come to this forum and participate in a thread are doing so voluntarily and no one is forcing anything on them.

When they participate in a thread and post claptrap and people respond by pointing out the claptrap no one is forcing anything on anyone.

Calling people pathological mentally damaged angry foaming at the mouth fanatics who have been abused in their childhood because they post stuff on an internet forum discussion is .... well.... sophistic tomfoolery.

 

[Leumas]

Well this is what I mean. I would never consider trying "help others" leave their beliefs.

But yet you are adamant about helping atheists stop debating theists!!

It's none of my goddamned business. (excuse the pun)

But you are convinced that it is your goddamned business to quack-psychoanalyze atheists over the internet and declaring them psychologically damaged because they participate in internet debates opposing theism!

This is why I say they are like fundamentalists or fanatics trying shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats under the guise that they are trying to "save" them.

Do you have a label for those who shove their quack-psychoanalysis down atheists' throats with the guise of trying to make them recognize the futility of debating religion on the internet?... I do... I call them Concern Trolls.

I have no idea why you would want to do that to someone. Especially a stranger.

People who participate in discussions on the internet have not been forced to do it and debating with them pointing out their failure in logic and reason is part of the intercourse of debating.

Sabotaging debates and discussions by calling people mentally damaged castrated zealot fanatics because they like to debate religion on the internet is ...well.... sophistry.

There's a difference between that type of person and the kind of person who just doesn't believe in god or theist beliefs and carry's on in their life.

So you are not one of those people then.... incessantly calling people mentally damaged and trying to convince them that the healthy mental state is to just go away and not participate in religious discussion on the internet is not as you say "carrying on with your life" is it now?

The only time I'd involve myself would be for example when people post about "UNDER GOD" being needed in the pledge of allegiance. Or denying gay marriage rights. Then I'll speak up about it.

But on the other hand you make it your goddamn business to indefatigably participate in atheist bashing and quack-psychoanalyzing them as pathologically mentally damaged because they debate religion on the internet.

But if someone wants to believe in a "Sky Daddy" what does it have to do with me?

But it is apparently a lot to do with you if atheists want to debate those people when they come to a Skeptics' forum and start telling atheists that they have been abused as children which explains why they are angry and hateful of religion and so zealously fanatical as to dare debate theists on the internet.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Hmmm? Yes.... your posts right from the start of this thread have been nothing but attacks on atheism and atheists in post after post after post as I have demonstrated right here.

You started with your very first (post#10) accusing atheists of violently shaking children to tears shouting at them to stop believing.

Then you had the audacity to feign exasperation at the thread "becoming more a tour de force for anti-theism than the collection of spiritual "coming of age stories it was intended to be.".

Then you proceeded to accuse atheists of trying to indoctrinate and of religiously poisoning non-theism.

Then you accused atheists of concealing their hatred towards religions and wanting to exact vengeance because they have been psychologically damaged by some past religious bad experience.

You also called theists "new born anti-theistic zealots who are militant by their creed" and equated them to American puritans of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Then you carried on with claiming that these anti-theists as you so fallaciously like to slander them have had "their theist bollocks removed superficially and that they resent that fact and concentrate all their zeal and hate against the religion that doesn't let them go free in "the windmills of their minds".

This is a lot of hatred and anger you are harboring against outspoken atheists.

This is a very vitriolic anti-atheism ....I wonder why???

Hmmm ... No!

You may try a third time