The day you are saved - from religion

[pharphis]

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.

Once again, I want to point out that voicing a disagreement with someone's belief is not ATTACKING A PERSON (not even verbally).

Have you not ever wanted to convince someone they were wrong of something or correct misinformation? Never? What are you doing on a skeptic forum if you have no intent in ever convincing people they are wrong about something? Do you not have any care in the world for whether or not someone believes something that is false? Are you afraid you'll hurt their feelings if you tell someone they're unjustifiably denying climate science when they spit tropes like "global warming is a liberal hoax!"

Ofc they think they're right and I think I'm right. I can fully empathize with someone wanting to save others from eternal damnation (or whatever their specific belief is). How could you NOT empathize with that position?

 

[truethat]

I'm not talking about "voicing a disagreement" You posted in your original reply to me that when you come to your senses you wanted to "HELP THEM" change their beliefs.

I'm talking about the motivation to do so.

I don't get this "need" to try to "convince someone they were wrong" about their spiritual beliefs because it's a personal matter. Only when it becomes a public matter would I feel the need to chime in.

I personally think that there is something mentally wrong with a fundamentalist who isn't satisfied with their own beliefs but is out there trying to convince everyone else that they are wrong. Good example "Westboro Baptist Church

I also think that when "new Atheists" are coming out of extremely religious homes where they were raised like my friend and taught that conversion (aka convincing people they are wrong and they should come over to your way of thinking) is a necessary part of life, they act the SAME WAY about atheism.

It's weird as hell to me. It's creepy and wrong. But they rationalize it as doing something "good" just like the fundies do.

I can't empathize with someone wanting to save a STRANGER from eternal damnation. The fact that you can kinda proves my point, don't you think?

 

[aleCcowaN]

So much to respond to and so little time. For now, I will highlight one dishonest remark



Challenging beliefs /= thought-policing, and this is something that I would expect people to know by now, ESPECIALLY since I have said made my position clear that my goal is to challenge beliefs and that I can accept when people don't change their beliefs.

I've seen claims that most "angry atheists/antitheists" have been raised religiously and are trying to "get back". I myself am an exception to this but even if it were 99% of antitheists who were raised religiously that doesn't mean that they're coming from a place of wanting "revenge" or to "punish" the religious. In fact, I think it should be obvious that - if anything - the motivation should be that of enlightenment: these post-religious folks are aware that they were wrong in the past and (most likely through indoctrination) and seek to help others leave their misinformed/ignorant beliefs.

Let's say you couldn't tell hyperbole from essence and your criticism is valid. The key here is what are you going to do. If you are going to cease every occasion something religious come to the surface to try and enlighten the poor religious crowd, you are a militant anti-theist the kind I'm criticizing. If you are just to occasionally deal with the topic on a case by case basis, mainly in circumstances when religious activities invade what they shouldn't, like commenting about the nasty person who denied licenses to same-sex couples or creationism forcing its path into K-12, then you are an atheist. It's not the same. An antitheist is a religious bitch who is looking for a fight and uses the malafides methods of religious zealots because they get their motivation from identical sources. You have many examples in this subforum of such bitches. An antitheist is a religious bitch who took the religious part in themselves, plucked that part and replaced it by militancy against those who haven't snatched that part yet. An atheist is a rational person that took away that religious part in their beings and left a void not to be filled but to be formed into a cicatrice. From a spiritual point of view the atheist have to develop themselves in other chapters of their beings. From a social point of view the atheist object and fight -on a case by case basis- the attempts of theists to fill that void with the old thing. That case by case basis hardly generates instances of such confrontation as atheist pretty much ignore the theist and continue with their important lives now that they know that's the only thing they'll ever have.

If you're a skeptic and not an antitheist in the regard that you think all beliefs are subject to being challenged then you are simply putting religious beliefs on a pedestal. You're attaching a lot of baggage to the label antitheist that doesn't belong there for those of us in this thread at the very least

It's clear I think religion is crap, hence what I say about antitheists here -currently there's no theist posting here and deserving my reply-. The fact that I think that religion is crap doesn't mean that I am glorifying defecation nor that I'm trying to ban toilets all around the world -and if you poorly think that is dishonest, bite me!- like die-hard antitheists do. Theists live their lives and I live mine with a minimum of interaction, and that's it.

 

[truethat]

Let's say you couldn't tell hyperbole from essence and your criticism is valid. The key here is what are you going to do. If you are going to cease every occasion something religious come to the surface to try and enlighten the poor religious crowd, you are a militant anti-theist the kind I'm criticizing. If you are just to occasionally deal with the topic on a case by case basis, mainly in circumstances when religious activities invade what they shouldn't, like commenting about the nasty person who denied licenses to same-sex couples or creationism forcing its path into K-12, then you are an atheist. It's not the same. An antitheist is a religious bitch who is looking for a fight and uses the malafides methods of religious zealots because they get their motivation from identical sources. You have many examples in this subforum of such bitches. An antitheist is a religious bitch who took the religious part in themselves, plucked that part and replaced it by militancy against those who haven't snatched that part yet. An atheist is a rational person that took away that religious part in their beings and left a void not to be filled but to be formed into a cicatrice. From a spiritual point of view the atheist have to develop themselves in other chapters of their beings. From a social point of view the atheist object and fight -on a case by case basis- the attempts of theists to fill that void with the old thing. That case by case basis hardly generates instances of such confrontation as atheist pretty much ignore the theist and continue with their important lives now that they know that's the only thing they'll ever have.



It's clear I think religion is crap, hence what I say about antitheists here -currently there's no theist posting here and deserving my reply-. The fact that I think that religion is crap doesn't mean that I am glorifying defecation nor that I'm trying to ban toilets all around the world -and if you poorly think that is dishonest, bite me!- like die-hard antitheists do. Theists live their lives and I live mine with a minimum of interaction, and that's it.

This this a million times this!!!

 

[Leumas]

I mentioned that for a year or so I continued the discussion. But I really think this is the first time in about a year I've posted in a religious thread. Whereas I would wager (could be wrong) that you regularly post in them.

No!

It seemed boring to me after a while. This thread was about someone becoming ATHEIST and yet you've still managed to make it about religious believers. LOL

Have you even read the OP?

Have you read this post?

ETA

OK here's how everyone can check out what I mean. In the last MONTH I've posted in three threads in the Religion and Philosophy forum. Then prior to that the next post was in November 2014.

Tsig has posted in 25 different threads in less than 30 days in Religion and Philosophy.


It's easy to see. Just go to Advanced search, type the member name, then go to the Forum only Religion and Philosophy and make sure results are shown by THREAD and not posts.

And what's interesting is the Religion and Philosophy posts I did post in were about ATHEISTS or NON BELIEVERS. So anyone who is saying it's the same thing is delusional. LOL

You have conveniently omitted this thread and in which you have contributed 63 posts between 30th June 2015 and 4th July 2015.

The thread currently resides in the Forum Community sub-forum but it was started right in the Religion & Philosophy sub-forum and was moved to the other forum after the atheist bashing fest which was the whole intent of the OP was thoroughly exposed for what it was and the OP requested it be moved after 378 posts while it was still residing where it was started in the Religion & Philosophy sub-forum.

In that thread your posts were of the same atheist bashing and name calling content as in this thread and there too as in this thread you repeated the same mantra of calling atheists foaming at the mouth pathological and mentally damaged just because they do not see how insane it is to even bother to debate religion.

 

[Senex]

I was brought up Catholic. My dad was a Congregationalist and my mom was Catholic. My dad had to agree to raise his children as Catholics so they could be married in the Catholic Church. My family never went to church together except at Christmas. Twelve years of parochial school never convinced me about believing in god even at a young age. I never had that "Eureka" this is all BS moment. It kind of slowly crept up on me from 5th grade to 9th grade where I was fully an atheist.

 

[pharphis]

I'm not talking about "voicing a disagreement" You posted in your original reply to me that when you come to your senses you wanted to "HELP THEM" change their beliefs.
I'm talking about the motivation to do so.

I don't get this "need" to try to "convince someone they were wrong" about their spiritual beliefs because it's a personal matter. Only when it becomes a public matter would I feel the need to chime in.
I personally think that there is something mentally wrong with a fundamentalist who isn't satisfied with their own beliefs but is out there trying to convince everyone else that they are wrong. Good example "Westboro Baptist Church

I also think that when "new Atheists" are coming out of extremely religious homes where they were raised like my friend and taught that conversion (aka convincing people they are wrong and they should come over to your way of thinking) is a necessary part of life, they act the SAME WAY about atheism.

It's weird as hell to me. It's creepy and wrong. But they rationalize it as doing something "good" just like the fundies do.

I can't empathize with someone wanting to save a STRANGER from eternal damnation. The fact that you can kinda proves my point, don't you think?

How else do I get someone to change their beliefs without voicing my opinion?

and I disagree about when to chime in. I think it's better to address the underlying reason for these public policy issues, both because it indirectly addresses them (by reducing their frequency and magnitude by reducing the amount and magnitude of the belief leading to such issues) but also for another reason as mentioned. Sociology is a little more complicated than overt discrimination as you might see with public policy issues. Religions tend to push the "us vs them" mentality and stereotypes as already mentioned (atheists are evil, etc.). By addressing the beliefs themselves rather than the manifestation of those beliefs in one single aspect of life (public policy) I hope to accomplish more than those like yourself in this one field of interest.

Then you once again don't understand that beliefs inform our actions: If I believe someone is going to suffer eternally WHY THE HELL WOULD I TRY NOT TO STOP THAT? I am biologically driven to want them not to. I think it takes a sociopath to have such an extreme lack of empathy for others. We're talking about infinite suffering, here.

Does it prove your point that skeptics who want people to believe true things through a maximization of reason (and therefore happier, healthier lives due to our models of reality better reflecting said reality) share the same motivation as religious folk who think those they cannot convince are doomed to eternal suffering? Yes, I think that's apt enough of a comparison. Both sides care about the rest of humanity and do their part to make it as great as possible. Does that make both sides wrong? No. Does it make both right? No. It makes both reasonable actions based on their beliefs. However,
I think the skeptic side is the one grounded closer in reality by definition.

 

[truethat]

I'm not biologically driven to worry so much about what other people believe. There's a certain arrogance in feeling like you are responsible for the world. Don't you think? I'm not Ivan.


Btw what religion were you raised in? I've very rarely ever heard the expression Atheists are evil. Someone who would think that would be so flipping bonkers in my mind the attempt at rational conversation wouldn't even be worth it. Maybe your real problem is that you surround yourself with idiots.

 

[Leumas]

Hmmm ... No!

You may try a third time

I do not need to... every one can go and see for themselves by reading this post.

It is clearly demonstrated in your very own words in your very own posts the extent of anger and hatred and disdain and anti-atheism you hold against atheists who speak out against religion.

Here is a summary of what you said... maybe this time you will stop denying that you said those things since they are stated in your posts as demonstrated right here.

• Anti-theists only want to take 5 year old laddies [sic] and shake them shouting Santa doesn't exist, you stupid prick!
• Anti-theism is proselytizing from men with prostate adenome.
• Antitheists' propaganda is here trying to indoctrinate people.
• I only want antitheists to acknowledge their religious nature and stop poisoning the group of non-theist.
• Anti-theists are concealing with a disguise that they are people who were harmed by religious beliefs and want them to pay for that.
• There is no worse zealot than a convert and New-born antitheists fit well that description
• Antitheism is militant and a creed, not rational and an ideology.
• Antitheists are like white folk in the USA during the eighteenth and nineteenth century.
• The removal of anti-theists' bollocks is so superficial 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" so to speak.

 

[pharphis]

Let's say you couldn't tell hyperbole from essence and your criticism is valid. The key here is what are you going to do. If you are going to cease every occasion something religious come to the surface to try and enlighten the poor religious crowd, you are a militant anti-theist the kind I'm criticizing. If you are just to occasionally deal with the topic on a case by case basis, mainly in circumstances when religious activities invade what they shouldn't, like commenting about the nasty person who denied licenses to same-sex couples or creationism forcing its path into K-12, then you are an atheist. It's not the same. An antitheist is a religious bitch who is looking for a fight and uses the malafides methods of religious zealots because they get their motivation from identical sources. You have many examples in this subforum of such bitches. An antitheist is a religious bitch who took the religious part in themselves, plucked that part and replaced it by militancy against those who haven't snatched that part yet. An atheist is a rational person that took away that religious part in their beings and left a void not to be filled but to be formed into a cicatrice. From a spiritual point of view the atheist have to develop themselves in other chapters of their beings. From a social point of view the atheist object and fight -on a case by case basis- the attempts of theists to fill that void with the old thing. That case by case basis hardly generates instances of such confrontation as atheist pretty much ignore the theist and continue with their important lives now that they know that's the only thing they'll ever have.



It's clear I think religion is crap, hence what I say about antitheists here -currently there's no theist posting here and deserving my reply-. The fact that I think that religion is crap doesn't mean that I am glorifying defecation nor that I'm trying to ban toilets all around the world -and if you poorly think that is dishonest, bite me!- like die-hard antitheists do. Theists live their lives and I live mine with a minimum of interaction, and that's it.

I assess my willingness as well as try to evaluate the worth of such discussions on a case by case basis, like virtually everyone does. This will tend to be all public matters but there are instances when I'm willing to speak on private matters, either with strangers, people I know, or whatever. By addressing more than just public policy discussions I am not an extremist. Is there anyone out there who devotes their time to EVERY single scenario where religion possibly plays any role? I doubt it.
I find your definition of "militant antitheist" a strawman of how antitheists typically behave.

lol you've defined atheist as rational. Many atheists are not rational and are not atheists for rational reasons. While I think agnostic atheism is the most rational position that doesn't mean atheists are necessarily rational.

 

[pharphis]

I'm not biologically driven to worry so much about what other people believe. There's a certain arrogance in feeling like you are responsible for the world. Don't you think? I'm not Ivan.


Btw what religion were you raised in? I've very rarely ever heard the expression Atheists are evil. Someone who would think that would be so flipping bonkers in my mind the attempt at rational conversation wouldn't even be worth it. Maybe your real problem is that you surround yourself with idiots.

Not necessarily what people believe, but whether or not they suffer. If someone was being mugged are you suggesting that you wouldn't even call the cops, at a minimum? If you would, why is that? Is it because you're a human and can empathize with suffering and would like to prevent or minimize it in such situations?
How then, is INFINITE suffering not important to you, assuming you believed in it? You could care very very little in what people believe and it would still be enough due to the infinite part of the equation.

I mentioned in one of my first posts that I wasn't raised religiously at all, and pointed it out again in one of my more recent posts.

 

[truethat]

It's weird that you equate a belief with something physical like "getting mugged."

 

[Leumas]

... I've very rarely ever heard the expression Atheists are evil. Someone who would think that would be so flipping bonkers in my mind the attempt at rational conversation wouldn't even be worth it. Maybe your real problem is that you surround yourself with idiots.

What about this stuff??

I never got along with what I refer to as "angry atheists" IOW people who like stomp on other people's beliefs and try to ruin everything because they are a spoiled brat who wants everything to be their way.

...
Nope, they take their crazy fundamentalist mindset and just apply it to being Atheist.
...

...
Obviously that would refer IMO back to my other point that some sort of mental issues, perhaps related to being raised in a fanatical Christian home, has created this mindset that the person must abuse others with similar beliefs to "get back at" or "punish" someone for something done to them.
...

Ah that is a such a great way of putting it. They are pathologically obsessed with religion! Exactamundo! ...

...My experience with both of you is that you grew up in fanatical situations and then continue to project that behavior onto other people even though you are purportedly now "atheists"
...
But this is what was posted above that I agree with. What reason would a regular old atheist have to be so completely obsessed, pathologically obsessed with religious discussion if you don't believe in it?
...

Other than it sounds like a crazy person wrote it, not much. LOL

...
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?

..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.
...

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

...
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.

...

 

[pharphis]

It's weird that you equate a belief with something physical like "getting mugged."

It's not the belief itself that is the problem, but pretending that beliefs don't have consequences is myopic. It's the consequence of said beliefs that matter.

I'll try to explain this one last time before giving up.

Beliefs impact ourselves and others. If our beliefs are not a good model of reality (typically these are unjustifiable or demonstrably false), then we are more likely to do harm to ourselves or others than if our model is reliable.

Turning to the question I asked that you deliberately ignored:
If someone is mugged, and you had the power to do something, would you do it? Why?
If the consequence for something is eternal suffering, and you have the power to stop it, why wouldn't you?

 

[truethat]

If someone was mugged I'd call the police and let them handle it. I'd probably go over to see if the person and stay with them until help arrived.

You're equating "believing" something with being HURT or INJURED. Deluded people are not hurt or injured. They're not necessarily stupid people. Like I said, you seem to have a very distorted view of beliefs. Either that or you're extremely young.

But sorry I have no idea why you would be so worried about what other people believe?

It's bizarre in my opinion and your explanations read exactly like the definition of "Rationalization" that I posted before.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I do not need to... every one can go and see for themselves by reading this post.

It is clearly demonstrated in your very own words in your very own posts the extent of anger and hatred and disdain and anti-atheism you hold against atheists who speak out against religion.

Here is a summary of what you said... maybe this time you will stop denying that you said those things since they are stated in your posts as demonstrated right here.

• Anti-theists only want to take 5 year old laddies [sic] and shake them shouting Santa doesn't exist, you stupid prick!
• Anti-theism is proselytizing from men with prostate adenome.
• Antitheists' propaganda is here trying to indoctrinate people.
• I only want antitheists to acknowledge their religious nature and stop poisoning the group of non-theist.
• Anti-theists are concealing with a disguise that they are people who were harmed by religious beliefs and want them to pay for that.
• There is no worse zealot than a convert and New-born antitheists fit well that description
• Antitheism is militant and a creed, not rational and an ideology. Antitheists are like white folk in the USA during the eighteenth and nineteenth century.
• The removal of anti-theists' bollocks is so superficial 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" so to speak.

Göbellian tactics too obvious!

Don't forget to add in your next post that I killed Lincoln.

 

[Leumas]

...But sorry I have no idea why you would be so worried about what other people believe?

It's bizarre in my opinion and your explanations read exactly like the definition of "Rationalization" that I posted before.

Yet you on the other hand are so worried about making sure that the deranged obsessed psychologically damaged anti-theists stop debating theists on the internet.

You are so worried to ensure they share your creed that it is futile to even talk about religion.

You worry so much about defending the beliefs of the theists against the debates of those foaming at the mouth anti-theists you are willng to spend words upon words in post after another maligning and quack-psychoanalyzing those anti-theists who do not believe like you that it is futile to debate theists.

All the while telling us that it is futile to debate about religion and anyone who does it is a person who has been abused as a child by religion and is only debating out of a mental issue causing them to be hateful irrational fanatics.

So when you spend so much effort trying to convert those insane anti-theists to your creed and doctrine of quiet docile accommodative non-theism... it is a worthwhile sane pursuit.

When atheists wish to strongly deflect the attempts of theists and Concern Trolls who voluntarily come here trying to convince skeptics that it is a sign of mental illness to be an outspoken atheist.... you decide that it only proves further your quack-psychoanalysis of their mental issues and insane obsession with religion.

Sophistry of the most base kind.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I assess my willingness as well as try to evaluate the worth of such discussions on a case by case basis, like virtually everyone does. This will tend to be all public matters but there are instances when I'm willing to speak on private matters, either with strangers, people I know, or whatever. By addressing more than just public policy discussions I am not an extremist. Is there anyone out there who devotes their time to EVERY single scenario where religion possibly plays any role? I doubt it.
I find your definition of "militant antitheist" a strawman of how antitheists typically behave.

lol you've defined atheist as rational. Many atheists are not rational and are not atheists for rational reasons. While I think agnostic atheism is the most rational position that doesn't mean atheists are necessarily rational.

You weren't but you'd become one of those, clearly. You have the slight tendency to closemindedness needed to pull you to that side of the ocean divide. Just participate in this forum some more months and you will compete with Leumas.

By the way, rational means that they approach this subject by the use of their reason and good judgement, not that they rationalized their reasons nor are particularly logical. I hope you somewhat will notice the difference.

 

[pharphis]

If someone was mugged I'd call the police and let them handle it. I'd probably go over to see if the person and stay with them until help arrived.

You're equating "believing" something with being HURT or INJURED. Deluded people are not hurt or injured. They're not necessarily stupid people. Like I said, you seem to have a very distorted view of beliefs. Either that or you're extremely young.

But sorry I have no idea why you would be so worried about what other people believe?
It's bizarre in my opinion and your explanations read exactly like the definition of "Rationalization" that I posted before.

No I'm not. Please read what I said again so you understand my position. The belief leads to harm. How difficult is that to understand?

It's not the belief itself that is the problem, but pretending that beliefs don't have consequences is myopic. It's the consequence of said beliefs that matter.

I'll try to explain this one last time before giving up.

Beliefs impact ourselves and others. If our beliefs are not a good model of reality (typically these are unjustifiable or demonstrably false), then we are more likely to do harm to ourselves or others than if our model is reliable.

Turning to the question I asked that you deliberately ignored:
If someone is mugged, and you had the power to do something, would you do it? Why?
If the consequence for something is eternal suffering, and you have the power to stop it, why wouldn't you?

 

[pharphis]

You weren't but you'd become one of those, clearly. You have the slight tendency to closemindedness needed to pull you to that side of the ocean divide. Just participate in this forum some more months and you will compete with Leumas.

By the way, rational means that they approach this subject by the use of their reason and good judgement, not that they rationalized their reasons nor are particularly logical. I hope you somewhat will notice the difference.

Evidence of closed mindedness? That's honestly a huge accusation and one that usually comes from those who think that not being gullible means being closed minded (see religious and alt med communities for examples).

The below video explains what open mindedness is extremely well and I'd like for you to demonstrate where I am closed minded using this knowledge if indeed you agree with the definitions and still think I am.

Would I proselytize if I were religious and believed that the only way to heaven (or not hell) was belief in a proposition (and/or subsequent "acceptance of Jesus Christ" or whatever) then yes I would try to convince everyone in order to save them from eternal damnation. I actually still struggle to believe there are people who can't empathize with this position who are not sociopaths.