Atheists and theists: Endless confrontations

[kowalskil]

Though he/she did consult with you about it last fall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwik_Kowalski&action=history

Yes, it was a request for the list of scientific publications.

 

[Complexity]

===========================
<snip>

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, rule 11.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Heck, one single human being is capable of disagreeing with himself and enter in conflict with himself and hold two different points of view. So why is it hard to accept that two or more human beings will always find ways to disagree and argue with each other?

Accept the nature of mankind and navigate it the best you can.

 

[Minarvia]

I have no respect for religious beliefs and will not pretend to respect those who hold them. I regard these people as delusional, unskeptical, superstitious, and a danger to others.

I have to say that on most days, most of the time, I COMPLETELY agree with this sentiment. I can't help it. I suppose it is mainly based on the discrimination I have gotten from believers.

I never announce my lack of belief, but, unfortunately, I am asked on a pretty regular basis. When I was pressed on the question of if I believed by my own family, who is by no means terribly pious themselves, and I told the truth, they cast me aside like garbage and told me that being a atheist is about the worst thing someone could be.

My family isn't even strong in their professed beliefs, yet they treat me like trash and ignore me? Now, about ten years later, they have thawed a little, but until my own nephews hit the age of ten, I was told over and over to "not corrupt their minds" with my "nonsense!"

And others, as stated by Complexity, are unskeptical, delusional, and potentially very dangerous.

(Thanks for the VERY "uncomplex!" message, and for you being here! *HUGS!* Next time I'll PM them. The hugs, I mean! )

As for "respecting" the other side, I've decided to pretty much discard that. I mean, I'll pick my battles, but when it comes to ones like my family hurt me with, and such, I can not and will not respect anything if it is not "respectable."

The same with "honouring" someone's beliefs. Why should I honour them if they are not honourable, or especially, if someone behaves very dishonourably because of them?

 

[Minarvia]

Theists believe something that cannot be proved for no reason other than the fact that they were told. They are either brainwashed from an early age, weak minded or simply not very clever.

Atheists don't and aren't.

I'd like to add that sometimes people are very desperate. When I questioned my mother about her "beliefs" she told me she believed because that is how she was raised. When I asked if she really BELIEVED all of it, she just shrugged.

Then, an uncle (by marriage) chimed in and said that he believes because when he was living with his alcoholic father he needed faith to survive the crisis in his early family years. He said that without Jesus he never would have made it. I tried to tell him that perhaps he could have, and even did, simply by wanting and needing to be strong. He said that he isn't and couldn't be - not without god.

It reminded me of a song I truly hate by Carrie Underwood. "Jesus Take the Wheel" I think it's called. It truly illustrates how many believers can't or won't take responsibility for their own lives and actions and instead transfer them to some intangible thing.

To me, that is very, very wrong and also, very, very creepy.

 

[kowalskil]

I'd like to add that sometimes people are very desperate. When I questioned my mother about her "beliefs" she told me she believed because that is how she was raised. When I asked if she really BELIEVED all of it, she just shrugged.

Then, an uncle (by marriage) chimed in and said that he believes because when he was living with his alcoholic father he needed faith to survive the crisis in his early family years. He said that without Jesus he never would have made it. I tried to tell him that perhaps he could have, and even did, simply by wanting and needing to be strong. He said that he isn't and couldn't be - not without god.

It reminded me of a song I truly hate by Carrie Underwood. "Jesus Take the Wheel" I think it's called. It truly illustrates how many believers can't or won't take responsibility for their own lives and actions and instead transfer them to some intangible thing.

To me, that is very, very wrong and also, very, very creepy.

Thank you for sharing, Minarvia. I understand you; I would probably react in the same way, in a similar situation. As I keep repeating,

Religion = theism + many other things.

Other things are important but I am focusing on relations between scientists and theologians. If they can stop fighting then others will follow, sooner or later.

About two months ago I wrote an article about undesirable conflicts between scientists and theologians. Unfortunately, attempts to publish it were not successful, so far. My manuscript was rejected by editors of three theological journals. I am now trying to publish it in a different kind of journal. Will it be accepted? It remains to be seen. I will let you know. If not then it will be self-published at my university website.

In my long live--I am 80--I encountered scientists who are also theologians. And I encountered theologians who are also scientists. These people should help us to reduce the intensity of confrontations. This will be a slow process. But it should be our goal, to avoid genocides.

================================

<SNIP>

Edited, breach of rule 11.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Complexity]

Thanks, Minarvia!

I can disagree with people and still respect them. Several of my friends are sports fans. I loathe sports (except for a few where guys wear very little clothing). I still respect my friends, even though I can't fathom their interest in team sports.

I have my interests, and they have theirs, and I don't feel a need to have them overlap completely, or even very much.

Apart from demands for stadiums and subsidies, however, sport fanhood doesn't do very much harm.

Religious belief, on the other hand, does a great deal of harm.

I still have some friends who are religious, but not many, and those who are left are the opposite of bigots - they are good people who I believe to be deluded in this area. While they don't think of themselves as skeptics, they actually are quite skeptical in most aspects of their lives and thinking. We don't talk about religion. While I have a great deal of love and respect for them, I don't respect their religious beliefs. I can accept them as friends because they can accept me as a friend, even though they don't believe as I do when it comes to religion.

I have lost interest in and contact with several friends and some members of my family over the issues of my being gay, atheist, and anti-religious. So it goes.

One final point for now - I use the word 'atheist' to describe myself because 'agnostic' seems too middle-of-the-road. I don't think there are any gods and I intend to live my life as though there are none. I don't know that there aren't any, but then I don't know anything, and neither do you. That there are no gods is my working hypothesis.

 

[Minarvia]

Thank you for sharing, Minarvia. I understand you; I would probably react in the same way, in a similar situation. As I keep repeating,

Religion = theism + many other things.

Other things are important but I am focusing on relations between scientists and theologians. If they can stop fighting then others will follow, sooner or later.

About two months ago I wrote an article about undesirable conflicts between scientists and theologians. Unfortunately, attempts to publish it were not successful, so far. My manuscript was rejected by editors of three theological journals. I am now trying to publish it in a different kind of journal. Will it be accepted? It remains to be seen. I will let you know. If not then it will be self-published at my university website.

In my long live--I am 80--I encountered scientists who are also theologians. And I encountered theologians who are also scientists. These people should help us to reduce the intensity of confrontations. This will be a slow process. But it should be our goal, to avoid genocides.

That sort of article would be, if it is widely received, possibly very helpful! I, like you, hope that someday genocides will be avoided. To kill over thoughts is something I just can't wrap my mind around.

I know that you are right - there are many scientists who are theologians. There are also many who are not. They can, and I'm sure, do, respect each other and work together on this topic.

I'll have to check out your University Page if you cannot get your paper published. I can't see why it hasn't been accepted. I think that resolving conflicts, or at the very least lessening them, would be a GOOD thing.

Not that I would have ever hazarded a guess, but you certainly don't seem to be 80! I suppose I'm not accustomed to meeting many who love to think and debate, especially about religion.

Then again, these forums are always surprising me.

 

[Dinwar]

Other things are important but I am focusing on relations between scientists and theologians.

There isn't any. Your average scientist doesn't give a rat's tail-attachment for what theologians think (no offense to theologians--your average molecular biologist doesn't care what your average geochemist thinks either), and most theologians view science the same way I'd bet. You may as well ask about the relationship between scientists and accountants.

I, like you, hope that someday genocides will be avoided.

I share this sentiment. That said, I've never met a scientist who would kill an opponent for a conflicting idea--we'll argue, yell, maybe even punch each other, but even the roudiest of us draw the line at murder (far as I can tell, the convention is that bare-knuckle brawling is the worst acceptable, even in the really rough scientific circles [yes, they exist]). While I was a theist, I personally had my life threatened for a minor disagreement over an insignificant theological point. The second one's anacdotal, yeah, but it illustrates my point: to blame atheists or scientists for violence and intollerance is still wrong. It's equating an argument with a death threat.

These people should help us to reduce the intensity of confrontations.

Never happen, as long as people say that arguments are as bad as death threats.

 

[Minarvia]

[QUOTE="Complexity, post: 7477312, member: 6626"]Thanks, Minarvia!

You're welcome!

I can disagree with people and still respect them. Several of my friends are sports fans. I loathe sports (except for a few where guys wear very little clothing). I still respect my friends, even though I can't fathom their interest in team sports.

Good point. I can disagree with people and respect them, even when their interests or beliefs are not ones I share. (Hmmm...do you like Sumo Wrestling? )

I have my interests, and they have theirs, and I don't feel a need to have them overlap completely, or even very much.

A good way to know who your friends are! I'm interested in, for example, fan-fiction writing, old movies, and playing/learning musical instruments. Those don't have to overlap at all with my acquaintances/friends who knit, play sports, or love to rant about politics.

Apart from demands for stadiums and subsidies, however, sport fanhood doesn't do very much harm.

Agreed. A few minor squabbles or arguments aren't genocidal by any means.

Religious belief, on the other hand, does a great deal of harm.

Oh, that's what I LOATHE the most about religious beliefs! But even if only one person is harmed or killed it is too many, but the sheer numbers over history? That just...that just gets me angry and upset. And seeing it still happening today just makes me sick and depressed.

I still have some friends who are religious, but not many, and those who are left are the opposite of bigots - they are good people who I believe to be deluded in this area. While they don't think of themselves as skeptics, they actually are quite skeptical in most aspects of their lives and thinking. We don't talk about religion. While I have a great deal of love and respect for them, I don't respect their religious beliefs. I can accept them as friends because they can accept me as a friend, even though they don't believe as I do when it comes to religion.

Good point. Such as skeptical about their medical care? The education of their children if they have any? Their financial investments? Things such as these seem to merit far more skepticism than religion. I appreciate those religious who can accept non-believers as friends. I know a few who are very open and kind and I just recently met one again after 16 years and we're getting together to talk soon. He wants me to "grill" him about religion. I think that since someone blabbed to him that I'm not a believer I'd better be ready for a "conversion" attempt. I hope it goes well; I've been in rather a wise-acre mood lately...

I have lost interest in and contact with several friends and some members of my family over the issues of my being gay, atheist, and anti-religious. So it goes.

Unfortunately, it does go that way. I'm glad you are being yourself, tho. Lying to others or to yourself is no way to live. It may not be easy, but you are being who you are. I am being who I am. It's difficult at times, but that's one more thing that pushes me toward being hostile to religion sometimes. It's cost me a lot. Or rather, the believers have. Still, the freedom that came along with it, as well as the truth of who my true family and friends are, was ultimately worth it, imo.

All those here who have lost or been hurt by religious belief can probably attest that resolving conflict is desirable in most cases, but I think that is not likely to happen. Healthy conflict is good, but hurtful and harmful is just plain horrid.

One final point for now - I use the word 'atheist' to describe myself because 'agnostic' seems too middle-of-the-road. I don't think there are any gods and I intend to live my life as though there are none. I don't [B]know[/B] that there aren't any, but then I don't [B]know[/B] anything, and neither do you. That there are no gods is my working hypothesis.[/QUOTE]

I'm responding to your post in detail because you seem to share many of my thoughts on this almost exactly! I also don't describe myself as 'agnostic' for the very same reason. It's too...wishy-washy. Or middle of the road, as you said. 'Agnostic' smacks to me of "I think it quite possible that there is/are a god/gods." I don't. I allow for the possibility, but not the probability.

I lack belief in god/s because we don't know that there are any. You are correct - we do NOT know. I take the same stance - there are no gods. Until there is good evidence otherwise, I'll keep to it.

Unfortunately, the conflicts, and therefore the terrible danger and harm, will continue, I fear.

Okay, I also am responding to this in parts because I wonder if I can do the "multi-quote" thing correctly.

You'll remember that I can be quite...ah...dim, when it comes to such things!

ARGH!!! I STILL messed it up! Sorry. Last time I try multi-quoting, or whatever it's called. *Cringe*

 

[Complexity]

I'm responding to your post in detail because you seem to share many of my thoughts on this almost exactly! I also don't describe myself as 'agnostic' for the very same reason. It's too...wishy-washy. Or middle of the road, as you said. 'Agnostic' smacks to me of "I think it quite possible that there is/are a god/gods." I don't. I allow for the possibility, but not the probability.

I lack belief in god/s because we don't know that there are any. You are correct - we do NOT know. I take the same stance - there are no gods. Until there is good evidence otherwise, I'll keep to it.

Unfortunately, the conflicts, and therefore the terrible danger and harm, will continue, I fear.

Okay, I also am responding to this in parts because I wonder if I can do the "multi-quote" thing correctly.

You'll remember that I can be quite...ah...dim, when it comes to such things!

ARGH!!! I STILL messed it up! Sorry. Last time I try multi-quoting, or whatever it's called. *Cringe*

I very much enjoyed your quote, and your use of multi-quoting or whatever it is called. I haven't played with that yet.

Hmmm... Sumo... Being overweight myself (though not in that league!), sumo has always made me very uncomfortable to watch. And while I said that I most enjoy sports where guys are wearing little clothing, I was thinking more about divers or gymnasts. But I can appreciate the ritual of the training and the game a bit, even though it was revealed that much of the professional play is fixed.

I am quite confident that you will survive the nearly certain conversion attempt. I hope he bruises his fangs on you.

I'll see you Wednesday morning at the Atheist Church. I'll be playing with the snakes as usual in the Choir Pit.

 

[JJM 777]

The theists political party X can stop trying to discriminate against me via the law, stop trying to force me to pay for their churches pet projects, stop trying to brainwash my children (...) In exchange, I'm willing to promise to continue to not do any of those things to them.

Anything else is just theists political party X demanding superiority. And that's necessarily going to generate conflict.

Broadened your view a bit.

The so-called democracy, as we know it now, is based on the assumption that when you get 51% of the votes (somehow, often by a lot of bargaining between the parties), then the world is yours, you rule.

If in USA the Jesus card helps to get over that magic 51% limit, so it will be then.

 

[Irony]

Broadened your view a bit.

The so-called democracy, as we know it now, is based on the assumption that when you get 51% of the votes (somehow, often by a lot of bargaining between the parties), then the world is yours, you rule.

If in USA the Jesus card helps to get over that magic 51% limit, so it will be then.

I'm sorry JJM 777, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to track down your US history teacher and demand he retroactivly fail you.

 

[Minarvia]

Broadened your view a bit.

The so-called democracy, as we know it now, is based on the assumption that when you get 51% of the votes (somehow, often by a lot of bargaining between the parties), then the world is yours, you rule.

If in USA the Jesus card helps to get over that magic 51% limit, so it will be then.

What??? That...makes no sense. I don't know where you "learned" this, but, being a U.S. citizen and being reasonably educated, I don't see any truth in that extremely broad statement. Also, the "broadening his view" part is not only incorrect, but irrelevant to the thread, which is referring to religious versus non-religious conflict.

 

[Dinwar]

Broadened your view a bit.

No, what you did was misapply my quote for your own purposes. I was specifically talking about what religious organizations refer to as "disrespectful" and what atheists have to put up with. I said nothing about politics, and I seriously doubt your views and mine would coincide in that realm (first and foremost, you stated that we live in a democracy--you may want to look that word up, and compare it with what the USA's political system actually is).

Please don't twist my words for your own ends. I get enough of that from Creationists.

 

[JJM 777]

No (...) I was specifically talking about what religious organizations refer to as "disrespectful" and what atheists have to put up with. I said nothing about politics

Quote: discriminate against me via the lawLaw is politics.

You introduced a complaint that religionists should not (ab)use political power to enforce laws upon atheists. I commented that this is what politics is all about, more generally than just religionists vs. atheists.

My point is that if there is something wrong with using political power to dictate laws upon others, the issue is not limited to religionists vs. atheists only. Therefore, limiting the issue into such, while it is not such, would look like a double standard, applying a principle to some but not everyone.

 

[Minarvia]

And having campaigns against drunk driving doesn't mean it is a double standard to not focus, at the same time, on the people who just plain don't pay attention, fiddle with their radio, smoke and eat while driving, and phone or text.

It's just focusing on one issue at a time, and this thread is not about politics specifically.

 

[Dinwar]

Quote: discriminate against me via the law
Law is politics.

So any action taken by any group that involves any law makes the quote an open forum for you to express your views on politics? There's a difference between complaining about politics as such and complaining about religious groups using the government to force social acceptence of their norms.

My point is that if there is something wrong with using political power to dictate laws upon others, the issue is not limited to religionists vs. atheists only.

Which is beside the point entirely. The role of political power in society is beside the point of this thread. Read the title--politics is only relevant as it relates to the conflicts between atheists and theists. Anything else, while it's open for discussion, is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. And altering my quote to make it sound like I said something I didn't certainly isn't the right way to go about it.

If you think limiting the discussion of politics to those areas where it intersects the topic of the thread is a double-standard, that's your problem, not mine. The political aspect is a consequence, and not even the most serious one, of theistic arrogance, and I was using it as an example of how such arrogance causes strife with non-believers--I'm under no obligation to get lost in a sidebar merely because you have political views that you want to discuss. Such an attempt is called "hijacking a thread", and is frowned upon.

 

[Minarvia]

I very much enjoyed your quote, and your use of multi-quoting or whatever it is called. I haven't played with that yet.

Hmmm... Sumo... Being overweight myself (though not in that league!), sumo has always made me very uncomfortable to watch. And while I said that I most enjoy sports where guys are wearing little clothing, I was thinking more about divers or gymnasts. But I can appreciate the ritual of the training and the game a bit, even though it was revealed that much of the professional play is fixed.

I am quite confident that you will survive the nearly certain conversion attempt. I hope he bruises his fangs on you.

I'll see you Wednesday morning at the Atheist Church. I'll be playing with the snakes as usual in the Choir Pit.

Heh...thanks! You're so kind to enjoy my messed up quote! And, well, just kind in general!

I'll be in the Choir pit with you soon! LOL

The sumo was a bad joke on my part, I'm afraid! I also like sports with men who wear little clothing, especially gymnasts. Of course even tho they are covered, I also enjoy watching ice skating.

Now, as not to be a TOTAL thread derail, I had breakfast with my old Christian friend. This fits with the "confrontation" in this thread, too. The first thing he did, after we were seated, was to reach across the table, take my hands in his and say, "So, what caused you to go so far astray from Jesus and our heavenly father?"

Being the wise-acre I am, I replied, "I was seduced away by the shining silver hooves of the Invisible Pink Unicorn."

He broke down laughing, and that broke the ice.

He did go on quite a bit about how god cannot be denied, just look around at nature, and so on and so forth. He also said god can only be found in our own hearts and if we are willing and open, and...the usual spiel.

We did have a pleasant breakfast, however, caught up a lot, but he then asked if I would be willing to "do some homework." He said he had a few books he'd like me to read, as well as a few sites to visit. I said that I was willing as long as he'd do the same for me. He agreed.

Of course I don't have many books, but I'm sure I can scrape up a few. I do have a couple of Sagan books, a Dawkins one, and Hitchens. But I don't want to give him anything that he'd take as hostile. So I need to think on this a bit.

Hopefully, our future "confrontations" will remain friendly. I think there's hope!

Of course this thread mainly refers to confrontations on a larger scale? Perhaps, but sometimes the small scale ones can be non-hostile and maybe just as fruitful. Even if they only lead to an understanding of the other side and breed respect, there's hope.

However, if my friend does bare his "fangs" too much in the future, he'll certainly end up with them bruised or chipped!

 

[westprog]

Quote: discriminate against me via the lawLaw is politics.

You introduced a complaint that religionists should not (ab)use political power to enforce laws upon atheists. I commented that this is what politics is all about, more generally than just religionists vs. atheists.

My point is that if there is something wrong with using political power to dictate laws upon others, the issue is not limited to religionists vs. atheists only. Therefore, limiting the issue into such, while it is not such, would look like a double standard, applying a principle to some but not everyone.

There's an issue with, say, people not working on a Sunday even though some of them are Jews, Muslims or atheists. That's an example of an abuse of religious preference. (Though one that's accepted by most people).

What about people who pass laws against murder, say, because they think it's wrong because of the Ten Commandments? Is that an issue of abuse of religious power?

Then there are the grey areas in between. Someone thinks that the state should support marriage. Is his opinion less valid because he's a Christian? If he's an atheist, is his view more valid?