Here's the thing. "God hater" fits some posters on this forum. There are certain posters that seem to have a difficult time finding any redeeming value in religion at all.
Sure, and some people have a difficult time finding any redeeming value in atheism at all.
It's when they start actually hating on atheists that they become "atheist haters".
Claiming I'm hating on God is kinda silly. Am I hating on Sauron when I call him an ass? I guess so, but when you point that out, it's kinda funny.
Either way, I find it hilarious when a guy mocks me for ridiculing him over calling me a "God hater", and then simultaneously failing to perceive the irony when he ridicules me over calling him "atheist hater".
And he gets backhanded by calling me "supposedly logical"; though said in such a way that says more like I'm calling myself logical, instead of me being normally logical.
Either way, very backhanded, offensive, and nasty. So I really don't have any time to waste trying to respect his "opinion".
It is difficult to have a rational discussion about religion with them around, because as soon as you bring up a point that seems to be in support of religion, you get labeled "apologist" or that you're "making excuses". In that vein, "god hater" is an apt rhetorical label.
It is difficult to have a rational discussion about religion when someone
continually brings up old points that have little to nothing to do with the current discussion.
You do not have to hate religion to not follow one, ya dig?
Yet there are things about religion that
are worthy of criticism. Have you even read the bible? The Old Testament?
But we're supposed to be all right with what's written in there because it's religion? If it was a philosophy written by a philosopher, we'd all be calling the philosopher an egotistical asshat.
Personally, I like the stories from all religions. I find them fascinating studies into the culture's psyche.
Historically, yes, they're cool. Fictionally, sure. Though I prefer Lord of the Rings one thousand fold to the Bible. It's just boring.
But as a moral guide or principle? They don't tend to work out very well. And I'm not just being Christian-based here. Hinduism, and even Buddhism (some Buddhist groups aren't exactly all peaceful) have allowed their own things. State Shinto was used to justify the Emporer's reign in WWI and WWII; he was called the God that Walks as a Man, said to be a Kami. Divine providence seems to be pretty common in religious beliefs.
In short, I'm fine with religion... when it has no power. When religion starts getting power and telling others how to act? Then I have a problem.
But I'm supposed to pay it some sort of undeserved respect because it has "nice stories". Yeah, okay.
I like to learn about the rituals, to learn more about the character of the people that practice them. I don't like the dogmas that keep people trapped in subservience to a corrupt hierarchy, and if I could figure out a way to separate the one (the cultural benefits) from the other (the dogma) without destroying the former, I would.
You want the stories as fiction, and the rituals done for fun. That's fine. But that's not really religion.
Here's the thing... remove the Heaven and Hell from Christianity or Judaism, and what are you left with? If you logically accept the existance of heaven and hell, then you
should try to get people into heaven. It's a moral imperative to try to help people. It's hard to convince me away from that.
Now, I'm not going to defend US as I feel he's fully capable to do that, and I've not read all his posts. I've never seen him use the term, although he has copped to it.
He did use the term "God Hater", in response to Articulett.
I pointed out, right after, that it was silly, just as Articulett did.
US then essentially made it out to be that we were stupid or ignorant because we didn't get it as a "rhetorical device".
Then he similarly mocks me when I say "atheist hater" as a "rhetorical device".
Perhaps you should look into the history here before you comment?
I will, however, defend him as far as to point out that there are asshats on both sides of this issue.
Sure.
But the problem is, the people that point out the harm of religion tend to have facts on their side. Like I said, religion is just fine, when it has no power; over the body or the mind.
The reason why religion is so "okay" relatively nowadays, and not like it was five hundred years is because of precisely that reason... it's lost it's power. Even the religious fanatics aren't quite as fanatical as you'd find people in Church in the 1000's.
And even then, religion is still a threat today, both in the Middle East and in the U.S. Government. And for that precise reason: It still has power, politically and in the minds of those that believe in it.
There are skeptics that are irrational whenever religion is discussed, and there are religionists that couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper sack with written instructions. From what I have seen of US, he seems to be waving a red flag to atheists who do nothing but bash religion.
Sure, while simultaneously insulting anyone that happens to disagree with him... and simultaneously also practicing hypocrisy.
Pardon me if I'm not all that impressed.
That IS a real problem. If all you can muster in a religious discussion is to rip your opponent a new one, maybe you should step back and listen for a while. Cool down. Come back when you're no longer seeing red. Or don't, but if that is the path you take, never expect anyone to accept your point of view except those that already think like you.
Of course, this assumes that my point on this forum is to try to convert people.
No offense, but that seems kinda... uh... wrong to tell me what I should and shouldn't do to "convert" people, unless that were my goal.
Of course, like I said in another post, we do need both camps. We need to destroy the less appetizing part of religion, and we need to preserve the good bits. What we don't need is infighting.
I don't get the "need" to preserve the "good" bits. How do we define "good" bits here?
Oh, another thing:
"Infighting"? I'm sorry, but I did not sign an "Atheist Club" pamphlet. I did not sign my way into a club, or a fraternity. The only thing I share with other atheists is my sharing of their lack of belief in a God or gods. Believe me when I tell you that, if all you share with others is a lack of something, there
really isn't much to make a "group" out of. When I join an atheist club, then maybe what you said actually might make sense.
When US can make his point cogently and without his silly statements, then maybe I'll listen to him. Until then, I do not have any interest.
