Pitshade

Off to General Religious Discussions

Sabine Grant

And I think it is only fair to add that fear can be on both sides of the theist/non theist spectrum. Hateful statements which stereotype one group or the other can be equaly heard. It is both fear and untolerance of what is "different".

Brahma's atheist

I wish I could come up with a coherent arguement against some religious statement somebody made. I just get flustered that someone could seriously believe whatever fantasy was real. My mind goes a little topsy turvy and I say something pointless. I couldn't quote anyone either.
I guess I'm a bit of a dumb atheist.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Hehe. I was walking home from my last exam yesterday and I ran across a pair of Mormon people trying to sell God. They always walk in pairs for some reason. Perhaps they pair up a new person with a more experienced one so that the new kid doesn't get sliced to shreds when trying to debate.

Anyway, so I was walking home from my exam when I ran into these Mormons. Of course they asked me if I was a Christian, if I read the Bible, etc. I was in the mood for playing around with them, so whenever they asked a question I would give a fairly long scriptural explanation, followed by my own thoughts on it. Basically, an explanation might go, "So, a prophet is one who is divinely inspired by God himself and who not only predicts future events, but also explains God's will and purpose to his creation. However, my personal view is that prophets are just deluded people who are having hallucinations, and that there is no objective way to determine if what they are saying is true."

This seemed to keep them on their feet. They would say, "Uh, yeah, that's exactly what a prophet is, sorta. Umm, what's your understanding about .....?" I was really enjoying it. From previous discussions I have realized that their tactic is to ask questions which lead the listener to answer in a way which incriminates them in some way. For example, if the atheist were to state outright that a prophet is a hallucinating crazyman, then the mormon would have "ammo" since this is not the definition of a prophet. If the atheist defines the word "prophet", then the mormon would then think that the atheist actually believes in some type of deity. The look on their faces when you call them on these ambiguous questions is priceless.

-Nick

Eudaimonist

Oops! You might want to read this topic before using my idea above.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000838" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000838</a>

Vorkosigan

Not true, Sabine. There are no atheist groups in the US advocating wholesale suppression of religion. There are no atheist groups advocating the suppression of other atheist groups. There's nothing like the hate of Christian Reconstructionists or the Rapture crowd, fantisizing about the end of the world and the destruction of almost every living thing on earth. Atheism has produced nothing like that. In the US, the intolerance and violence all run in one direction.

Vorkosigan

Sabine Grant

Vorkosigan... as you drift thru various topics and threads, you will unfortunatly find statements loaded with prejudices and demeaning comments to some theists. They usualy come from individuals who like to stereotype and IMO are not representative of balanced free thinkers.

I disagree with your statement that atheism has never produced violence... even as Marx did not mean for his works to be used to oppress and repress people, they were used by Soviet dictators and others to victimize people who did not " go along with the common thinking". But that does not make every atheist someone who abides to such regimes.

The same way, Christ did not mean for fundamentalists to use his teachings to victimizes others. So that does not make every christian someone who abides to such practices.

Stereotyping christians is as unfair as stereotyping atheists.

There is what the author means and how men use those words to serve their personal agenda.
Any ideology can be used to perpetuate violence and oppression to serve an agenda.

But the minory who preserves the real intent of the author is very precious and needs not to be demeaned.

Also it is more common in human nature to find that people will feel securized in their opinions or beliefs if they can create and lead a majority who will join their belief. To accomplish that task, people will resort to any mean. The need to suppress those who are different is part of our natures as we feel threatened by those differences they express.

Starboy

Sabine Grant, I grant you that, but some ideologies are much better at it than others. Atheism is low on the list as compared to Christianity. How can something so "true" be so oppressive? Or is its very "truth" the justification needed to carry out those acts of oppression? But then again if religion wasn't "true" then who would take is seriously? Your example of Marxism is a good one because it confirms what happens when "truth" is used as justification.

Since being an a-theist in and of itself doesn't advocate any ideology it is hard to see how it could possibly be compared to some nasty old religion such as Christianity.

Starboy

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

thebeave

Next time ask them about their super secret underwear, and shake their hands with the super secret Mormon handshake that only the truly devoted senior-level Mormons are supposed to know. Then tell us their reaction.

Living Dead Chipmunk

Undercurrent:

Congratulations on losing your theological virginity! I'm glad your first time was better than mine.

I really can't debate theology unless there's an atheist with me who'll protect my flank. I play a support role, I'm not good enough to be the tank on the front line taking damage. The atheist friend moves in with the "no god" arguments, and as they're being addressed I pipe up with the "Praise Vishnu" type of arguments. Either one or the other, the people handing out Bibles can hold their own against. Both of them together are dynamite. It goes something like this:

Friend: "Prove God exists!"
Thumper: "Ok, look around you. Look at all this life. That's proof of God."
Me: "You're absolutely right. Praise Vishnu!"
Thumper: "Huh?"
Friend: "So why should I accept your sky fairy over his? *points to me*"
Thumper: "Because the Bible says [insert quote]"
Friend: "The Bible was written by power-hungry people."
Thumper: "No, it was written by God."
Me: "Nu-uh! The Sutras were written by the gods! They say [insert made up quote]. If you keep lying about the gods, they'll reincarnate you as a roach."
Thumper: "There is no reincarnation, only the ressurection..."
Friend: "To the magic happy kingdom in the sky? Yeah, that makes much more sense. I like his *pointing to me* delusions better than yours."

It goes on from there, but I forget most of the rest of the conversation.

It seems to me that theists can only debate one side at a time. They can debate whether or not God exists, and they can debate whether or not their God is better than soneone else's god, but they can't do both at once. "There is a God", or "My God is the true God", but not "There is a God, and it's my God." It's like it requires two separate programs to be running at the same time, and they never have enough system resources avaliable to do it.