HelenM

Personally I think that rigid dogmatism and ignorance and stupidity tend to go together.

And I find what you just wrote to be rather rigidly dogmatic.

I think everyone has freedom to choose their own friends. If you want your friends to be atheists, then that's your choice.

But if you publically assert that Christians are stupid, ignorant, stubborn and chicken, then I think the rigid dogmatism of such a position argues against your being an intelligent informed rational person yourself.

Nevertheless I respect you for being honest. Honesty in saying what could offend takes courage.

I think you would be happier if you found a way to let go of some of your anger. You can object just as strongly to what Christians believe and yet not carry anger against them. I suggest that you don't actually need the anger and it's not beneficial to you.

Anyway, peace to you.

Helen

brighid

I just wanted to take a moment to provide an example of what I mean, albeit anecedotal.

One of my very closest friends is a Catholic. She is pretty liberal, but she still believes in God, Heaven, and some other things that I find rather silly. She is quite aware that I am a godless heathen and it makes no difference to her. She is quite intelligent, actually very intelligent, but for personal and cultural reasons she retains her Catholicism (and frankly it is none of my business why she chooses to do so, or my business to attempt to bring her to atheism.) She is also one of the most honest, caring, humorous, loving, unassuming people I know. I would entirely miss out on one amazing friendship with an absolutely wonderful person because I degraded her totality to her belief in God and her attendence at mass by maintaing the same sort of vision as the OP.

If you want to be seen as more then an atheist you must extend the same principle to all others. Anything less is hypocritical. However, if after having taken the time to view a person for more then his/her beliefs and find out that the person really is unworthy of friendship one is justified in saying THAT person is unworthy (and your thoughts and suspicions have been confirmed.)

Brighid

Ronin

I disagree.

Carrie is expressing a frustration regarding the basic observation that humans calling themselves 'christian' believe in the tenets and claims of a religion so blatantly bigoted, hateful, contradictory to reason and, frankly, laden with ridiculous fable that they should know better.

I consider you my friend Helen...and, as you may recall, I have very close friends and family that are christian...yet I still harbor this ever-regulated irritation that the dogma of christianity, in all its senselessness, is a detriment to real life, love and dignity.

Instead of avoiding the issue in silence (and thereby, acquiescing to the absurd theistic claims) I have made the choice to pro-actively address the claims of christians and christianity on a constant basis with my theistic friends and family...some have found their way to a more sincere examination of their indoctrinated 'faith' and that makes the difference for me.

Granted, I still do become frustrated at times with their circuitous and obviously flawed arguments defending their religion, but they are human and humans can always be disappointing.


Well, in the atheist/theist debates over the hard and gory details of the christian faith, it has been my experience that the theist meets the criteria that Carrie has expressed.

I think that in the more routine aspects of daily life, the humans that claim membership in the christian club can be intelligent, open and brave...I think that Carrie is referring to their attachment to the nonsense of the christian tenets and fables when making her assertions.

...and it does provide a catalyst to examining and understanding the origin of the feeling...which is also beneficial.

But first embrace the anger fully, savor it, focus it into the effort to understand their position and motivations...and then meet them in open debate and intelligent examination of the theistic claims.

It becomes quite a rush.

Stay safe.

HelenM

(likewise)

Indeed.

I'm in favor of freedom of expression but I continue to believe that the particular things Carrie wrote, if she believes them, reveal a rigidly dogmatic view of theists. And I continue to believe that rigid dogmatism of any form implies ignorance - because I have yet to find a rigid dogmatism that does not seem overly simplistic when compared with reality.

Notwithstanding that, I know that people, when angry, tend to express themselves more in extremes and may appear to hold more rigidly dogmatic views therefore, than are actually theirs.

That may well be the source of her frustration. However what her posts said is "I can't stand Christians". If she has had the experience of Christians sometimes being intelligent, honest and brave she did not mention it.

On the whole I address what posts say - except in the case of obvious typos - because if I attempted to address what someone means then I'm venturing into speculation about motives etc in a way I always prefer others not to do with my posts.

If I address what someone says, they have opportunity to clarify but I'm also free from being accused of unwarranted speculation about things I can know very little about.

I agree that there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to deal with anger and it can be contructively directed, to some extent.

Sounds boring but I'll try...

Helen

dangin

I'm not advocating anything arbitrary at all. There is a written in stone law where you live. It is flexible and it can be changed by public officials and courts but it is still an objective law that you can read and understand. If you follow this you will never have a problem in your society.

Does this work in all societies? Yes, although many societies have laws that seem lacking in equality, fairness, or even logic.

"Objective Morality" is a fairy tale. For morality to be objective it must have an authority to enforce said morality. So unless you have an undisputable proof of your god, and "his" incredibly contradictory book (which can be shown to borrow most of its rules from other sources anyway) you are infact the one with the arbitrary system of silly rules made for goat herders 2,000 years ago. (Well except the first half that was written for goat herders 6,000 years ago)


One such example of the failure of your "objective moral code" is Moses himself. If the source of all law is the ten commandments, let's examine how Moses came to be in the wilderness. He was a favored son (OK grandson) of Pharoah, he found out about his heritage and killed a guard who was beating a jew. Moses ran away. Then in his exile god gave him the rules of life. But why did moses run if he hadn't received the ten commandments yet? Murder shouldn't have been wrong because almighty god hadn't told us it was wrong yet.

HelenM

If you think that, I suggest you read Genesis 4:7-12 and Genesis 9:5-6

Helen

dangin

Yes, I understand those writings were really popular with the ancient egyptians.

And if god had already made the rules, why did he have to do it again? Oh yeah, because the bible keeps saying the same thing over and over again, except where it contradicts the things that it said over and over again.

And like all parents god is all about do as I say, not as I do.

Genesis 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air. . .

But of course, you know, this leads right up the the whole ark dealio. You know that boat thing that is literally stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh and is radically impossible anyway despite the plagiarism. And has been pretty much proved to have been a regional flood when the mediteranean busted through the Bosporus and flooded a fresh water lake that then became the Red Sea. The water level rose over 150 meters and it happened 7600 years ago.

Pesky ass science, always fucking with mythology like that. But I love you even more everytime you quote scripture to me. It makes me hot.

HelenM

According to the Bible, Moses knew he was a Hebrew - if that's true it's plausible that whoever told him that also taught him the Hebrew religion such as it was at that time - which, if the Bible is correct, would have included knowing what Genesis says.

I'll bear that in mind in future responses to you...

Helen

BibleBelted

Easy for you to say. You get to carry a Glock.

I think some atheists, most often newby atheists, can be overzealous - almost evangelical in wanting to share their newfound freedom. That's only natural - but in the three years that I have been an open atheist (drowning in a sea of christian fundamentalism) I've come to the conclusion that a life without some sort of metaphysical "anchor" is just not an option for some people. Some seem, dare I say, almost genetically locked into the notion of some Supreme power who will provide justice at some point for all the suffering.

It's an attractive idea. I wish it were true myself for no other reason than I would love to see Pat Robertson and D. Rumsfeld trying to dissemble and bluff before a judge who can see through them.

You can't even convince some there is no need throw spilled salt over their shoulder - how can we expect them to accept that someday they will be wormfood, and most likely forgotten?

It doesn't mean they are stupid. Many are quite intelligent, but they have made a choice, even an informed choice, that this Anchor is positive for them and society - and to a limitted degree I might agree with them; however, when you get the the Christian Right, and their neo-fascist fundamentalism trying to subjugate the US Constitution to the will of their wrathful, goat-herding god - I'm behind you all the way.

I hate them with the white hot passion of a thousand suns.

dangin

Yeah yeah yeah. But Moses wasn't running from the Hebrew God, he was running from Pharoah. (haven't we all) Surely Pharoah, and his pagan Isis, Ra, Osiris, et al couldn't have known murder was wrong without being converted to Christianity, oh wait I mean Judaism, Oh wait, I mean pre mosaic judaism, Oh wait . . . which religion are you again?