A Response to Concerned Believers

Absolutely! Keep telling it like it is, Greta.

And while asking us to be nice about it, they are rudely telling us to bow to their religious practice. Keep quiet for prayers out of respect. Stop making such a big deal out of in god we trust on the money and in the pledge. etc., etc., etc.

It’s just a round-about-way of saying that tired old choose your battles. To which I say, you’re only telling me to choose your battles. You say that because you don’t like the one I chose.

Yeah, funny, innit? It always reminds me of the gay rights movement. That common statement back in the 70’s – “I don’t care who someone sleeps with… but why do they have to be so blatant?” We really do have a ways to go.

Tim–it goes back farther than that. “Be more polite, show us how patient you can be, respect the fact that people aren’t ready to grant you your rights” is exactly what they said to Martin Luther King.

Michael–you’re brilliant. It comes to this: you are supposed to be submissive. We gave that up, not only for Lent, but for all time.

im not polite are patient, religion is the worst thing mankind has ever invented. i am very quick to tell people how ridiculous their beliefs are and i hope more non believers start doing the same.

plublesnork, that Shakesville post you linked is stunning!

This is exactly as it should be. If I was holding onto ridiculous unprovable beliefs I would tell you to sit down and shut up too.
Really, should we even expect any less?

What I find really bizarre is when atheists do the same thing.

I understand treating people with respect, but I also understand the need to only give respect to those who deserve it.

My belief in a fairy godmother does not warrant me to be treated respectfully regardless of how passionately I believe in her or if I con a bunch of people to believe in her with me.

We need to recognize that we will each have opinions of how it is best to deliver a message. To stomp on those that cannot treat the delusion of religion with respect it simply validating the delusional beliefs. The beliefs need to be mocked and ridiculed for what they are. People should be embarrassed for holding those beliefs and be offended. The more offended they are will help them to see the ridiculousness of their beliefs, hopefully. If they refuse to see it, then they are deserving of the ridicule.
If people don’t like it to damn bad. If they want to pussy foot around the truth that’s their prerogative, just like delusional thinking is the prerogative of the religious. But not everyone needs to see it that way.

I’d love to hear what these same people would say to Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King Jr., and Emmeline Pankhurst. “Tone it down, you’re being too strident!” People did, concern trolling is old.

I think that many religious people are afraid to have their beliefs challenged because they realize that they are clinging to an antiquated, illogical and flimsy set of beliefs. By asking atheists to shut up, they are trying to protect their own precious delusions.

I fail to see why this is such a revelation. What movement encourages its opposition? What are they going to do – stand up and wave a flag for us?

I dunno – maybe I’m just a terminal cynic, but this doesn’t strike me as particularly earth shattering news.

Yes, those theists are pretty bad. I, on the other hand, am totally different. I always encourage people I disagree with to be more vocal and strident about their message. I can’t count the number of times that I’ve asked Christians to be more aggressive about proselytizing.

The way I see it – Christians (and any religious people) have a genuine responsibility to tell you that you’re going to hell – if they really believe it.

You, atheists, have the same responsibility to tell us that we’re possibly wasting the one life we get pursuing a possibly imaginary relationship with a possibly imaginary friend.

What doesn’t need to occur on either side of the coin is ad hominem nastiness – while I’m sure this cuts both ways (and people on either side are rightly passionate about the issue) there is just no need for you to play the man, not the ball, when it comes to this debate. And this, in my experience, is what happens every time a Christian says something you disagree with on the Internet.

And how often do atheists tell Christians and other theists that they should speak up more loudly and passionately?

This blog, for example, frequently exhorts theists to tone down their public side, to quit being so “in your face”, to be quiet and keep their religious views to themselves.

I am a Christian and I love this site because many of you freely speak your mind and say fresh stuff that I won’t hear in other places. I get bored with Christians, or people of any faith, who are passive and unintellectual about their beliefs. So, from where I am I would always encourage Atheists to speak their minds.

I lead a Youth Group and some of my students don’t believe in God. We love having them because we have discussions for hours about faith and everyone gets to speak their mind and question anything they want. I’ve been doing it that way for years. Please don’t be tempted to silence your beliefs, because there are a handful of Christians out there who really want to hear what you have to say. That’s why I love this site.

To all those religious people who tell us that atheists are offensive because we try to convince others our beliefs are more reasonable than theirs

*Facepalm*

Trying to “convince others our beliefs are more reasonable [or truer] than theirs” is exactly what it means to proselytize. Why is it only offensive when done by atheists?

Pseudonym,

However, I also hear a lot of progressives calling for atheists to come up with a more positive message. I can see how that might be interpreted as “tone it down”, especially if you see negativity as a central part of your message.

It’s wordplay, it’s framing. The message is for reason and science. Improvement, reliable knowledge, well being. Very positive. Calling negativity a central part of a message is meaningless nonsense. Not surprising coming from the religious.

Nathan,

You, atheists, have the same responsibility to tell us that we’re possibly almost certainly wasting the one life we get pursuing a possibly an almost certainly imaginary relationship with a possibly an almost certainly imaginary friend.

FTFY.

Here is why I find the atheist evangelism offensive:

http://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/face-of-the-new-atheism/

Atheists search out a prayer forum, suggested that Christians should kill themselves, posted pornographic images on a prayer forum, and impersonated my friend, a woman whose ex-husband has just died as saying “Celebrate screwing corpses”.

Perhaps it is simply the case that we have all missed the mark.

I really love how it’s somehow a terrible, if not horrific, thing for non-believers to express their non-belief and even to encourage others not to believe, yet it’s just fine for believers to go around pushing their religion on others … in the forms (e.g.) of missionary activity and using government coercion to force others to believe.

Chucky,

They are encouraged by people like Dawkins and Harris not only to despise Christianity, but also to disrespect Christians.

Dawkins and Harris don’t encourage abuse of Christians, or disrespect of Christians. Your accusations against Dawkins and Harris are pathetic lies. There’s no connection between those internet trolls and Harris or Dawkins. You want to smear them and other atheists like that? You’re not better than those trolls. Go away troll.

Nathan wrote:

Dawkins and Harris encourage the disrespect of Christians by disrespecting Christians. Even if they don’t say “I command you to disrespect Christians” they tacitly endorse this behaviour by referring to Christianity as an evil delusion.

As someone on another discussion board said so sagely:

“We all have beliefs. That’s not the problem. The problem comes when we construct a personal identity out of our beliefs. Then we tend to feel personally threatened when others oppose or attack our beliefs.”

No matter how ‘committed’ one feels to their beliefs, those beliefs aren’t ‘them’. Beliefs and the people who subscribe to them are not one and the same.

Trying to protect one’s beliefs from scrutiny by suggesting that ‘criticizing my beliefs is like criticizing me’ is a dishonest and dangerous tactic ~ EVERY belief/idea should be open to scrutiny.

Remember, ‘you’ aren’t your beliefs.

Nathan,

Dawkins and Harris encourage the disrespect of Christians by disrespecting Christians. Even if they don’t say “I command you to disrespect Christians” they tacitly endorse this behaviour by referring to Christianity as an evil delusion.

Your beliefs don’t deserve respect, I’m sorry. If you have ridiculous beliefs, that’s not anyone else’s problem. Disrespecting someone’s beliefs is not the same as disrespecting someone.

Are you seriously suggesting that Dawkins has ever suggested impersonating someone and writing that they were fucking their recently dead husband is OK? That’s ignorant, bigoted, and insane. Not that you people give a shit, that you’re misrepresenting people in such an egregious and insulting way. That’s just how you people roll.

Chucky,

Really? On his own website Dawkins writes:

Again, you’re a liar. Read the whole comment, instead of quote mining, finding something to take out of context, then spread it about to smear someone.

Another paragraph from the same comment:

I emphatically don’t mean we should use foul-mouthed rants. Nor should we raise our voices and shout at them: let’s have no D’Souzereignty here. Instead, what we need is sarcastic, cutting wit. A good model might be Peter Medawar, who would never dream of shouting, but instead quietly wielded the rapier. Look, for instance, at almost any sentence in his magnificent review of Teilhard de Chardin’s pretentious Phenomenon of Man. It is reprinted in Pluto’s Republic or you can find it here:-
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/phenomenon-of-man.html

He clearly is not saying that anyone should do what those people did on the forum you mentioned. Yet for some reason you feel it is right to misrepresent him. You are no better than the trolls that you complain about. It’s pathetic, people aren’t going to just take your word for it and not read the whole comment, you’ve already shown your dishonesty. Any more quotes out of context or farcical misrepresentation, have you finished trolling and lying for Jesus?

Nathan wrote:

AxeGrrl,

Which is all very good – but then I’ve got to ask – what are you doing participating in this forum if atheism is not a core part of your identity? Why not stick with a forum about something you identify with?

I’d say religion (or lack thereof) is naturally a pillar of identity. And probably sociologically more significant than most others because it is by choice not by birth.

Why am I participating in this forum if atheism ‘is not a core part of my identity’? because I am an atheist and therefore, I do identify. ‘Atheist’ is a descriptor of where I stand on the god(s) issue, but it’s not me. If/when other people criticize certain actions/ideas espoused by the ‘atheism community’, I listen to those criticisms and see if they’re valid ~ if they are, great, I’ve just learned something. If they’re not, I try to participate in the conversation and express why I think they’re not valid.

Trust me, I’ve participated in many message boards where someone would say “atheism is a morally bankrupt worldview”. What did I do? I simply gave a response to explain why that simply isn’t true. But see Nathan, the person was being critical of a worldview, they weren’t criticising me personally. And that’s the bottom line when it comes to criticisms of beliefs.

Nathan,

I’d say religion (or lack thereof) is naturally a pillar of identity. And probably sociologically more significant than most others because it is by choice not by birth.

To you it might be your god we don’t believe in, but for us it’s one god of many we don’t believe in. I also don’t believe in ghosts, fairies, or alien abductions. There’s so many things I don’t believe in, that to pick out one thing and say it’s a “pillar” of my identity is nonsense.

Does a map displaying religion membership look like it’s a choice? If two parents are religious, what religion is their child going to be? You seriously think you just happened to choose Christianity instead of Shinto? Religion is spread through childhood indoctrination and coercion. The two most successful religions were both tied to successful empires, that spread through warfare.

I’ve been told a few times to speak loudly by “progressive believers”… but not against religion, but against muslims, or against mormons, or against creationism– or anyone except them.

Personally, I am glad to hear from inquiring people and not from know-it-alls. I have something to report that I’ve been trying to get in front of the public eye for over 15 years now. My webpage tells about this idea and if you search a new word I use: girasas, you will find additional information.

People really don’t want to hear me talk about this: not religious people, not scientific people, not the people in the organizations I learned it from even. It is quite radical and perhaps this is why there are some who have asked you to tone down your confrontation of them.

It involves a higher kingdom (girasas) invading the human kingdom and it is presented as a natural stage in our evolution. We likewise invaded or descended into the bodies of evolving animals and when we did this, the e. animals themselves left earth because, guess what? The idea is that only 1 evolving kingdom is suitable for earth at a time. The rest of the lives on earth are said to be i. animals, i. plants, i. lifeforms (involving). But only while we are here. There are still e. plants that evolve on earth prior to the arrival of the e. animals.

I’m sorry if this doesn’t make sense to you. I studied for 20 years before I made the discovery of this idea in the literature of The Theosophical Society and The Saint Germain Foundation. Many people don’t have an opportunity to learn these ideas because the organizations are a bit secretive (i.e., THE SECRET DOCTRINE for a book title).

I’m trying to tell others because it will help them to better make decisions. You can still be a 4th subrace (no other e. kingdom present in your thinking process) or a 1st-3rd subrace even (concern for our descent into animals being a motivation for study). But the 5th-7th subraces involve meeting, acting, and parting with the higher girasas kingdom and that is why religious people are a bit nervous about their prospects and acceptance among their fellow human beings. What can we possibly know about a higher kingdom other than what they tell us or show us? It is a difficult endeavor and some people have failed at successfully loving the girasas and preparing for them. It hurts a lot to be so rejected.