Why are there so many churchy people here.

[All Along The Watchtower]

This thread (and frankly, this forum) is more evidence that atheists can be just as arrogant and ignorant as religious people can be.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Once again proving the point of this thread... around the Atlas it's OFFENSIVE to have a negative opinion of religion.  Sorry, but I'm not going to moderate myself on an institution I consider to be inherently the worst kind of evil.

Your conception of just how bad evil can get is amazingly parochial. That's why it's called evil.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Excuse me... I said ATTEMPTED.

What has that to do with the price of rice?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Somewhat inevitably it appears that you don't know the first thing about the target of your juvenile ravings. Religion is far too complex a thing (if it is even really a single thing) to be dismissed as merely a form of 'social control'. The same rites and institutions that may be profoundly oppressive to one person may well be profoundly liberating to another. And that's just scratching the surface.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that's true, but it is certainly true that I found your particular post to be quite offensive. I believe that I have a right to find offensive what offends me; I think we all do, actually. No one has a right to have their opinions accepted without question, without criticism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Leaving aside first the irony and second the idea that 'religion' can be thought of as a single 'institution', it strikes me as a little strange to view (say) a rosary as more evil than (say) Treblinka.

[Keystone Phil]

Excuse me... I said ATTEMPTED.

What has that to do with the price of rice?

Ah, my family says, "...the price of eggs?" My friends claim they've never heard the expression. Glad this confirms that it's actually a saying.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Excuse me... I said ATTEMPTED.

What has that to do with the price of rice?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Somewhat inevitably it appears that you don't know the first thing about the target of your juvenile ravings. Religion is far too complex a thing (if it is even really a single thing) to be dismissed as merely a form of 'social control'. The same rites and institutions that may be profoundly oppressive to one person may well be profoundly liberating to another. And that's just scratching the surface.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that's true, but it is certainly true that I found your particular post to be quite offensive. I believe that I have a right to find offensive what offends me; I think we all do, actually. No one has a right to have their opinions accepted without question, without criticism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Leaving aside first the irony and second the idea that 'religion' can be thought of as a single 'institution', it strikes me as a little strange to view (say) a rosary as more evil than (say) Treblinka.

1. It means that the end result of religion is not always mind/body enslavement... but fundamentalists certainly give it the old college try.

2. And heroin can be liberating for a drug addict, torturing animals can be liberating for a sociopath... does that make it a good thing?  My argument is that a terrible price is paid so people can have their liberating rituals.  Someone praying by themselves is still a cog in the wheel of mass delusion, which I find to be just terribly harmful to humanity and it's potential. 

3. I didn't say you don't have a right to be offended, of course you do, I was just pointing out a observation I've made about this forum. 

4. Nazism was profoundly based and backed by religious belief.  Nazi Germany would never have happened without religious superstition.  Gott mitt uns, ja?

I don't think I ever tried to say religion was a single institution, but don't you think there are some things that all or a vast majority of religions have in common...belief in the supernatural, little to no evidence for that, restrictions on personal behavior, etc.?

 

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Your argument is essentially 'it doesn't matter who finds it liberating if I find it oppressive'.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Your argument is essentially 'it doesn't matter who finds it liberating if I find it oppressive'.

Essentially, yes, because in my view anyone who is stridently religious can not truly be free.  And before you jump down my throat... are there not a very large number of things that religious people claim are not open to agnostics/atheists; namely salvation and morality?  Hell, I've been told by my religious friends that my lack of belief means I myself can never be free.   

My belief is that rejection of religious or god-ly beliefs are a path to enlightenment and freedom of the mind.  So, how could I see religion as anything BUT oppressive? 

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Your argument is essentially 'it doesn't matter who finds it liberating if I find it oppressive'.

Essentially, yes, because in my view anyone who is stridently religious can not truly be free.  And before you jump down my throat... are there not a very large number of things that religious people claim are not open to agnostics/atheists; namely salvation and morality?  Hell, I've been told by my religious friends that my lack of belief means I myself can never be free.

I can't answer this question as asked because 'religious people' aren't a monolith, but that's certainly true of some religious people. One might even say many. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By recognizing that other people don't share that belief, which is something that people holding belief systems purporting to be 'rationalist' have, I'm sorry to say, not historically been especially good at. My mind is significantly freer (in the sense of having room to entertain a greater variety of possibilities) treating its contents as having some depth and a mystical connection to past, future, and eternal minds than it would be were I to treat reality as some sort of Murakami Takashi installation piece.

[afleitch]

By recognizing that other people don't share that belief, which is something that people holding belief systems purporting to be 'rationalist' have, I'm sorry to say, not historically been especially good at. My mind is significantly freer (in the sense of having room to entertain a greater variety of possibilities) treating its contents as having some depth and a mystical connection to past, future, and eternal minds than it would be were I to treat reality as some sort of Murakami Takashi installation piece.

In a way you've sort of proved his point; that's an incredibly dismissive thing to say. He was wrong to say he's 'freer' than you spiritually, as individual freedom is an internal state and cannot be objectively measured, but you can't say you're 'significantly freer' either or be as dismissive of other views of reality.

[Gustaf]

Great, another pious lecture from Gustaf.  Just what I always wanted for Christmas!

Huh? I'm not the one trying to tell people what they should do for Christmas or making fun of them. If anyone was giving pious lectures in this thread it was you and I was merely pointing that out in two sentences.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This thread (and frankly, this forum) is more evidence that atheists can be just as arrogant and ignorant as religious people can be.

This is why I preach only to my own choir on these things, now...

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

By recognizing that other people don't share that belief, which is something that people holding belief systems purporting to be 'rationalist' have, I'm sorry to say, not historically been especially good at. My mind is significantly freer (in the sense of having room to entertain a greater variety of possibilities) treating its contents as having some depth and a mystical connection to past, future, and eternal minds than it would be were I to treat reality as some sort of Murakami Takashi installation piece.

In a way you've sort of proved his point; that's an incredibly dismissive thing to say. He was wrong to say he's 'freer' than you spiritually, as individual freedom is an internal state and cannot be objectively measured, but you can't say you're 'significantly freer' either or be as dismissive of other views of reality.

I said I believe my mind is freer, to clarify; I certainly do not think spirits exist.  I did not make any claims to that being an absolute fact, and I don't find that statement particularly controversial for an atheist who hasn't chosen to be so.  

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

By recognizing that other people don't share that belief, which is something that people holding belief systems purporting to be 'rationalist' have, I'm sorry to say, not historically been especially good at. My mind is significantly freer (in the sense of having room to entertain a greater variety of possibilities) treating its contents as having some depth and a mystical connection to past, future, and eternal minds than it would be were I to treat reality as some sort of Murakami Takashi installation piece.

In a way you've sort of proved his point; that's an incredibly dismissive thing to say. He was wrong to say he's 'freer' than you spiritually, as individual freedom is an internal state and cannot be objectively measured, but you can't say you're 'significantly freer' either or be as dismissive of other views of reality.

Perhaps I should have said 'uniquely good at'. What I meant was that there's no historical basis for the idea that a worldview is better at accepting the existence or understanding the content of other worldviews because it claims a rational basis. Even if I were launching invective to the effect that rationalistic worldviews are guiltier of this than others, I really don't think this particular critique constitutes being 'dismissive' at all.

I'm not necessarily freer than HockeyDude is as I don't know how free HockeyDude is and as we probably quantify freedom differently anyway. I do know that, as I understand freedom, I'm freer than I would be if I had HockeyDude's views on this subject.

[afleitch]

I do know that, as I understand freedom, I'm freer than I would be if I had HockeyDude's views on this subject.

As I know that as I understand freedom, I'm freer because I don't have your views on the matter (and I used to) That's all the respect I guess that people ask for in conversations like this.

[Joe Republic]

Great, another pious lecture from Gustaf.  Just what I always wanted for Christmas!

Huh? I'm not the one trying to tell people what they should do for Christmas or making fun of them. If anyone was giving pious lectures in this thread it was you and I was merely pointing that out in two sentences.

Tell people what to do?  I couldn't care less what people do.  My posts in this thread were directed only at those I generally agree with on the subject of religion (e.g. memphis, the creator of the topic and poser of its question), because I learned long ago not to bother engaging directly with religious folk any more.  As Scott said a few posts up, I 'preach to my own choir' on religion these days.  You guys can read and respond to it if you want, but you weren't the people I was ever really talking to.

[Gustaf]

Great, another pious lecture from Gustaf.  Just what I always wanted for Christmas!

Huh? I'm not the one trying to tell people what they should do for Christmas or making fun of them. If anyone was giving pious lectures in this thread it was you and I was merely pointing that out in two sentences.

Tell people what to do?  I couldn't care less what people do.  My posts in this thread were directed only at those I generally agree with on the subject of religion (e.g. memphis, the creator of the topic and poser of its question), because I learned long ago not to bother engaging directly with religious folk any more.  As Scott said a few posts up, I 'preach to my own choir' on religion these days.  You guys can read and respond to it if you want, but you weren't the people I was ever really talking to.

You couldn't care less?

It does seem a little disappointing at first glance, I'll agree.  But the result of the 'did you go to church last night' poll right now stands at about 65% 'no', so there's still hope for us yet.

I wonder how many of the rational folks among us still went to church anyway because of family tradition/pressure.  Poor guys.

That's certainly not what you sounded like. I don't care that much, but I found it a bit harsh to act as if Nathan was being affronted at there being atheists in society when you were clearly being affronted about religious people existing.

[Joe Republic]

You either didn't read or didn't understand my point.  I was talking to memphis, and by extension anybody else who is baffled by the culture of religion.  Not Nathan, not you, or any other religious people.  (Didn't you see my use of the word "us"?)  Sure, you guys are all here anyway and can all read my posts, which makes things a little awkward I guess, but I'm simply talking amongst my peers.

Remember when HockeyDude said earlier that this forum is different from real life in that whenever he discusses religion with his social peers, it's to criticize or mock it?  I'm the same; I'm just not used to talking about religion in front of people who actually subscribe to it.

[CountryRoads]

Ignoring the fact that i havent posted for 11 days, I don't think this forum is very churchy. Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Ignoring the fact that i havent posted for 11 days, I don't think this forum is very churchy. Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?

Yeah, this forum is only 'churchy' relative to memphis, Joe Republic, and HockeyDude's apparent social circles. It isn't churchy relative to American society or the world as a whole at all.

[memphis]

Ignoring the fact that i havent posted for 11 days, I don't think this forum is very churchy. Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?

Yeah, this forum is only 'churchy' relative to memphis, Joe Republic, and HockeyDude's apparent social circles. It isn't churchy relative to American society or the world as a whole at all.

It's much churchier here than I expected. And that was my entire point. Maybe it's less churchy than other people would expect.  It is true that I am beyond baffled by the culture of religion, but that's rather a different topic and I certainly have no expectation of changing any opinions. Not like anybody has ever been persuaded by political arguments on here either.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Ignoring the fact that i havent posted for 11 days, I don't think this forum is very churchy. Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?

Yeah, this forum is only 'churchy' relative to memphis, Joe Republic, and HockeyDude's apparent social circles. It isn't churchy relative to American society or the world as a whole at all.

It's much churchier here than I expected. And that was my entire point. Maybe it's less churchy than other people would expect.  It is true that I am beyond baffled by the culture of religion, but that's rather a different topic and I certainly have no expectation of changing any opinions. Not like anybody has ever been persuaded by political arguments on here either.

My point is the expectation being flouted by this ULTRA-'CHURCHY' FORUM TWO-FIFTHS OF WHICH GOES TO CHURCH ON CHRISTMAS!!!! seems to have been dictated by a very particular social environment, because that's the only standard by which this place could possibly be so characterized--and HockeyDude and Joe Republic have more or less admitted as such. Maybe if you interacted with a broader cross-section of American society more your 'bafflement' would decrease.

[memphis]

Ignoring the fact that i havent posted for 11 days, I don't think this forum is very churchy. Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?

Yeah, this forum is only 'churchy' relative to memphis, Joe Republic, and HockeyDude's apparent social circles. It isn't churchy relative to American society or the world as a whole at all.

It's much churchier here than I expected. And that was my entire point. Maybe it's less churchy than other people would expect.  It is true that I am beyond baffled by the culture of religion, but that's rather a different topic and I certainly have no expectation of changing any opinions. Not like anybody has ever been persuaded by political arguments on here either.

My point is the expectation being flouted by this ULTRA-'CHURCHY' FORUM TWO-FIFTHS OF WHICH GOES TO CHURCH ON CHRISTMAS!!!! seems to have been dictated by an unusually insular social environment. Maybe if you interacted with a broader cross-section of American society more your 'bafflement' would decrease.

Obviously, I expected a forum about political maps to be an insular social environment. Why would you expect otherwise? I, apparently incorrectly, expected it to be less churchy given a few key demographics of the primary users.
On the completely separate issue/threadjack of my experiences with religious people, I have known quite a few of them well. My mother attends synagogue every Saturday morning. During her post-divorce mid-life crisis, she attended every evening for about a dozen years. A close friend is perpetually toying with the idea of embracing Orthodox Judaism. I also have ultra Orthodox family in Brooklyn who were formerly hellbent on evangelizing to me. When I was a child, they frequently tried to get me to leave my parents and live the lifestyle with them. Exposure to religious people has not eased my inability to comprehend the motivations of religious people. Quite the opposite. It's not a judgement value. And I think that you, like most religious people, are needlessly oversensitive to the subject. Nobody is coming to take away your rosaries. You just must understand that it is very difficult for many of us to wrap our heads around the willingness to submit blindly to any ideology, especially one with as checkered a past and as little evidence as any major religion.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

As you must understand that for many of us it isn't a question of 'blind submission' and that we by and large find that particular exercise in superciliousness exactly as offensive as anybody would find being called blindly submissive despite not being so. One need not fear political oppression to feel wounded by ill-informed insults.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Ignoring the fact that i havent posted for 11 days, I don't think this forum is very churchy. Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?

Yeah, this forum is only 'churchy' relative to memphis, Joe Republic, and HockeyDude's apparent social circles. It isn't churchy relative to American society or the world as a whole at all.

It's much churchier here than I expected. And that was my entire point. Maybe it's less churchy than other people would expect.  It is true that I am beyond baffled by the culture of religion, but that's rather a different topic and I certainly have no expectation of changing any opinions. Not like anybody has ever been persuaded by political arguments on here either.

My point is the expectation being flouted by this ULTRA-'CHURCHY' FORUM TWO-FIFTHS OF WHICH GOES TO CHURCH ON CHRISTMAS!!!! seems to have been dictated by a very particular social environment, because that's the only standard by which this place could possibly be so characterized--and HockeyDude and Joe Republic have more or less admitted as such. Maybe if you interacted with a broader cross-section of American society more your 'bafflement' would decrease.

My "bafflement" is contrived from the fact that such a large number of young liberals would find so much merit in religion, particularly since so many of those liberals seem to agree with someone like me on most if not all major issues, and then we hit this wall religion where it could not be more opposite.  It's confusing on a purely psychological level.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

You either didn't read or didn't understand my point.  I was talking to memphis, and by extension anybody else who is baffled by the culture of religion.  Not Nathan, not you, or any other religious people.  (Didn't you see my use of the word "us"?)  Sure, you guys are all here anyway and can all read my posts, which makes things a little awkward I guess, but I'm simply talking amongst my peers.

Remember when HockeyDude said earlier that this forum is different from real life in that whenever he discusses religion with his social peers, it's to criticize or mock it?  I'm the same; I'm just not used to talking about religion in front of people who actually subscribe to it.

Not entirely true, Joe.  I've plenty of teligious friends, but in my closest crew agnosticism is the majority, and even the religious ones at least see my point and don't consider it offensive in the least.