Do you feel atheists look down on you?

Captain Ginger

Well, I have been a Catholic all my life, and if I'm honest I don't believe in everything that I have been told.

Now I do believe in God and that Jesus died for us as well as other things that I won't bore you with.

Anyway, the point in this thread is I feel a little looked down on by non believers, I don't have a problem with them and their views at all, it would be boring if we all thought the same, but I feel some of them are being a bit hypocritical in some ways, for years my church has done horrible things (crusades ect ect) and a lot of us seem to feel the need to force our opinion on others which I really feel is wrong, but now a days I feel like there has been a major flip side to the point where I have been openly mocked for my "peter pan" beliefs and been told to "grow up".

Just wanted to get your thoughts on this, do you feel like the majority of people (expeically on the internet) look down on you because of what you believe in?

Please note, I'm not trying to start a hate thread here, I do hope all replys are constructive and non hating (IE: They're the stupid ones - not what I want).

So thoughts?

PDN

They might look down on me, but I don't really care. My ego is big enough not to worry about it.

Asiaprod

Captain Ginger wrote: »

Just wanted to get your thoughts on this, do you feel like the majority of people (expeically on the internet) look down on you because of what you believe in?

I will start with a nice one:)
I do not believe in what you do, I have complains with issues, but I respect you have a right to your belief. I will not ridicule anyone for what they believe in, but I will not tolerate it when one group try to influence by force or threat, or seek to establish laws that, effect, inhibit or seek to control my life.
Live and let live:)

Captain Ginger

Asiaprod wrote: »

I will start with a nice one:)
I do not believe in what you do, I have complains with issues, but I respect you have a right to your belief. I will not ridicule anyone for what they believe in, but I will not tolerate it when one group try to influence by force or threat, or seek to establish laws that, effect, inhibit or seek to control my life.
Live and let live:)

Aye, and I have no problem with that at all.

I'm not talking about leaders or what not, I'm talking about your typical guy or girl who goes to church on a Sunday, says their prayers and gets on with life and is then insulted by people who think differnt.

I just feel that if the topic comes up in other places its become the norm for some people to completly disrespect and take the mick.

Galvasean

Captain ginger wrote:

Do you feel athiests look down on you?

You should. Spelt our collective name wrong! :mad:
Grrr and such.

Captain Ginger

Gaviscon wrote: »

You should. Spelt our collective name wrong! :mad:
Grrr and such.

I have fixed that, did not mean to offend

Pompey Magnus

I hate the belief, not the believer.

JimiTime

Captain Ginger wrote: »

Well, I have been a Catholic all my life, and if I'm honest I don't believe in everything that I have been told.

Now I do believe in God and that Jesus died for us as well as other things that I won't bore you with.

Anyway, the point in this thread is I feel a little looked down on by non believers, I don't have a problem with them and their views at all, it would be boring if we all thought the same, but I feel some of them are being a bit hypocritical in some ways, for years my church has done horrible things (crusades ect ect) and a lot of us seem to feel the need to force our opinion on others which I really feel is wrong, but now a days I feel like there has been a major flip side to the point where I have been openly mocked for my "peter pan" beliefs and been told to "grow up".

Just wanted to get your thoughts on this, do you feel like the majority of people (expeically on the internet) look down on you because of what you believe in?

Please note, I'm not trying to start a hate thread here, I do hope all replys are constructive and non hating (IE: They're the stupid ones - not what I want).

So thoughts?

There is certainly alot out there these days that do what you described. There is an intellectual stigma attached to believing in God these days IMO. There are some who would be very aggressive atheists, who quite plainly show how stupid and deluded they think you are. There are the atheists who are not so agressive, but even in this department I have detected a hint of intellectual snobbery. I suppose its only natural. Man has come a long way in his time on earth. Man has set its own standards about being intellectual, and looks at all the great things it has done, technology wise etc, and I suppose there is a sense of pride in how smart we are. The view seems to be that belief in God stifles development of scientific knowledge etc. Unfortunately, some religious folk down the years have been guilty as charged. There have also been many bad things carried out in the name of religion. However, religion, or religious people, do not represent ones personal relationship with God. Sometimes a non-believer who is arguing from a point of 'Religion did this or that etc', does not like it when a believer distances themselves for acts carried out by professing 'christians'. However, that is one thing that the believer should not be concerned about. You can only express what 'you' believe. You or your relationship with God, is not guilty for attrocities carried out by others.

On a positive note, sometimes atheists raise difficult questions for us. They can provoke some serious inner debate, and in many cases, it can reinforce or correct you. You seem to already be invoking your own inner debate/concience in your above post. You say you are Catholic, but do not believe all you have been told. Thats a good start IMO.

nozzferrahhtoo

You are absolutely correct with your first posting in this thread. However you just do not go far enough.

In ANY debate on ANY issue there are people on BOTH sides who look down on the people on the other side. You see the opposite side looking down on you. From the other side I can tell I have been just as looked down on.

It is by no means a unique trait of non beleivers and it is by no means a unique trait of the atheism/theism discussion. The only solution really is to grow a thicker skin, get over it, and deal with the issues and the facts, not the attitudes.

In short, deal with the messages not the messangers.

thebaldsoprano

Some interesting stuff here...

JimiTime wrote: »

Unfortunately, some religious folk down the years have been guilty as charged.

This is a big problem, religion and Catholicism in particular have been guilty of the most obscene abuses of rational and scientific inquiry down the centuries and unfortunately this has carried a legacy.

The Catholic church has much improved in this area but they still aren't above interfering with such inquires and this should be highlighted as necessary and definitely isn't snobbery.

JimiTime wrote: »

On a positive note, sometimes atheists raise difficult questions for us.

They raise a few tough questions for us agnostics aswell

Atheists do seem to have a habit of looking down on religious folk alright, but I've also picked up a 'that poor chap, his soul is damned' attitude from Catholics as well (I'm an ex Catholic btw). I think a lot of these type of problems are down to how well you understand and how comfortable you are with your beliefs. If someone comes along and starts breaking things down into first principals and deriving things from there, this can cause people who aren't that sure on their beliefs to get very inflamed indeed. This can take all sorts of forms including the one OP mentioned. On the other hand, where people are sure and comfortable with their beliefs lots of tough questions arise which are very interesting to explore and I've found such an exploration is as likely to happen with religious as non religious people.

Fanny Cradock

Yes and no.

Before I criticise them I think that a critical eye cast over Christianity is required. Like any organisation (be it large or small) we have our problems. And I can agree with atheists when they accuse certain Christians of lacking critical thinking, wilful ignorance of matters scientific and corrupting the message of the Bible to suit their own means. When you see these occurring within Christianity it is most regrettable.

The point at which I diverge from many atheists is that, while I recognise that these problems exist within Christianity, I don't believe them to be a function of it. These negative traits - lack of critical thought, ignorance and corruption etc. - are not specific to Christianity, and I would argue exist in overflowing abundance within the secular world. In other words, you don't have to be a dim, unthinking hypocrite to be a Christian. (Though some would clearly disagree.) To be such things you merely have to be human.

Outside of the internet I've never had any trouble with atheists. We get on just fine :pac: But it seems that the anonymity of the internet breeds or encourages harsher opinions reactions. Maybe it just attracts a certain type from either side. On the interntez, I've certainly felt belittled on occasions. It's justifiable if I happen to utter something of particular ignorance, but often I find it's just a reaction - often extreme - to my belief in the God. On rare occasions I've found these reactions (not specifically on Boards) so venomous, aggressive and ugly that I must wonder if there is something beyond merely disagreeing with another persons belief. One also has to wonder and worry about the person.

On a conciliatory note, I find that there are many atheist and agnostic individuals who are thoughtful and fair in thier appraisal of Christianity. I've a lot of time for these folk, the others, those red-faced with anger, I try my best to ignore.

thebaldsoprano

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The point at which I diverge from many atheists is that, while I recognise that these problems exist within Christianity, I don't believe them to be a function of it.

That's a very good point and I think it strikes the core of the matter. From my limited knowledge of Catholicism and Christianity, I wouldn't believe such problems to be a function of these beliefs either. While I may take some issue with parts of Christian theology that I'm familiarising myself with, I think Christian beliefs and practices are likely to affect one's critical thinking about as much as my last painting affects mine.

Tim Robbins

Captain Ginger wrote: »

Anyway, the point in this thread is I feel a little looked down on by non believers, I don't have a problem with them and their views at all, it would be boring if we all thought the same, but I feel some of them are being a bit hypocritical in some ways, for years my church has done horrible things (crusades ect ect) and a lot of us seem to feel the need to force our opinion on others which I really feel is wrong, but now a days I feel like there has been a major flip side to the point where I have been openly mocked for my "peter pan" beliefs and been told to "grow up".

Coming at it from the atheist / humanist angle. I try to look at it from a consequentialist perspective i.e. what's the consequence of their belief?

Are they happy? Do they give more to chairty? Are they more compassionate?

Or

Do they look down on people who don't share their beliefs? Do they subvert scientific thinking, which is needed to progress treatment in AIDs and Malaria?

I once said the above to a Minister who seemed to have major issues with it, even though amongst atheists, that's a probably up at the liberal end of the spectrum - believe it or not. He seemed to be more concerned about the truth not the consequence of the belief. But we've never agreed on the truth, so we either insulate ourselves from those we disagree with or find some way to respectfully disagree by seeing some merit in the other's view. I would be pro - tolerance, even though that can be easier said than done and I have probably erred many times.

I believe there is something in the human condition that makes us one to transcend and engage in religious practise. The only people who don't act this way or those who are:
1. Exceptionally materialistic.
2. Exceptionally hedonistic.
3. Really enjoy logic and a more scientific way at looking at things. It's not sufficient that you are capable of logic, you have to enjoy it.

Only 10% of the population can fit into category 3. So I would say 90% of people either going for option 1 or 2 or else Religion. Sometimes religions can shift someone out of option 1 and 2 because these life stances are empty, short term focussed and meaningless.

Just to turn it on its head, sometimes I feel Christians don't respect my views. I don't think you can respect something you know nothing about. So if a Christian knows nothing about the various arguments for atheism / humanism, which is usually the case, how can they respect it?

So there are failings on both sides w.r.t. this issue.

SlickRic

Charco wrote: »

I hate the belief, not the believer.

what's so worthy of hatred in the belief?

i understand you not agreeing with it, many here don't agree

but I honestly don't understand how you can hate Christianity as a belief? Or is it just the whole idea of religion which I think is kind of a seperate issue

Zombrex

SlickRic wrote: »

but I honestly don't understand how you can hate Christianity as a belief?

Pull up a chair, we may be here a while .... :pac:

SlickRic

Wicknight wrote: »

Pull up a chair, we may be here a while .... :pac:

i realise that, don't worry but as i say im interested as to what is so hate-worthy in the belief...not the people who propagate it or the churches that sometimes act hypocritically and sometimes just plain badly in the belief's name...but the belief itself

i.e. believing in Christ, His love, grace, power, sovereignty, etc

Handsome Bob

From an agnostic point of view, I have no problem with atheists or religious people. However, say for instance I am in the company of a catholic and an atheist. If the catholic simply explains that he/she feels a personal connection to god and that it gives them inner strength, I'll have an issue if the atheist is just ignorantly and blatantly dismisses that person's belief. I don't see how if someone has that kind of faith how it makes them "inferior", or "less intelligent".

On the other hand, if a catholic started to launch into a hate filled rant on homosexuals and other religions, when the atheist is just being polite, non-patronising and just trying to engage in a discussion, I will have an issue with the catholic.

You see, it's all about how people present themselves. Manners and respecting your fellow human being costs you nothing.

Dog Fan

My own experience is that atheists don't look down on me. I have a number of friends with different religious beliefs, or none. Religion has never been an issue between us.

Having said that, I am aware of some cases where priest friends of mine have received some severe verbal abuse for past abuses of the Catholic Church. (Specifically, they have been blamed with the atrocity that is child abuse). As one priest said to me in the 90's - he felt ashamed sometimes to put on his collar. For me, that's a very sad statement.

Interesting question. Do people feel that there is an age where one is likely to settle on a religious identity? I work in a school, and have a number of students who would actively reject any form of organised religion, yet they may be seen back in a church in a few years. Also, virtually all students are open to some form of spiritual experience (meditations, memorials, etc).

Handsome Bob

Dog Fan wrote: »

My own experience is that atheists don't look down on me. I have a number of friends with different religious beliefs, or none. Religion has never been an issue between us.

Having said that, I am aware of some cases where priest friends of mine have received some severe verbal abuse for past abuses of the Catholic Church. (Specifically, they have been blamed with the atrocity that is child abuse). As one priest said to me in the 90's - he felt ashamed sometimes to put on his collar. For me, that's a very sad statement.

Interesting question. Do people feel that there is an age where one is likely to settle on a religious identity? I work in a school, and have a number of students who would actively reject any form of organised religion, yet they may be seen back in a church in a few years. Also, virtually all students are open to some form of spiritual experience (meditations, memorials, etc).

For me personally it wasn't so much age that helped me settle on my identity. For me, it was personal experiences and tragedies that made me have a cold hard look at my faith. I didn't have the heart to buy it anymore and became agnostic, if there's a god, he doesn't intervene in anyway, that's just my humble opinion. I too have friends of various walks of life and I accept and respect their beliefs.

Pompey Magnus

SlickRic wrote: »

i realise that, don't worry but as i say im interested as to what is so hate-worthy in the belief...not the people who propagate it or the churches that sometimes act hypocritically and sometimes just plain badly in the belief's name...but the belief itself

i.e. believing in Christ, His love, grace, power, sovereignty, etc

One of the major problems I have with the teachings of Jesus and the Church that was spawned from him is the concept of eternal punishment for the disbeliever and unworthy. Gentle Jesus may have given plenty of admirable and highly moral teachings during his life, but he also invented the concept of Hell, to my mind this cancels out any good teachings he may have given.

As horrible and brutish as the Old Testament is there was no concept of punishment after death in it. You may be punished during life but once you die that is it. The mental torment that Jesus inflicted on so many people with his Hell is unforgivable in my mind. People lived in fear as they were constantly being watched and notes made, if they didn't make the grade they would be sent to be tortured for eternity. Parents were told that their unbaptised children were sent to Limbo, the mildest region of Hell, where the unclean souls would be punished for ever for the sin of Adam. Children were terrified by grown men who told them as if it were a proven fact that if they did bad they would burn for ever with no escape.

If people took Jesus as a philosopher then he would be one of the better ones (certainly not the best philosopher humanity has seen but he would be in the top half definitely). However when he is taken as a religious figure his teachings become tarnished.

Of course most Christians tend to push this out of their mind when they think of Jesus. They think of him as being this laid back chap who spread love and happiness. When a loved one dies they assume that this person is going to go to Heaven because Jesus is a cool guy and wouldn't really send anyone to Hell. Sorry, but this perception isn't backed up by the Christian Bible.

This is one reason why I dislike the belief that Jesus invented (or perhaps was later attributed to him).

PDN

Charco wrote: »

he also invented the concept of Hell

No He didn't. The concept of Hell predates Jesus.

As horrible and brutish as the Old Testament is there was no concept of punishment after death in it. You may be punished during life but once you die that is it.

Not so.

At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:1-2)

Zombrex

SlickRic wrote: »

i realise that, don't worry but as i say im interested as to what is so hate-worthy in the belief...not the people who propagate it or the churches that sometimes act hypocritically and sometimes just plain badly in the belief's name...but the belief itself

i.e. believing in Christ, His love, grace, power, sovereignty, etc

Well firstly the belief teaches that all humans are wicked and sinful and in need of salvation by and from God. That in itself would be a reason to hate the belief. But I could go on for a long time, but possibly the Atheist forum is a better place for that.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well firstly the belief teaches that all humans are wicked and sinful and in need of salvation by and from God. That in itself would be a reason to hate the belief. But I could go on for a long time, but possibly the Atheist forum is a better place for that.

I can see how someone might disagree with such a belief, but to hate it seems pretty irrational.

Such intolerance and bigotry is rather unattractive.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I can see how someone might disagree with such a belief, but to hate it seems pretty irrational.

Why?

I think it is a horrible, harmful idea that causes suffering and pain and ideally should never have existed in the first place.

Why would I not hate it as an idea or concept?

--amadeus--

Is it also wrong then to hate the belief that some have in white supremacy?

Personally I don't "look down" on people who believe in any god, in the same way that I don't look down on people who believe in tarot cards, ESP, that 9/11 is a US Governemnt conspiracy, that aliens landed in Area 51 or that the Earth is flat. I'm a bit bemused by it, I can't understand it and - if it comes up in conversation - I'll talk about and question it.

But the important point for me isn't what people believe in, it's how they act. If they are "good" people, whose company I enjoy and they just happen to have ideas I consider a bit daft I'll ignore it and we'll stick to common ground. If they act in a superior manner or attempt a conversion (to religion or conspiracy theory, it's all faith and belief) then I think all normal people will react and may begin to "look down" on them. But in that case they have contempt for the believer, not the belief.

lugha

--amadeus-- wrote: »

tarot cards, ESP, that 9/11 is a US Governemnt conspiracy, that aliens landed in Area 51 or that the Earth is flat.

Perhaps as a "other side of the coin" exercise believers might want to consider their attitudes to matters such as these. Would you argue that feel there’s no substance to such things but you respect the rights of others to believe what they want? I have on occasions heard individuals of faith dismiss such ideas in very derogatory terms. (I suspect such posters over on the paranormal threads are not all atheists!). I think if you find something irrational or illogical or without substance then your natural reactions is to dismiss it in fairly scathing terms. That people (well, not too many of us happily) do not do this has more to do with our adherence to common courtesy than with any meaningful respect for such beliefs.

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

Well firstly the belief teaches that all humans are wicked and sinful and in need of salvation by and from God. That in itself would be a reason to hate the belief. But I could go on for a long time, but possibly the Atheist forum is a better place for that.

I think it's down to how this is interpreted. There's lots of evidence that we're wicked and sinful but there's also plenty of evidence for our better qualities. Personally I'd take issue with the 'in need of salvation by and from God' part

Could be an interesting discussion for a separate thread.

Tim Robbins

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps as a "other side of the coin" exercise believers might want to consider their attitudes to matters such as these. Would you argue that feel there’s no substance to such things but you respect the rights of others to believe what they want? I have on occasions heard individuals of faith dismiss such ideas in very derogatory terms. (I suspect such posters over on the paranormal threads are not all atheists!). I think if you find something irrational or illogical or without substance then your natural reactions is to dismiss it in fairly scathing terms. That people (well, not too many of us happily) do not do this has more to do with our adherence to common courtesy than with any meaningful respect for such beliefs.

I think the difference with the God question is that we really have to accept the limits of understandings of the Universe. It may be possible that there is a force that we cannot describe in material terms just like my Dog doesn't know much about Java and Enterprise Software systems.

Something like Creationism is as stupid as the other wacky things you mentioned. Believing your religion is absolutely 100% true and every other one is 100% wrong, is also a bit naieve. A religion is more than likely is how your culture expressed its spirituality and a reflection of its spiritual journey. That's all.

There just isn't any good evidence for any rational, intelligent, educated person to think anything more.

That may sound like agnostism but the reason why I go a step further is that evolution through natural selection without any sort of thinking creator makes most sense of in terms of all the suffering in the world and poorly designed features of nature.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

No He didn't. The concept of Hell predates Jesus.
.

The Judaic idea of Hell (Gehenna) is entirely different to the one Jesus preached. It is not an important concept to Jews, unlike in Christianity. It was not a physical place where people were punished forever, it was a temporary place of cleansing where souls would remain for less than one year.

Jesus gave us the concept of eternal punishment that we have today.

lugha

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think the difference with the God question is that we really have to accept the limits of understandings of the Universe. It may be possible that there is a force that we cannot describe in material terms just like my Dog doesn't know much about Java and Enterprise Software systems.

My point really related to “respect” for viewpoints that one feels have no credibility. I’m afraid I don’t understand how you differentiate between the God question and the others in this context. Indeed I don’t understand how you differentiate them at all. Surely it may be possible (remotely) that there may be some truth in these wacky things. We are limited in that we cannot know that they are definitely wacky anymore than we can know that there is no God.

Oh and as for ESS, your Dog (not dog?) and me both!

TravelJunkie

PDN wrote: »

I can see how someone might disagree with such a belief, but to hate it seems pretty irrational.

Such intolerance and bigotry is rather unattractive.

I don't think 'hate' is irrational. And it's not Christians (as in their individual personalities) they hate, it's Christ in us.
No surprise, we were warned.

My real concern goes back to me, if someone starts demeaning Christian beliefs at a social gathering (not knowing I'm a Christian) - do I stand up and say, "But I'm a Christian". I always feel conflicted in that situation because I feel if I do say I'm a Christian I'll be ridiculed, but if I don't say anything I'm denying Christ.
In saying that, I always try not to engage in religious arguments at all. But if someone says bad things about born agains (especially) - I will challenge them and ask how many born-agains do they know and from what experience can they make these assumptions.
It is always hard.

MrPudding

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I think it's down to how this is interpreted. There's lots of evidence that we're wicked and sinful but there's also plenty of evidence for our better qualities.

The evidence for us being wicked and sinful is in the context of the bible though, is it not? As far as a lot of the christians on this board are concerned, I am sinful and wicked. I don’t believe in god, I drink, I have sex outside of marriage and engage in various other, as far as the bible is concerned, heinous acts. If you looked at my life outside the context of the bible, you will see that I am generally a good person, like most of the atheist posting here I would imagine. So in short, I would not agree that there is a lot of evidence that we are wicked and sinful, but I would agree that a lot of people would have the opinion that we are wicked and sinful.

MrP

Handsome Bob

TravelJunkie wrote: »

I don't think 'hate' is irrational. And it's not Christians (as in their individual personalities) they hate, it's Christ in us.
No surprise, we were warned.

My real concern goes back to me, if someone starts demeaning Christian beliefs at a social gathering (not knowing I'm a Christian) - do I stand up and say, "But I'm a Christian". I always feel conflicted in that situation because I feel if I do say I'm a Christian I'll be ridiculed, but if I don't say anything I'm denying Christ.
In saying that, I always try not to engage in religious arguments at all. But if someone says bad things about born agains (especially) - I will challenge them and ask how many born-agains do they know and from what experience can they make these assumptions.
It is always hard.

It is the same with me, any time I have had a religious argument they are always the most heated I've been involved in. No because I start anything, but if someone is being arrogant about their own personal beliefs I find it really difficult to stay quiet.

So I just tend to never talk religion anymore.

thebaldsoprano

MrPudding wrote: »

The evidence for us being wicked and sinful is in the context of the bible though, is it not? As far as a lot of the christians on this board are concerned, I am sinful and wicked. I don’t believe in god, I drink, I have sex outside of marriage and engage in various other, as far as the bible is concerned, heinous acts. If you looked at my life outside the context of the bible, you will see that I am generally a good person, like most of the atheist posting here I would imagine. So in short, I would not agree that there is a lot of evidence that we are wicked and sinful, but I would agree that a lot of people would have the opinion that we are wicked and sinful.

MrP

The context would be one of the more mainstream church's interpretation of the Bible. I don't think such a church would regard drinking to be a 'heinous act', but the consequences of an uncontrolled bender might be considered so.

Personally I think we can all be wicked given the right circumstances, but are basically good natured.

MrPudding

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

The context would be one of the more mainstream church's interpretation of the Bible. I don't think such a church would regard drinking to be a 'heinous act', but the consequences of an uncontrolled bender might be considered so.

Personally I think we can all be wicked given the right circumstances, but are basically good natured.

I see your point, but as I don't believe in god, the bible or any churches interpretation of the bible, I don't agree that we are all neccesarily wicked.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Believing your religion is absolutely 100% true and every other one is 100% wrong, is also a bit naieve.

May I suggest that it is naive to make such assumptions.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There just isn't any good evidence for any rational, intelligent, educated person to think anything more.

Can you not understand that loaded comments like that above express the smug attitude that prompts threads like this? Face it, Tim, there are people out there who are far more intelligent and possess a greater ability to use critical thinking than your good self, and yet they believe in God. Shallow comments like yours above are most unwelcome.


This thread from the A&A forum might be of interest to those who haven't seen it before.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055227959

thebaldsoprano

MrPudding wrote: »

I see your point, but as I don't believe in god, the bible or any churches interpretation of the bible, I don't agree that we are all neccesarily wicked.

MrP

Yeah, I don't believe in these either, that's why I chose 'wicked' as opposed to 'sinful'. Just out if interest, does anyone know where the more mainstream churches stand wrt atheism and agnosticism? Assuming the atheist or agnostic in question leads what would be considered to be a reasonably good life of course.

Here's an interesting fact - wicked is possibly but not certainly derived from 'wicca'.

Fanny Cradock

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Yeah, I don't believe in these either, that's why I chose 'wicked' as opposed to 'sinful'. Just out if interest, does anyone know where the more mainstream churches stand wrt atheism and agnosticism? Assuming the atheist or agnostic in question leads what would be considered to be a reasonably good life of course.

Here's an interesting fact - wicked is possibly but not certainly derived from 'wicca'.

Sorry, I don't follow. Are you wondering about the churches opinion on their souls? Or are you asking in less metaphysical terms?

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

I don't think 'hate' is irrational. And it's not Christians (as in their individual personalities) they hate, it's Christ in us.

Considering I don't think Christ is in you, I wouldn't hate Christ being in you.

What I hate is the way your religion attempts to represent the world. I think it is horrible, for tons of seperate reasons, stemming from things like the concepts of sin and hell, right down to the way your religion perverts concepts like love, justice and forgiveness.

I don't expect you to accept any of that, but it is incorrec to say that "Christ in us" is what I hate about your religion.

TravelJunkie wrote: »

My real concern goes back to me, if someone starts demeaning Christian beliefs at a social gathering (not knowing I'm a Christian) - do I stand up and say, "But I'm a Christian".

Well that goes back to the situtation and how bothered you are at the time. Atheist face that situtation all the time, particular in Ireland with such a religious tradition where it is taken for granted that you believe in God, even if you aren't particularly religious. Personally I let most things slide because I don't really care that much about what an ignorant religous person feels about how wicked and stupid I am, but I guess you have the added problem of having a responsibility to proclaim your faith and not denying Christ.

thebaldsoprano

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, I don't follow. Are you wondering about the churches opinion on their souls? Or are you asking in less metaphysical terms?

I guess both. From what I understand our souls may be in a spot of bother, where exactly would they end up?

On a more day to day basis, are such beliefs considered a sin, and if so how severe? Or is it the case that such a church may just regard us as a bit lost?

Tim Robbins

lugha wrote: »

My point really related to “respect” for viewpoints that one feels have no credibility. I’m afraid I don’t understand how you differentiate between the God question and the others in this context. Indeed I don’t understand how you differentiate them at all. Surely it may be possible (remotely) that there may be some truth in these wacky things. We are limited in that we cannot know that they are definitely wacky anymore than we can know that there is no God.

Oh and as for ESS, your Dog (not dog?) and me both!

You can do clinical trials on tarot cards and completely rebut them. You can't do that with God. You can come up with some obscure arguments such as Aristotle's first cause, or that evolution theory cannot explain a sense of beauty, love, or innate spirituality and try to argue that there just might be a God. Not that I think any of this arguments are convincing but they are just there where they are not for Tarot cards.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you not understand that loaded comments like that above express the smug attitude that prompts threads like this? Face it, Tim, there are people out there who are far more intelligent and possess a greater ability to use critical thinking than your good self, and yet they believe in God. Shallow comments like yours above are most unwelcome.

Any theist who is far more intelligent than me, and yes you are correct there are quite a few e.g. Robbert Pollack, Robert Winston, usually only believes in God and sees their Religion as one of many mechanisms that represent the God. They absolutely accept the cultural biases etc. There are very few intellectuals who believe in a specific religion and only their specific religion.

You may think C.S. Lewis was intellectual ( I don't know if you do) but he made no contributions whatsoever to any intellectual field. Perhaps you'd like to name a few a intellectual who believe that their religion is 100% correct and all other religions are 100% wrong?

I am not talking about someone who got great grades in school, I am talking about an intellectual that has made an intellectual contribution to society.

Fanny Cradock

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I guess both. From what I understand our souls may be in a spot of bother, where exactly would they end up?

On a more day to day basis, are such beliefs considered a sin, and if so how severe? Or is it the case that such a church may just regard us as a bit lost?

Well, I would think that all mainstream Christian denominations would agree that each of us is condemned to hell. And it is only though Jesus and the grace of God that we are spared our fate. There is argument over what hell is exactly - I'd personally think that it's separation from from God, i.e. all that is good. Other would have a more traditional view.

As a side note: whatever the opinion of the Church (and what denomination are we discussing?) is isn't always relevant to God or in His interest.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to name a few a intellectual who believe that their religion is 100% correct and all other religions are 100% wrong?

Why woiuld I want to do that? It your assertion, I don't particularly feel the need to argue your position for you.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am not talking about someone who got great grades in school, I am talking about an intellectual that has made an intellectual contribution to society.

I'm not sure why we are talking about 'intellectuals' all of a sudden. I feel no need to be so elitist. We were talking about rational, intelligent, educated people. That's all.

Besides, Tim, assuming I was bothered to compile a list of these 'intellectuals' - which I'm not in the least bit inclined to do - I believe that you would dismiss them out of hand.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why woiuld I want to do that? It your assertion, I don't particularly feel the need to argue your position for you.

I'm not sure why we are talking about 'intellectuals' all of a sudden. I feel no need to be so elitist. We were talking about rational, intelligent, educated people. That's all.

Besides, Tim, assuming I was bothered to compile a list of these 'intellectuals' - which I'm not in the least bit inclined to do - I believe that you would dismiss them out of hand.

Well I don't know why you made the point if you are not prepared to discuss it. It's very hard to believe a specific religion is 100% correct and all others are 100% incorrect once one knows more than their own indoctrinated or chosen one. The next time you have are meeting up with your Christian friends challenge them all to you about the five pillars of Islam and see how much or little they know.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well I don't know why you made the point if you are not prepared to discuss it. It's very hard to believe a specific religion is 100% correct and all others are 100% incorrect once one knows more than their own indoctrinated or chosen one. The next time you have are meeting up with your Christian friends challenge them all to you about the five pillars of Islam and see how much or little they know.

Tim, you made the assertion that we Christians believe our religion to be 100% correct and all other 100% incorrect. And you are the one making the accusation about what I, as a Christian, believe. I just so happen to disagree with this.

I don't believe that Judaism is 100% incorrect, for example. Nor do I believe that every Christian denomination (or any for that matter) is 100% correct. I can't even say the words 'there is a God' with total certainty.

So if you are to prove that I believe something contrary - despite my words above - the onus is on you to show this.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tim, you made the assertion that we Christians believe our religion to be 100% correct and all other 100% incorrect. And you are the one making the accusation about what I, as a Christian, believe. I just so happen to disagree with this.

I don't believe that Judaism is 100% incorrect, for example. Nor do I believe that every Christian denomination (or any for that matter) is 100% correct. I can't even say the words 'there is a God' with total certainty.

So if you are to prove that I believe something contrary - despite my words above - the onus is on you to show this.

i was specifically referring to people who thought their religion was 100% correct and all others were 100% incorrect. It would seem that excludes you.

Fanny Cradock

Not only me.

Overheal

I think everyone to some degree looks down when they cant see eye to eye. Its really the same with any pair of beleifs. I mean lets see, I'm an atheist and I've dated a Pagan and a Jehovah Witness. I didn't look down on either of them but I didn't beleive what they did.

lugha

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You can do clinical trials on tarot cards and completely rebut them. You can't do that with God. You can come up with some obscure arguments such as Aristotle's first cause, or that evolution theory cannot explain a sense of beauty, love, or innate spirituality and try to argue that there just might be a God. Not that I think any of this arguments are convincing but they are just there where they are not for Tarot cards.

Leaving aside the philosophical dimension of what you say I don’t think there is that much difference as far as clinical trials go between claims of say psychic abilities and claims of interventions by (if not the actual existence of) a benevolent God. Provided of course that those making such claims to be very specific about them!

I can see the distinction you make but I’m not sure its very satisfactory. I cannot envisage any kind of practical investigation that could conclusively prove that Elvis Presley is in fact dead. Does your argument not suggest that people who hold such views should be afforded the same respect as those with religious beliefs? And am I correct in assuming that you feel that the likes of those who make claims of psychic abilities are fair game for abuse?

ChocolateSauce

I find it difficult to think highly of people who cannot see the problem of an all loving, all merciful and all powerful god allowing hell, or of people who can't see the message behind the fact that most people are raised in the religion of their parents and their locale.

I don't think there is any kind of being or spirit or force, but I can respect people who think there might be (deists, pantheists, etc), but the sheer stupidness of the abrahamic religions makes it impossible for me to take their adherants seriously. Of course the less seriously one takes their religion, the more seriously I take them, in general.

I'm really not trying to offend people, but it's just how I feel. A child can see through the holy books, and all children do as you can tell by their questions. I remember in junior infants we all asked, "how can that be true?", and we only believed it when we were assured by a trusted authority figure that it was in fact the truth.

Now, that being said I don't look down on all monotheists. Indeed there are a number to whom I look up, but I do this for other, non-intellectual reasons, for example because they are an exceptionally kind person, or they have some other positive trait(s). There are many atheists on whom I look down at, usually because they are selfish or unkind.

I would generally feel sorry for theists before I feel distain. I distain the likes of fundamentalists, and people who do not subscribe the maxim "live and let live". For some I do neither, I just go "ah well" in my mind and think no more on the subject. It boils down to how the religion affects their lives and the lives of those around them. A person who believes in god but lives as though he were an atheist would garner little more than indifference from me. One who lived according to religious principles would have my sympathy, one who tried to export his principles my distain, and one who tried to force them, my fury.

I hope this provides some insight. If there are any questions I'd be happy to answer them.