Group B is not attempting to "Impose" anything on group A, they are attempting to prevent group B from taking things away from them. Should group B refrain from this, group A would have little to complain about.
I'm an atheist because I argue against religion, mostly organized religion but religion in general. When I argue against racism or sexism I am never labeled an aracist or asexist. Even though like religion these examples are things that grant one power over others or at least attempts to they have been determined by society to be unacceptable, this is why no one is given a label when they reject them. Same can be said from another perspective when talking about Bigfoot or the Lochness monster. We don't label people for rejecting these claims and it's not because they are more absurd than religious claims, in fact it's quite the opposite. The reason we don't label people for rejecting claims of Bigfoot or the Lochness monster is because those claims are not attached to an unquestionable power that has ruled over man for most of it existence via those who claim knowledge of that power. There is a stigma attached to religion that has made it taboo to criticize even in the eyes of many non-believers and that stigma has everything to do with the power mentioned above. Being an atheist is a very interesting thing because the only time I think about it is when I have to explain why I don't believe in someones god. In other words I'm not the one concerned with my being an atheist, it's not something I have to think about. What I am is a person who values intellectual honesty, reason and evidence. I don't choose to argue against religion because I just decided one day to hate it or something, I argue against it because after many years of discussing politics, society and the future of humanity I realized there was one topic that was attached to everything, one issue for most people that would trump any decision made no matter how reasonable or how much evidence supported it and it would do it by necessity. I argue against religion because it values credulity, it is blatantly intellectually dishonest and it demands respect without having to earn it. People love to claim that religion is personal and yet when looking to earthly issues that need to be solved we always have to stop and see what someones god thinks about it first. In fact I would love someone to make a list of the most important issues at hand today around the world but only include the ones in which religion plays no role on any level and see where that conversation goes. This debate is nothing more than an attempt by secularists to clear the table for a better conversation. In the end the negativity surrounding atheism comes from this idea that religion is off limits, that it deserves respect. Sure there are plenty of atheists who are upset, frustrated and even angry but when contrasted against their understanding of the people it affects, of those suffering in various ways around the world this should not be taken to mean that atheists are bad, negative people just because a full grown adult gets upset over something said on a forum.
Simple solution, quit listening. I can't remember the last time I was forced to listen to any 'theist dribble'. When those pesky Jehovahs come to my door, I open it, smile and tell them that I'm Jewish, then shut the door, any any potential dribble stream. If the dribble comes from people you know, let them know in no uncertain terms that you're not interested in what they're selling. Or...just continue to get angry.
theist just means you believe in a God, usually in the active sense, but also in the Deistic sense just like most Buddhists are atheists
You don't seem to be understanding the concept. If group A wants everything to be white, and group B wants everything to be black. Group A goal is to overcome group B and make everything white. It's a 'shoe / foot / switch' thing. Someone pointed out that group A prefers legal abortion; they have legal abortion. They want same sex marriage; they have same sex marriage. They want access to contraception; they have access to contraception. I'm not certain about those laws banning the sale of booze on Sunday..can't be too many of them in too many places. But I don't see it as a major issue. with some planning you can stock up on Saturday. And drink at home instead of in some sleezy bar. Look at it as an opportunity for some 'family time'. You want legal marijuana, well it's on it's way. Group A should be pretty satisfied. Or is it that group A just doesn't want any opposition? They can change things to meet their wants and needs, but that dam group B, what gives them the right to want what they want?
well said. my 'anger' though, is worsened by being made to feel that an alternative position is not acceptable public discourse. and yes, even in a largely atheist country this still happens.
there is a HUGE difference. perfect example being parenting. the theist imposes their own belief upon their kids, and never presents options or alternatives. the atheist will rarely do so. my own kids were exposed to the major religions and atheism - with no emphasis or claims made about any one position. and this was done AFTER the age of reason (around . prior to that there was no discussion of religion at all, other than matter of fact answers to direct questions. matter of fact meaning "some peopke believe ...." etc.
Please, never apologize to me....I'll settle for a complete overhaul of your thinking. I'm from California you know...how could I ever be wrong?
Nope group b is still entitled not to have an abortion, not to have same sex marriage etc etc Only group b wants to restrict group a. Group A is quite happy for group B not to have whatever.
Well, ya got me. I only have my own life experience to rely on...I was raised in an Irish/ Italian family. Very Catholic. Went to a Catholic school. The one thing I vividly recall was my Pops drilling into me; Think for yourself. "don't be a follower". When I was 12 I questioned a Priest in Catechism class asking "where did God come from?", Needless to say that priest paid a visit to my home to report me. That night my Pops took me out for Burgers and a Malt. He seemed quite pleased with me.
For pity's sake... Words have meanings. Some words have very clear meanings. If someone calls me a mammal, they're not "putting me in a box", they're just stating a fact. A theist is very clearly defined as someone who believes in a god or gods, and an atheist is very clearly defined as someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods. Any connotations to those words, negative or positive, are *your* choice to perceive. You're welcome to think that atheists are bad, but that doesn't mean you get to change the definition of the word. Now you seem to misunderstand what a deist is. Deists believe in a deity, and that would make you a theist. But you claim not to believe in a deity, and that contradicts your claim of being a deist. Sounds to me like you're an agnostic atheist who wouldn't be surprised if a god exists, but, being an atheist, doesn't actually believe in one at this time.
You are correct...my oversight. But still, group A does seem to be on top. Group B isn't getting their way..and probably never will. They are reduced to lobbying. And they're exercising in their right not to partake in Group A's 'stuff'. So I ask again; why the anger? You don't want them to lobby? You did before you got your way.
Yes to all of the above. Here's my dilemma with being defined. I can completely understand both atheism and theism. I am opposed to neither nor am I either. To clarify that; I have moments is which I am completely 'spiritual' when my perception of the 'great mystery' is accepting of the concept of the universe being 'created', during those moments the idea of God as a reality seems quite clear. [of course we were created, this all simply couldn't have popped out of nothingness] The next day, switch [a creator god, what a preposterous idea, where did he come from] So maybe 'agnostic/atheist' is the name of my box. It's just that the lid hasn't been taped shut yet. Of one thing I am certain though. I cannot perceive of a God/god that in any way, shape or form has anything to do with the goings on here or anywhere. We are on our own..
I say you should not of been allowed to sit around all night with your mates, you say well you are welcome to join us. Nope I don't want that I want you to stop because I don't like it. In fact I keep going to the police and demand that they should stop you sitting around with your mates. And I do it over and over and over again. And I start coming up with reasons why you shouldn't, other than because I say so. When all along you know I just do not want you sitting with your mates all night. Now for a while I bet you will laugh it off, then you will call me a sad git, and tell everyone to ignore me. But I just keep on, over and over and over.Are you going to tell me eventually you are not going to get hacked off?
There is a marked difference between athiests on internet forums versus the ones I know in real life. YES I KNOW ITS ANECDOTAL. The ones on the internet forums often come across as angry, belligerent and belittling of anyone that does have a religious viewpoint. They regard religious people as somehow mentally defective or like toddlers. They make the flawed assumption that somehow intelligence is inversely related to spirituality. You can often see this when they use the term "skygod" which seems to be the talking point of atheists today. However, in my daily interactions with them they are just like anyone else and I thoroughly enjoy debating with them as I am a deist. There is something to be said for the anonymity of the internet that leads people to act like dicks. Fortunately I am immune to that. I tend to agree with Einstein's assessment of some atheists. "The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres."
Last night you wrote, When I was much..much..much..younger, I'd sit around with friends and BS about almost anything for hour upon hour in a coffee shop on Sunset in L.A. Ben Franks. What I was trying to say was if I tried to stop you for no other reason than I don't want you to eventually you would get angry. and that is what religion does, try's to stop you doing what you want for no reason other than it offends them or their god.
No you are not interpreting correctly. You are missrresenting my post. Group A " Athiests" may be angry because group B " the Religeous" are trying to pass laws imposing their beliefs on Group A. Group A doesn' t try to pass laws imposing their brliefs on Group B. But nice try at muddling what I said.
Your choice of terms puts the lie to your claim. If you were as mellow as you like to think you are terms like believer or Religeous adherent would be less inflamatory. I don't dislike you, I pity you for your self delusions.
Now, could you explain why your pity would affect me in any way? Where did I indicate that "believer" or "religious" inflamed me? No where. Seems you can't discuss the topic so have to make up stuff about other posters.
Well. thanks for your concern...that was back in 70-72, Then was when I got married and stopped sitting around coffee shops discussing existentialism and the like. That was quite some time ago...and I'm not angry. Never have been. (although the marriage part has got me steaming from time to time)
that's a good one! Most atheists I know are far more frank and forthcoming about their disdain for religion - when they do discuss it - than those here. These guys are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)cats by comparison
