I live in a country full of superstitious twits

Ok I admit I only looked at the original post and a few of the last ones and I am baffled. Why on earth does anyone care what another person thinks about all of this? If a person is religious or an atheist so be it.

Let's all eat some Peyote, take a hit off the peace pipe and watch the earthworms eat Great Grandfather

[/size][/font]
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

It sounds to me as if you are partial to your group/philosophy/politics (humanism) and you seem very intolerant of those who differ. Just callin' it as I sees it...

Anyone else want to pile on now? You're using a ridiculously loose definition of intolerance and displaying remarkable ignorance about humanism. I'd say it's intolerant if you come into a thread just to call someone a condescending elitist bigot over and over again. I don't define people by their belief system. If you do that's your own fucking problem.

I'm not piling on. You are the one who is suggesting other belief systems are bad, or not as good as yours.

Religious people on this forum haven't suggested their way is the best/better way. You are intolerant of people's opinion of atheism/humanism. People have a right to their opinion, just as you do. It's hypocritical to insist everyone pussy foot around atheism and at the same time you are bashing religion.

Please don't tell me there is a taboo to bashing religion, especially here. Christianity is bashed regularly here. It's acceptable to bash religions. But bashing atheism isn't acceptable under political correctness.

I'm in no way insisting that people walk on eggshells about atheism. That's what certain people seem incapable of grasping. There's a difference between taking issue with ideas and taking issue with individuals. I should have chosen a different title for this thread, no doubt, but the substance of the thread hasn't been me saying that people of a certain belief system are idiots. I've been saying that people who use their belief system as an excuse to claim superiority over other people are idiots. There's a huge difference. I'm arguing against the same thing you and others are accusing me of. It's like you all have serious reading comprehension issues and just hear what you want to hear instead of what I'm saying.

You can take all the issue with humanism or atheism all you want. That's what debate is for. I happen to enjoy that which is why I participate in so many religion threads on this forum. It doesn't make you intolerant if you happen to think that humanism is bunk or that atheism is delusional. You, Cristiano, and Jauani are accusing me of a being a bigot because I take issue with religion. That's hypocricy. I don't claim that atheism or humanism are sacred and that any attack on those ideas is a personal attack against me. That would be disingenuous. That's debate, not intolerance. Calling me a condescending elitist bigot for engaging in debate is absurd, no matter how strong my opinons are.

Philosphy isn't sacred and disagreeing with a particular philosophy is not intolerant. Religion is philosophy. If I say confuscionism is simpleminded or that objectivism is delusional people might disagree with me but no one's going to call me a bigot. If I say Christianity is delusional then suddenly I'm a bigot. Do you see what's wrong with that? Religion hides behind this notion that it's beyond reproach and that any dissenting voice is bigotry. Atheism, humanism, or any other non-religious philosophy hide behind no such claims.

Let's review...
"Atheism is moronic" = not bigotry
"Chip Midnight is a moron because he's an atheist" = bigotry
"Atheism is megalomaniacal" = not a personal attack
"Chip Midnight is a megalomaniac" = personal attack
"Christianity is idiotic" = not bigotry
"All Christians are idiots' = bigotry
"Religion is delusional" = not a personal attack
"Kevn Klein is delusional" = personal attack

I take issue with ideas, not with people. The people I was referring to in the thread title are those in the survey who subscribe to ideas like "atheists are self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good" because that's bigotry. If they said "atheism is self interested and not concerned with the common good" instead of "atheists..." it wouldn't be. Do you understand the difference?

I had no idea this was such rocket science.

*shrugs*

Most Organized Religions are exclusive by definition.
1. They are a group of like minded individuals.
2. They exclude others based on their beliefs and / or feelings and / or viewpoints.

Allow me to give an example before saying, "No Way!"

Lets Use Christianity as an Example:
You must believe in Jesus Christ to be a Christian.
Anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ can not be a Christian
Therefore Christians Exclude those who do not believe in Jesus Christ.

Aethism
You must not believe to be an Aetheist
Those who do believe are not Aetheist's
Therefore Aethists exclude those who believe.

I think the real flaw is trying to catagorize people into neat little boxes.

I don't know what the point of this post is really, just to say really that the real shame is when we try and make other people fit into our definition of a word.

Jessica

I take issue with this. If someone has proven over and over again that they are delusional or at least of sub par comprehension, then it is fair to say that they are.

There you have it. If one disagrees with Siro, that one must be "delusional or at least of sub par comprehension" because Siro is the one with all the answers. Disagree with him at your own peril. Accept his reasoning and evidence unquestioning or you will be branded delusional.

Who has been delusional in this forum? I would say it's those who insist others are delusional for not agreeing with them.

I don't think you're comprehending what he or she (sorry Siro, don't know which you are) is saying.

Perhaps you will enlighten me then, if you have any idea yourself.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."

No I don't think he is. I don't think he ever was, nor is he currently. Thus the inclusion of sub par comprehension in my post. He could also easily be lucidly (or clearly or non delusionally if you like synonyms) not comprehending. However given enough responses, I am sure we can be certain which it might be. It's also entirely possible that I am not making my points t

Let me try to make this perfectly clear though. I've had Kevn ignored for awhile now. I may indeed think he is either delusional or non comprehending. But in this case, my comments were not directed soley at him. There's plenty of other people I would place into other categories under other words. I was merely making the point that if a spade is a spade, I would prefer to call it a spade. Rather than quibble about how calling spades may offend clubs.

Btw, I'm male. No worries and no need to apologize.

Unfortunately for both of us, ignore does not ignore quoted messages.

If you say a faith is delusional, then by extention you have already attacked anyone who holds that faith.

"I think athiesm is a cowardly refusual to accept responsibility for your actions*, but don't worry, Chip, I'm not calling YOU a coward."... Well, great, but I've already said you're a coward by being an athiest, who is, by definition, a coward. I don't HAVE to personally attack you.

That's why I refrain from personal judgements as a rule about faith or lack thereof. I may think you're wrong, but so what - we're all wrong, about one thing or another. So what if it's on faith? But if I started down the path of thinking that a faith was inherently stupid... Then that opinion taints how I percieve any member of that faith.

I'm not a saint, I DO do this. I try not to, but I do it. But I'm not going to make any excuses about it, or try to say it's ok.


*Not my view, before anyone jumps on me. It's one I've heard before, though.

Then I will ignore you from now on. Because I think you are delusional and clearly lacking in basic logic. Thant's not meant as a personal attack, it's just me calling a spade a spade. kthxbye

Net change: 0

I have noticed that some atheists do make this leap, which isn't really a leap at all. They must carry over that assumption of delusion to other areas.

It's ok though, I also assume the true atheist is delusional, because they can't see God in all that we see, it shows a certain lack of reasoning skills from my perspective. I still listen to them, and when they are reasonable I'll hear their point.

When they suggest everything became what we see by accident, I smile and move on. I see no point trying to instill in them the basic reasoning skills God gave a child.

When they follow blindly educational institutions run by liberals, and accept, without sufficient evidence, theories taught as fact, it shows a faith like following I see with evangelical Christians when they are first converted. Of course, they can't see it in themselves.

Which makes you every bit as bad as the most arrogant athiest you've ever complained about.

I certainly wouldn't sound so proud of it, were I you.

Atheism is a relegion in the same way that bald is a hair colour. I have a LACK of any belief in the supernatural, which is the result of a LACK of any convincing evidence to the contrary.

As much as I disagree with your point of view, Kevn, I don't believe it in any way makes you a bigot, nor do I view it as a pesonal attack. It's your opinion, and that's fine. What I would have a problem with is if you started saying things like "atheists are less American."

I was looking through DVD's at Borders one day and overhearing a conversation that was going on in the line of people waiting for the register. This was right at the time the Newdow case hitting the courts. This woman with her young child was talking to an elderly couple and she was saying things like "Atheists shouldn't be allowed to use money because it says 'in god we trust' on it!" and other really intoloerant crap. She was talking really loud as if it would never occur to her that anyone around her could possibly disagree. I walked over to them and said "As an atheist I find your comments to be highly offensive," and then walked away. The look on their faces was priceless. What pisses me off is when people misrepresent atheism through sheer ignorance (like claiming atheists are more criminal or less civic minded) or make claims like "this is a Christian country" (not meaning in terms of demographics but in the "this country belongs to us" way). That bothers me far more than someone thinking atheism is stupid, delusional, or just plain wrong. Anyone who believes in god thinks those things about atheism by definition. That's hardly a shocker.

The thing that bothers me the most is the incredible double standard and how beliefs are treated as some kind of sacred protected set of ideas. It's irrational.

Person A: "I think American Idol is stupid and cruel and I don't understand how anyone can enjoy watching people be humiliated"

Person B: "Bigot!"

Person A:

Honestly, statements like this (and, being totally honest here, similar things said by more aggressive athiests) are what keep me solidly agnostic. I've always believed that the more certain someone is that there is no possibility that they are wrong, the more skeptical one should be of their views.

Is it possible that there is a Creator? Yeah, it is. Is it possible that there is no creator? Yeah, it is. Does anyone have a hotline to the truth, and the ability to prove that their claims are spot-on? Not really, no. Having an absolute belief in anything requires a leap of faith that I simply can't make.

In short: All y'all are crazy, and I'm the sane one.

Very few atheists feel there's no possibility that they're wrong. They simply feel the current evidence in no way warrants belief. They're certain they don't believe, not certain the existence of a god can't be possible. Biiiiiiig difference.

I'm still the sane one, though!

*sits in the Chair of Sanity, in her Fortress of Sanitude, wearing the bling-bling Tiara of Sane-ness!*

My whole point has been that it's perfectly natural to be biased. I'm just as sure if not more so that I'm right, by simple logic. I think Chip has said he would consider changing his mind if God showed up. There isn't anything I could be shown to make me think this is all a big accident. So, in fairness, I might be considered more arrogant by you, and it wouldn't upset me at all.

I haven't complained that atheists are arrogant, I've argued they don't admit to being biased, some to the point of bigotry. I'm a bigot in the sense I strongly favor my own philosophy, and I'm pretty intolerant of other views. I may not voice my intolerance often, but it's there none the less.

I am not trying to convert you, or anyone else. And if you come to God later I can deny it had anything to do with me.