I live in a country full of superstitious twits

All I want to know is what "wikipedia atheism" is. Is that like techi-wiki? I think Juani is channeling Prok.

Elspeth and Taco, you both pretty much nailed it. I'll requote a pertinent part from the article...



That's bigotry, plain and simple. The delicious irony of it all is that Jauni's comments sound just like that last bolded part. But I'm the bad buy because I'll call a spade a spade? People who think that way are ignorant superstitious bigots. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go polish my porsche before robbing a convience store while quoting James Joyce.

oh rly? explain superstitious.

that would be delicious irony if my comments were directed against athiests. they weren't. they were directed against you!

Mine were directed at people who believe atheists are less moral, less American, and more prone to criminal behavior, materialism, and elitism, all of which are either superstitions or flat out bigotry. You're doing far more to make yourself look like a bigot than me. You really should work on that reading comprehension.

Edit: This thread is now titled "I live in a country full of Juani Wu's"

yeah but jauani wu is a "soft athiest" according to chip midnights book on absolute truth.

not all athiests subscribe to exerpts of 19th century philosophy off of google searches, make affinity group "teams" and call religious people superstitioustwits to cover up their existential angst while waiting for the vatican to blow up out of resentment for being made to sit through mass while their friends played gijoe.

had you said "half-witted twits," maybe i would have bought your stupid reconstruction. but you said "superstitious twits". the implicit difference is that you are also a bigot. but good luck anyway. i hope your team makes the playoffs this season.

Speaking as someone who has been an atheist since High School I'd have to unfortunately agree. I admit in my younger days I carried my beliefs with a bit more of a chip on my shoulder in a town that was rather religiously conservative. Thats changed over the years though, and the old antagonistic, anti-religious edge gave way when I came to realize it really doesn't matter what another person's religious beliefs are. Their beliefs have no effect on what I do or don't believe. I have nothing to prove to them re: my beliefs (or non-belief in this case). If the fact that I don't believe as they do causes them personal distress and "concern for my immortal soul", well then thats their worry not mine. If they say they're going to "pray for me" I just chuckle and nod and say "Well if that makes you feel better, go right ahead." If they tell me I'm going to hell I just shake my head, roll my eyes, and go on about my business. Over the years I've had the privledge of working, going to school and being friends with people from at least 6 of the "major religions" and I've come to one conclusion that seems to consistantly stand the test of time at least from my observations.

An asshole Fundamentalist Christian an asshole Atheist and an asshole Muslim, etc were well down the road of being an asshole before they became Christians, Atheists, Muslims, etc.

There is nothing polite in starting out a thread attacking a group of people as superstituous twits, or repeatedly condescending to those who disagree with him as if they must somehow have some comprehension problem so Chip will talk REALLY SLOW for the stupid people because he is just supremely right.

Calling anyone's beliefs "delusional" is not showing respect to them, so your clusterfuck is invalid - mutual respect doesn't include maligning someone else. Chip has stated his anti-religious bias over and over again in thread after thread, including this one. I have said nothing about Chip's athiesm other than it is his own business, but again, we are treated to trite little phrases like shown below on how ignorant, delusional, and misguided anyone who believes in God is, but Chip 100% has all the answers. He is so much more enlightened than the rest of us - what a wonderful thing that must be.

Chip's overwhelming bias, and for lack of better word, angry chip on his shoulder about religion is summed up here:



Talk about channeling Prokofy. It is marginalizing people with labels (superstitous, tribalistic, unquestioning), and shows how judgemental and biased the supposedly open minded and tolerant Chip Midnight actually is. So go right on holding up Chip as some polite champion fighting the good fight against the cultists, Taco - that in and of itself is delusional.

I think you are going to have to hold out for the DVD.

Lets engage in a simple logical construction.

Assume we have one of these superstitious twits who believe in an afterlife and some sort of mystical force that somehow manipulates or allows their destiny.

Also assume that this twit has held it's beliefs for most of it's adult existence.

Now based on this, correcting the twit's beliefs, no matter how correct the truth is, would invalidate or require a new set of beliefs for said twit. Some twits would even hold their own life purposeless, as they have wasted it believing in superstition.

So the lesson learned is that attempting to convince a superstitious twit to anything else could easily harm that twit.

Also it is a waste of otherwise extremely valuable time. To that end, it is not worth my time, and could be even harmful to both myself and a twit trying to convince they are wrong on any subject that includes their particular set of beliefs.

On the other side, it is also wrong for them to waste my precious time trying to convince me that I am going to hell or that I should repent for some sort of sin or other. It not only wastes my time, but it wastes theirs as well. Which, to me, is a bad thing for them as well as myself.

Naturally the 97% of America that is not atheist does not, will not, and should not understand this viewpoint. I will retain my right to call them superstitious twits if they insist that I must be beholden to their beliefs, whatever they may be.

Cristiano and Jauni, why don't you reread this thread and see who's making all the personal attacks. I'll give you a hint... it's not me. It's the two of you. Talk about hypocricy. Please spare me your holier than thou bullshit.

My unkind words were reserved for the bigots responding to the survey presented in the article. Yours were direct attacks against me.



How rude and cruel of me to say such a horrible thing. What an elitist I must be to hold the view that all people are equal. The nerve! Cristiano, it takes a lot of talent to talk out of both sides of your mouth the way you have. What would you call the belief that the god you worship determines how moral are you other than a superstition? I'd say it's a more polite way of saying bigotry. You yourself said it's wrong to believe that but if I point it out directly instead of wrapping it up in a bunch of PC bullshit that makes me a "condescending bigot"?

Now please carry on with the atheist bashing and personal attacks while calling me the elitist bigot. It's quite amusing.

The fact believers are less trusting of Atheists shouldn't surprize anyone. Ever hear the phrase "God and Country"? It has always been seen as un-American to be anti-God.

Atheists are less trusting of believers as well, I'm sure. So what?

The atheists that I know don't make those kinds of judgements based on someone's belief system (except for Jauni). They're mostly humanists and judge people as individuals. You know the old saying "you can't judge a book by its cover"?

As for your first statement, many of the founders of this nation were quite hostile towards religion. It's been a contentious issue right from the start.

I still don't get your point. Are you saying that atheists are not materialist and elitist?

Chip,

Athiesm and Theism are totally incompatible points of view. As Kevn said, it makes complete sense that each side would view the other with scorn. For a person whose belief system bases their morality in follow the teachings of their faith, someone who rejects not only that faith but God outright is viewed as less moral based upon how that person defines morality.

All I have been saying in this entire thread is to not pretend you are any less biased, because you aren't. It is not right to consider athiests any less of anything for what they believe, nor is it right to do the same to those who are not athiests. I have said that in each of my posts - I find the views in the original article offensive, but I also find your attitude and what you have expressed equally offensive and you are just playing moral relativism ("OH THEY ARE SO HORRIBLE TO JUDGE ME" - do you not think calling people a bunch of half-witted twits is not standing in judgement of them?

You express your contempt for non-athiests over and over again across all kinds of threads. You expressed it here very clearly. You say that you believe in complete equality, but yet you clearly still believe (and regularly express the belief) that those who believe in God are stupid and misguided and lemmings who are just following something like a bunch of sheep. I'm not even particularly religious, and I regularly find the comments you make about those who are to be offensive. I am sure you find comments made about athiests offensive. A big difference here is I have said nothing about athiesm, but you have said plenty about how stupid you think religion is. In fact you seem to find a way to express that point of view any chance you get any time a religious topic comes up.

The last time I checked, with the exception of Ulrika, who is undead, neither you, nor I, nor anyone posting here or living today has gone beyond death and come back to say "hey, you know what, the whole God thing was a big fraud" or the opposite, so all the battles over who is right and who is wrong and who is more moral and who is less moral and who is going to hell and if hell even exists (it does, New Jersey) is all just an endless game of tug of war.

They may have been against organized religion, as many believers are (myself included). But they weren't atheists.

Look at it this way, Ananda... You have the humanist point of view, that we are all equals because we're all human and that things like religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, geographical location, and so on, are outweighed by the necessity of harmonious cohabitation... and then you have religious views in which people believe they are among the chosen and that their particular religion, ethnicity, nationalism, or whatever else, elevate them above the rest of humanity. Which of those two is the elitist view? Do you seriously believe it's the atheist/humanist?

So you're saying your viewpoint is better?

I find your view, and the above paragraph, to be self-contradictory. On the one had you say it's wrong for the respondants of the survey (presumably mostly Christians if we go by demographics) to consider atheists "any less of anything" based on their belief. Then you turn around and say it's offensive to point that out. You're essentially saying that pointing out the bigotry of others makes one a bigot. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. Since you seem to agree with me that the viewpoint expressed by the participants in the survey is wrong does that make you a bigot also? Or do you get a free pass as long as you don't actually call anyone on the wrongness of that viewpoint? Sorry, but I prefer not to sit in the back of the bus.

How about answering my question instead of equivocating?

Not prescisely, IMO.

If you set aside the "have no other gods" type stuff, most of the core tennents of the judeo-christian faiths are basicly good, common-sense type stuff. Don't kill people, don't steal, don't sleep with your neighbors sheep or wife, etc. Stuff that is detrimental to the healthy functioning of society.

Now we're getting into the thin line between ethics and morals, but by the same token as above, to my way of thinking, it doesn't matter WHY a person acts in a moral way, so much that they DO act in a moral way. My faith tells me I'm right about the ultimate truth behind the universe, but as you correctly point out, none of has been there, we don't know for sure. Until such time as I can point to the face of god floating above us, I'm content with letting everyone go about their happy way, so long as they aren't out murdering and stealing. I think all the tools needed to be a good person are in the heart of everyone, and because they have, to one way of thinking, "failed" to find faith doesn't mean they have been a total failure.

There are more than enough people who commit terrible acts who claim the Christian faith that what a person prays to, or not, isn't an automatic indication of anything.

Bingo, and the fact that people find it hard to understand this, whatever their personal beliefs are, is what causes bigotry.

I don't care if you worship nothing, or if you worship Dorf, if you think you are more morally upright because of your beliefs or lack thereof, you're part of the problem.

Yep, we all agree it's about actions. The question is, when there is a lack of history, should one be given the benefit of the doubt? Or is it acceptable to make a few assumptions? We know Chip makes assumptions, such as religious people are more likely to be bigoted towards atheists than atheists are to be bigoted towards religious people. It's an assumption that he feels is valid.

Religious people make the same assumption, are they somehow evil for doing the same thing?

The question is.... Is it bigoted to think your group is right over other groups? The answer is YES.

Both atheists and theists are bigoted. Anyone denying there is such a bias is wearing blinders imho.

Of THESE two, the humanist viewpoint is not the elitist view. I don't think you really believe it, though. You are simply presenting it in an attempt to demonstrate the obvious correctness and superiority of your own view. You elitist.

Kevn, how many times in this thread have I stated that I think all people are equal regardless of their belief system, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation? Five? Six? Does that make me a bigot? If so I'd love for you to explain how.