A Theist Rational Responder. Me.

Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
A Theist Rational Responder. Me.

The question has been asked as for "How I can still believe in God?", and it has been asked on many occasions. The answer is fairly simple.

 

Rational Responders as a whole, seems to have a hard time wrapping its head around the idea that one can believe in God faithfully and without doubt, yet still hate and despise what God and Religion bring to humanity as a whole. Pain. Death. Misery. Plagues. 5 year olds being anally raped by priests. Contradiction. Closed mindedness. Stupidity. The list carries on and on.

 

I hate religion. Religion to me, is the next best thing to the next worst thing on Earth, whatever that might be. I despise it. I dislike the idea that I should have someone else talking to God for me for the sake of my own salvation. I dislike the idea that I should believe in what everyone else believes for the sake of unity. I dislike the notion that some guy named Jesus is my one and true savior, circumventing my own belief that God is out there and actually gives enough of a damn to occasionally talk to me.

 

I get along with God. I refuse to say I love him, because on occasion when things aren't going my way I'll be by myself, screaming up into the skies cursing his very name and damning his own soul for what he has "allowed" to happen to me. At other times, I find myself laughing with him in dreams. This, needless to say, is a long, long drawn out explanation and is not something I will go into unless someone specifically asks me to. My direct relationship with God is a strange one. But I have no RELIGION. Soemthing entirely different from Faith.

 

Rational Responders from what I understand, are there less as an Atheistic society, and more against the negatives that religion brings. Such as scaring little 5 year olds into believing in God or they're going to Burn in Hell for eternity. An hour long car ride for a kid is an eternity. Imagine just how badly that scars a child's mind. THAT is what I am against, and THAT is why I talk to people about their religion.

 

The very fact that I believe in God actually gives me a leg INto their society that screaming Atheism simply wouldn't. You guys need to really see yourselves from a distance. I've been watching for the better part of the last year. You guys have more or less become your own religion! Religion meaning that you all hold the same belief, and quite a few of you even accept the possibility that there are people like me out here that agree with you on the sole idea of ABUSE of religion. 

My former roommate was actually a Christian and turned Atheist because of this place. Not to say it was a BAD thing. If it broke his faith in God, then his faith in God wasn't that strong to begin with. (No offense dude--to roomy).

 

 God is not bad. The abuse of the idea of God, is bad. Religion is bad, because that's exactly what the abuse of God creates. Now it seems that RR's has become the exact same thing in some ways. Where instead of God, you have NoGod, and the top prophets preach that he doesn't exist.

I'm not going to knock your beliefs, in fact, I respect them. Just look at yourselves from the outside every once in a while. You've lost a great deal of focus from what I've been able to tell from my random every couple months of skimmings here and there. 

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm a bit confused, you

I'm a bit confused, you yourself acknowledge that a person you know was pushed over hte edge and towards atheism, so you should recognize that the methods employed here are successful for some people.

It is not like this is the only organization out there that is promoting atheism, there are many and they all take their own tone and employ their own methods for getting their message accross.

In any kind of social movement you can not all come accross the same way.  You must have an array of messages and an array of styles to that message for the message to effectivly propogate itself to the majority of people whom all have very different lives and different things would draw a response from different people. 

 

The Rational Response Squad is not JUST opposed to dogmatic damagin religion though it is often a major target of discussions due to the nature of the beast.  There is no question though that a belief in a god without evidence is not a rational decision. 

Your belief in god is not rational. 

You are right to suggest that there is equal ground to be had by accepting some theistic beliefs to destroy the worst, but many people here, myself included, believe strongly that religious moderation is what breeds fundamentalism and extremism. You may see your beliefs as moderate, but you lend credibility to a faith in god. 

You invent stories and talk to a being that is not there.  If that is acceptable to you, why is it not acceptable for other people? Why is it not acceptable for people to get together and discuss what god is saying to each of them? Why not take notes of what people are saying god is saying to them to build up a character and a history for what this believes in as to develop a better understanding in him since all people are talking to the same god?  Why not take all of these notes and stories people have had and put them in a big book? Why not reflect on the writings in that book every so often, perhaps on a weekly basis?  Why not encourage other people to also participate in these meetings since you are confident that your writings are correct reflections of what god has sai to people?

Though the RRS does not often come out and hit hard on deists, there is no doubt that the RRS still does view this stance as irrational, though a fairly harmless and meangingless irrational.

 Is God a bad thing? Perhaps not, but people will abuse this concept. They will, have, and do use this concept to take advantage of people. 

When I look at this from the outside I see a group that is growing.  I see a group that gets a lot of attention, is out there attacking many angles of irrational beliefs, not just religious followers.  You will note that the RRS took a strong stance against Anonymous recently which has nothing to do with theism.

What you are seeing here is not religion.  There are many ateists here who disagree on a great many issues, just not of the issue of God.  What you are seeing here is a community being formed and this is something happening all over the form under the names of humanists, brights, free thinkers, etc.  One of the most effective tools that religion employs, and one of the hardest things to walk away from, is the community.  That is what these organizations and the 'atheist community' is making an attempt to replace. 

Naturally, some of these communities are going to be fluffy and nicely moderated.  Fortunatly some of them, such as the RRS, doesn't do a lot of moderation which allows poeple to be extremely blunt and harsh and communicate in whatever way they see fit.  Some go about it nicely, some do not.  But I would really avoid making the mistake of grouping everyone into the same style of delivery (Unless of course by RRS you are purely speaking of Brian and Kelly). 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
So religion is bad, but in

So religion is bad, but in essence, you've made another one just for yourself?  Let's set that aside for now.

I'm not sure what you've been reading where the RRS appears to have become religion.  We haven't produced a moral code.  There are no rituals or other devotional practices. RRS is a cause.  

I don't speak for the individuals who started or administrate this site, but to me, the cause is really straightforward:  Get people to turn their brains back on.  We're raising awareness, which hopefully causes some folks to evaluate their worldviews and belief systems.  

 People allow themselves to adhere to such nonsense, that it really has a negative affect on a lot of things.  The things you mentioned, of course, as religions' typical negatives.  But beyond that, it's the follower mindset that accepts nonsense as truth and allows that nonsense to shape the way they treat people, how they vote, who they trust, who they hate, who they attack, etc.  Our goal is not to produce MORE followers, which instead follow us.  We're more like jumper cables, you're on your own once you've got it going again.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
"Rational Responders as a

"Rational Responders as a whole, seems to have a hard time wrapping its head around the idea that one can believe in God faithfully and without doubt, yet still hate and despise what God and Religion bring to humanity as a whole. Pain. Death. Misery. Plagues. 5 year olds being anally raped by priests. Contradiction. Closed mindedness. Stupidity. The list carries on and on."

 

I am confused by this opening statement. I read it as; -RRS doesn't understand one can believe in god and the RRS hates and despises what god and religion bring to humanity- All of thehorrific things that god and religion brings you placed within this statement...but I was waiting for the good things..>? I don't understand what the point was, please explain.

 

"I hate religion. Religion to me, is the next best thing to the next worst thing on Earth, whatever that might be. I despise it. I dislike the idea that I should have someone else talking to God for me for the sake of my own salvation. I dislike the idea that I should believe in what everyone else believes for the sake of unity. I dislike the notion that some guy named Jesus is my one and true savior, circumventing my own belief that God is out there and actually gives enough of a damn to occasionally talk to me."

 

You lost me when you stated religion was the next best thing to the next worst thing on earth...and then backed it up with 'whatever that might be'...

 

"I get along with God. I refuse to say I love him, because on occasion when things aren't going my way I'll be by myself, screaming up into the skies cursing his very name and damning his own soul for what he has "allowed" to happen to me. At other times, I find myself laughing with him in dreams. This, needless to say, is a long, long drawn out explanation and is not something I will go into unless someone specifically asks me to. My direct relationship with God is a strange one. But I have no RELIGION. Soemthing entirely different from Faith."

 

Do you believe God is 'you' or 'I'

 

Rational Responders from what I understand, are there less as an Atheistic society, and more against the negatives that religion brings. Such as scaring little 5 year olds into believing in God or they're going to Burn in Hell for eternity. An hour long car ride for a kid is an eternity. Imagine just how badly that scars a child's mind. THAT is what I am against, and THAT is why I talk to people about their religion.

 

Please help me make the connection between the RRS, screaming 5 year olds and you speaking to ppl about their religion

 

"The very fact that I believe in God actually gives me a leg INto their society that screaming Atheism simply wouldn't. You guys need to really see yourselves from a distance. I've been watching for the better part of the last year. You guys have more or less become your own religion! Religion meaning that you all hold the same belief, and quite a few of you even accept the possibility that there are people like me out here that agree with you on the sole idea of ABUSE of religion. "

 

First, you state that WE ALL hold the same belief, that is true in that most of us are not 'theists' but that is where it ends. All of us hold varying opinions and views. Second;The definition of Religion = Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Third, please help me undestand what you meant by your last sentence, it is confusing.

 

"My former roommate was actually a Christian and turned Atheist because of this place. Not to say it was a BAD thing. If it broke his faith in God, then his faith in God wasn't that strong to begin with. (No offense dude--to roomy)."

 

I am glad we were here to help your roommate.

 

"God is not bad. The abuse of the idea of God, is bad. Religion is bad, because that's exactly what the abuse of God creates. Now it seems that RR's has become the exact same thing in some ways. Where instead of God, you have NoGod, and the top prophets preach that he doesn't exist."

 

Please explain how in your opening statement you listed all the horrible things god brings to humanit and yet you say "god is not bad". The argument against god and religion is not a new thing, it has been going on for a very very long time. The fact that you see it as the RRS as organized like 'religion' is because atheists finally have a chance to be brought together in a venue where we can hold discussions.

 

"I'm not going to knock your beliefs, in fact, I respect them. Just look at yourselves from the outside every once in a while. You've lost a great deal of focus from what I've been able to tell from my random every couple months of skimmings here and there. "

 

You say you hate religion and RRS is like religion, can I assume you hate the RRS? Doesn't that mean that your statement "I'm not going to knock your beliefs, in fact, I respect them." is a bit contradictory? do you have any clue what our "focus" is here on the site? You might try checking the forums out more then your random couple months of skimming..

-Renee

 

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote: I'm a

Mr. Atheist wrote:

I'm a bit confused, you yourself acknowledge that a person you know was pushed over hte edge and towards atheism, so you should recognize that the methods employed here are successful for some people.

 

I didn't say I don't recognize them, did I?

 

Quote:
It is not like this is the only organization out there that is promoting atheism, there are many and they all take their own tone and employ their own methods for getting their message accross.

 

I didn't say you were the only one.

Quote:
In any kind of social movement you can not all come accross the same way. You must have an array of messages and an array of styles to that message for the message to effectivly propogate itself to the majority of people whom all have very different lives and different things would draw a response from different people.

 

Yes. And the best one is one where you don't anger people. You preach rationality, but your rationality is based [sometimes] solely on the fact that a belief in a God/Diety is irrationality. Due to fervor in your own cause, I have seen Rational Responders become Irrational Responders.

I can name one instance a year ago with Rook on Stickam where he made the irrational assumption that because I believed in a Diety that I was a Christian. That's skirting lines, but irrationality is in one sense where you become angry, not where you become oblivious.

 

Quote:
The Rational Response Squad is not JUST opposed to dogmatic damagin religion though it is often a major target of discussions due to the nature of the beast. There is no question though that a belief in a god without evidence is not a rational decision.

 

Correct. My issue is the abuse of Religion. Not my own private faith. That's why I came here with the RSS originally.

 

Quote:
Your belief in god is not rational.

True. Be aware that I understand that my belief in an imaginary being that shoots lightning bolts out of his eyes is quite likely an untrue thing. I understand that Man created God because Man was afraid of the unknown--things that could not be explained by scientific or rational means. I understand that in my dreams, the portrayal of God is quite likely just a simple bio chemical reaction in my brain linked to a deeply seeded psychological quirk directly related to fear and other emotions that can shake one's soul. I understand that when I talk to God, sometimes even aloud, that I can very easily be considered a schizophrenic as many a hobo does when he's busy getting drunk off of his 40 of Mickey's Malt Liquor (and thus why I do so mostly in private). I understand that my 'Private relationship with God' is more than likely a completely irrational side effect of my occasionally lacking social life, and the need for company is necessary to keep from quite literally going insane. I understand that my own fears of the unknown are a direct corollary to my need for there to be a supreme being 'watching down on me from above' so that I may feel secure in my every day life. I understand that my 'need' for a God is my own weakness, and one that I keep to myself, and thus have stopped [again] joining people in Church. My belief in God to you, is irrational. I however, can completely rationalize my belief to myself, and although it in itself is a lie and I know it, it is something that I ignore, because I understand that I need it. The bottom line here, is that it is my relationship, and it is in my head, and it is for nobody else to screw with. Period.

Quote:
You are right to suggest that there is equal ground to be had by accepting some theistic beliefs to destroy the worst, but many people here, myself included, believe strongly that religious moderation is what breeds fundamentalism and extremism. You may see your beliefs as moderate, but you lend credibility to a faith in god.

Religious moderation is not what I suggested. People like you are required in order to test the faith of those who consider themselves "all knowing sons of God". People like you are required to go to those that go on and on about how they "Love Jesus" but simply cannot understand why--just because Mum and Dad told them to or they'll go to hell when they were just a child.

It just so happens, that because I believe in God, those very same people lower their guards to me. I have converted my own share of people from Christian to Agnostics and Atheists and other things aside from "Idiot Mindless Drone Zealot Christian". I did so, because of 1) things I learned from you folks here, and 2) because they were blind, and 3) because it was simply the moral thing to do. A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing.

Quote:
You invent stories and talk to a being that is not there.

http://dreamsofzayntahirziya.blogspot.com

Have a look at my dream from 1998. It's frightening. I know that it can be rationalized by a severe brain chemical imbalance and maybe even some other unknown chemical reactions coupled with a young changing puberty ridden body. The subject matter however, coupled with other dreams, and other "while awake" experiences, has sealed my irrationalization that God exists, because some things can not be explained, therefore they must be because of something else.

Look at the dream (at least I think it's posted) about World War III, I think it was from October or November 2001. Rationally, it is a direct corollary to 9/11 and subconsciously, I was still part of the scared and frightened dumb masses. Irrationally, the 1972 Convertible Cutlass mentioned in that dream was unknown to me until six months later. The car I thought I was getting from my Uncle as a restoration was a 1970 Convertible El Dorado.

Being awake, and having a split second burning image of a figure with wings and a golden and finely detailed sword burned into your retina (to the point that when you blink it's still there). Rationally, maybe somebody slipped something to me. Maybe there was a bit of marijuana in the cigarettes I was smoking at the time (though I've since quit). Maybe my imagination is simply overactive to the point that it is capable of causing my retinas to produce powerfully blinding imagery that physically effects me. Irrationally, maybe it cannot be explained, and maybe there isn't ever supposed to be "proof".

Quote:
If that is acceptable to you, why is it not acceptable for other people?

I think that's a religious question, since usually only people who have "invented stories" are those that go to church and want to share them. Since I'm not religious, this simply doesn't carry any weight with me.

Quote:
Why is it not acceptable for people to get together and discuss what god is saying to each of them?

Again. No clue, and I don't care.

Quote:
Why not take notes of what people are saying god is saying to them to build up a character and a history for what this believes in as to develop a better understanding in him since all people are talking to the same god?

Good idea. Go give the idea to a church. You're insinuating that I'm religious here too.

Quote:
Why not take all of these notes and stories people have had and put them in a big book? Why not reflect on the writings in that book every so often, perhaps on a weekly basis? Why not encourage other people to also participate in these meetings since you are confident that your writings are correct reflections of what god has sai to people?

Meeting a bunch of religious people for something like this would cause one of two things in direct corellation to me: 1) They would think I'm satan. 2) They would think I was a messiah. Neither of which I have ANY desire of dealing with.

Quote:
Though the RRS does not often come out and hit hard on deists, there is no doubt that the RRS still does view this stance as irrational, though a fairly harmless and meangingless irrational.

Another classification I don't relate to.

Quote:
Is God a bad thing? Perhaps not, but people will abuse this concept. They will, have, and do use this concept to take advantage of people.

Very true. Agreed.

Quote:
When I look at this from the outside I see a group that is growing. I see a group that gets a lot of attention, is out there attacking many angles of irrational beliefs, not just religious followers. You will note that the RRS took a strong stance against Anonymous recently which has nothing to do with theism.

I only skim every once in a while. I don't know what Anonymous did.

Quote:
What you are seeing here is not religion. There are many ateists here who disagree on a great many issues, just not of the issue of God. What you are seeing here is a community being formed and this is something happening all over the form under the names of humanists, brights, free thinkers, etc. One of the most effective tools that religion employs, and one of the hardest things to walk away from, is the community. That is what these organizations and the 'atheist community' is making an attempt to replace.

The problem is that when you have a score of people assaulting you from all directions, some chiding, and some lecturing, and some trying to play nice, and some just being rude, this only strengthens those who are foolish enough to "believe" that their lack of faith is actually faith. Idiots will recoil and be strengthened by nay sayers, moreso than someone like myself--who at least believes in God as well. I have a leg up on you in the very same battle.

Quote:
Naturally, some of these communities are going to be fluffy and nicely moderated. Fortunatly some of them, such as the RRS, doesn't do a lot of moderation which allows poeple to be extremely blunt and harsh and communicate in whatever way they see fit. Some go about it nicely, some do not. But I would really avoid making the mistake of grouping everyone into the same style of delivery (Unless of course by RRS you are purely speaking of Brian and Kelly).

Of course not.

 

As a second note (If I recall, your name is Bryan? It's only been a year since I've actively posted), please use spellcheck. The constant lack of proper spelling in your post makes you look unintelligent and angry, both of which I [hopefully] assume you are not.

stuntgibbon wrote:

So religion is bad, but in essence, you've made another one just for yourself? Let's set that aside for now.

NO. I have no religion. I simply believe that there is a God. I have a code of ethics and a generally socially acceptable common morality.

 

Quote:
I'm not sure what you've been reading where the RRS appears to have become religion. We haven't produced a moral code. There are no rituals or other devotional practices. RRS is a cause.

 

Religions are founded by Causes. You do not require rituals and you do not require a moral code to be a religion. You simply require a mob who agrees in one thing and that they are right and that everyone else is wrong. This one is simply covered and loaded on the basis of rationality, and that anyone religious/faithinessy are irrational simply because of one aspect of their lives.

Quote:
I don't speak for the individuals who started or administrate this site, but to me, the cause is really straightforward: Get people to turn their brains back on. We're raising awareness, which hopefully causes some folks to evaluate their worldviews and belief systems.

My brain works fine. Do you believe that because I believe in a supreme being that my brain has malfunctioned somehow? That I am lesser for this? If so, then we have an issue that is simply best left at "agree to disagree". If not, then I apologize for the incrimination.

Quote:
People allow themselves to adhere to such nonsense, that it really has a negative affect on a lot of things. The things you mentioned, of course, as religions' typical negatives. But beyond that, it's the follower mindset that accepts nonsense as truth and allows that nonsense to shape the way they treat people, how they vote, who they trust, who they hate, who they attack, etc. Our goal is not to produce MORE followers, which instead follow us. We're more like jumper cables, you're on your own once you've got it going again.

 

The negative effects of religion are mob mentality, lack of self worth, as well as strength in numbers and scores of other societal negative aspects.

I understand one solid truth: I am alive. Any and all sensations are products of my self and my environment. If there are things that cannot be explained rationally, then the jumper cables simply have no meaning. It just so happens that I also believe in God, I just don't expect to write books about it or go preaching about it to anyone or damaging my future children's brains with it. My father didn't, so why should I change tradition?

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

I am confused by this opening statement. I read it as; -RRS doesn't understand one can believe in god and the RRS hates and despises what god and religion bring to humanity- All of thehorrific things that god and religion brings you placed within this statement...but I was waiting for the good things..>? I don't understand what the point was, please explain.

You most definitely misunderstood. Let me restate: "One can believe in God, yet still hate and despise what he and religion bring to society."

The good things that God brings directly only happen directly to single people who like me, pride themselves in their own personal faith, and refuse to allow religion to cloud what is really happening. I have witnessed a few things, as mentioned earlier, that cannot be explained, and therefore I attribute that to some sort of divine intervention. Good things that make the paper, in my opinion, are usually because preachers want more people at their congregations so that they can afford that 7th Cadillac. Red with Leather Interior and heated seats.

On a more "human" level, Religion CAN do some good things, specifically with service to the poor and charitable organizations. Unfortunately, they also end up preaching the gospel to those very people, when all they really want is a warm meal. So even that is a mixed bag. If you find something that's "truly good" about Church, feel free to let me know.

Quote:
You lost me when you stated religion was the next best thing to the next worst thing on earth...and then backed it up with 'whatever that might be'...

That's just it... Religion is for those who are simply lost.

 

Quote:
Do you believe God is 'you' or 'I'

Loaded question.

 

Quote:
Please help me make the connection between the RRS, screaming 5 year olds and you speaking to ppl about their religion

I am referencing stickam conversations from a year ago, where I believe Rook was speaking about the visions that people are teaching to five year olds to scare them into believing in God "or else they'll burn forever".

"The very fact that I believe in God actually gives me a leg INto their society that screaming Atheism simply wouldn't. You guys need to really see yourselves from a distance. I've been watching for the better part of the last year. You guys have more or less become your own religion! Religion meaning that you all hold the same belief, and quite a few of you even accept the possibility that there are people like me out here that agree with you on the sole idea of ABUSE of religion. "

 

Quote:
First, you state that WE ALL hold the same belief, that is true in that most of us are not 'theists' but that is where it ends.

That is all that is needed for you to be classified as a religion.

Quote:
All of us hold varying opinions and views. Second;The definition of Religion = Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

You quite likely have me there on the actual definition. However, that doesn't mean what I said is any less true.

Quote:
Third, please help me undestand what you meant by your last sentence, it is confusing.

I endorse RRS. I endorse RRS because of it's anti-religion philosophy.

 

Quote:
Please explain how in your opening statement you listed all the horrible things god brings to humanit and yet you say "god is not bad". The argument against god and religion is not a new thing, it has been going on for a very very long time. The fact that you see it as the RRS as organized like 'religion' is because atheists finally have a chance to be brought together in a venue where we can hold discussions.

Plagues of Locusts/Disease/Boxes of Kittens? That's not supernatural. Bleeding Eyes? Mother Mary must have had a hemphorage. Raped five year old Altar boys? Servant of God is disallowed from keeping a wife, so a little boy must be just as good in their view of the eyes of God. Death? Circle of Life. Pain? Nervous system's reaction to tell you that "somethin' ain't right homey". Closed mindedness? Lack of education and explanation. Misery? Lack of gumption, or the acts of hostile men. Stupidity? See Closed mindedness.

Those aren't really "God's doing", are they? However they are commonly associated with God, because people need someone to blame right before they pray for a new Lexus the next day.

Those who abuse God's name. Start wars, kill babies and women and such because it is "God's Will". Those are bad.

God. Inherently. Is not bad. He's just the one everyone blames. Hell, even I did it to use as an example.

We've already covered the other piece.

Quote:
You say you hate religion and RRS is like religion, can I assume you hate the RRS?

No, you most certainly may not. I am giving a critique of what I see, and the overall "feel" of what I am getting from this community. The goals that I recall (unless they've changed) of simply getting people to question themselves and those that have told them what they know are admirable and I can endorse them. This creates better people, which reduces the negative impact that "God" and "religion" have on society... at least in Theory.

Quote:
Doesn't that mean that your statement "I'm not going to knock your beliefs, in fact, I respect them." is a bit contradictory?

Not at all. Read above explanation.

Quote:
do you have any clue what our "focus" is here on the site? You might try checking the forums out more then your random couple months of skimming..

-Renee

See above. If that's changed, or if I am in error, then please let me know.

 

It is my suggestion to you all, that it is not your dislike of the religious' folk's rationalization of God that bothers you, it is what these people do because of their beliefs. It seems that all of the overtones you have reading over all of this again is because of RELIGION, and its negative effects. Like me, what you are against is what Humanity inflicts on Humanity for the sake of God, and religious commonality. On that front, I am a brother in that fight, and forever WILL be.

 

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan, Renee, and Stunt...

Tarpan, Renee, and Stunt... thanks.  Everything I would've said has been said for now.  I'm revisiting this thread soon though.  For clarification with the O.P. "Rational Responders" believe theism is irrational. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Tarpan, Renee, and Stunt... thanks. Everything I would've said has been said for now. I'm revisiting this thread soon though. For clarification with the O.P. "Rational Responders" believe theism is irrational.

 


So, based simply on the fact that I believe that God exists, you would as a group, throw me to the wolves on the prime issue? Little kids being told, practically by force, that "They Will Believe In Jesus And God Or Else They Will Burn In Hell For All Eternity"?

You would throw me to the wolves even though I agree that Religion does not belong in the classroom and that there is an explicit Seperation of Church and State?

You would say that I can not respond rationally to completely irrational people because I keep my irrational belief to myself in my every day life and yet still do all other things rationally?

 

You all say it is a cause, and I would agree. Except that with a cause, not everyone has to see eye to eye for a common goal. I'm thinking of the children that are the victims of prothelitizing preachy pastors?

 

Cause: An objective where many peoples from a multitude of backgrounds despite varying and inconsistent discrepancies and disagreements come together for a mutual goal.

Religion: A collective of people that cast out any and all that do not match up with a central directive.

 

The cause: Changing people's views about delivering religion to young minds that are not mature enough to handle the thoughts of God or Hell.

 

So. I'll take back the "Rational Responder" title claim if that is absolutely important, but you all need to accept that there are people like me out there that support your noble objective... or cause, whatever you want to call it.

I'm just not kicking God/MySchizophrenicBestFriendThatSharesTheSameSkullAsIDo/

TheGreatDiety/Goddess/UniverseA/Universe24/StephenHawking'sSeveredSpineofHoly/Etc to the side.

 

Also, just because I believe in something that is irrational, does not make me an irrational person.

 

{ Added a line feed to long string to fix formatting -- Edited by: Mr. Atheist } 

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I didn't say you

Quote:

I didn't say you were the only one.


You perhaps missed my point.  Different strokes for different folks.  You may not agree or like the methods, but they work for some and don't for others.

Quote:

Yes. And the best one is one where you don't anger people. You preach rationality, but your rationality is based [sometimes] solely on the fact that a belief in a God/Diety is irrationality. Due to fervor in your own cause, I have seen Rational Responders become Irrational Responders.

I can name one instance a year ago with Rook on Stickam where he made the irrational assumption that because I believed in a Diety that I was a Christian. That's skirting lines, but irrationality is in one sense where you become angry, not where you become oblivious.


Many people react well to anger.
Some people see the frustration that people display in regards to their faith and it makes them question it.  If everyone was timid about their approach to social issues nothing would ever change.

Quote:

Correct. My issue is the abuse of Religion. Not my own private faith. That's why I came here with the RSS originally.


The issue for the RRS is not the abuse of religion, but the abuse of rationality.  There would be no abusing of religion if people were rational about their beliefs in regards to religion.
 
Quote:

The bottom line here, is that it is my relationship, and it is in my head, and it is for nobody else to screw with. Period.


This is common to most theists, and most religions, in that they feel their beliefs should be free of criticism.  I personally think that your intentional and open acceptance of your own delusion is just as bad as any religion.  It is just as irrational, and it is just as much an insult to your own brain as religion is.  You admit that it's false yet still lend justification to other people believing in god.  I have no respect for this kind of view just as I have no respect for cherry picking faiths.

Quote:

Religious moderation is not what I suggested. People like you are required in order to test the faith of those who consider themselves "all knowing sons of God". People like you are required to go to those that go on and on about how they "Love Jesus" but simply cannot understand why--just because Mum and Dad told them to or they'll go to hell when they were just a child.

It just so happens, that because I believe in God, those very same people lower their guards to me. I have converted my own share of people from Christian to Agnostics and Atheists and other things aside from "Idiot Mindless Drone Zealot Christian". I did so, because of 1) things I learned from you folks here, and 2) because they were blind, and 3) because it was simply the moral thing to do. A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing.


So you openly lie about your belief in god (which you have said you know does not exist yet you convince yourself you need) so that you can have people lower their guards? Sorry, I prefer the path of honesty and truth.

Quote:


I think that's a religious question, since usually only people who have "invented stories" are those that go to church and want to share them. Since I'm not religious, this simply doesn't carry any weight with me.


I don't believe religion matters.  You are a religion / cult of 1.  You still invent situations where you talk to yourself and claim that it is justified.  I'm not seeing a stark contrast between your belief and any other belief excluding the fact that you haven't yet abused your belief for power.  Regardless of this fact, it is no more rational, and perhaps even more irrational since you can't even blame it on culture but just your own invented delusion.

Quote:

Good idea. Go give the idea to a church. You're insinuating that I'm religious here too.


No, I was insinuating that it is very easy to transform a personal belief into a religion through reasonable means.

Quote:

The problem is that when you have a score of people assaulting you from all directions, some chiding, and some lecturing, and some trying to play nice, and some just being rude, this only strengthens those who are foolish enough to "believe" that their lack of faith is actually faith. Idiots will recoil and be strengthened by nay sayers, moreso than someone like myself--who at least believes in God as well. I have a leg up on you in the very same battle.


Different strokes for different folks.

Quote:

As a second note (If I recall, your name is Bryan? It's only been a year since I've actively posted), please use spellcheck. The constant lack of proper spelling in your post makes you look unintelligent and angry, both of which I [hopefully] assume you are not.


No my name is not Bryan.

I don't think my spelling was a big issue here.  After running it through a spell checker there were a few typos and a few spelling errors.  None of these seemed to make the message I was generating unclear and considering the speed that I am typing at, and the size of the keyboard (and basic unreliability of the keyboard) it does not justify making the extra time out to go through a spell checker on a regular basis.

I don't see how any of my typing errors could have possible changed the meaning or tone of the message.

I propose that perhaps it is my contrary position to your message and your beliefs that you assume to be 'angry' when in fact it is nothing more than my opinion plainly stated.  If it is your stance that a disagreement with your comments implies anger then there is no question that you will see a lot of "anger" in the threads here.

This all said, if you are converting people away from theism, great job.  I agree with you fully when it comes to the opposition of the abuse of religion.   If you don't want to hear criticism about your personal beliefs, then keep them personal don't state them on a public forum filled with anti-theists and skeptics.


Quote:

It is my suggestion to you all, that it is not your dislike of the religious' folk's rationalization of God that bothers you, it is what these people do because of their beliefs. It seems that all of the overtones you have reading over all of this again is because of RELIGION, and its negative effects. Like me, what you are against is what Humanity inflicts on Humanity for the sake of God, and religious commonality. On that front, I am a brother in that fight, and forever WILL be.


You are correct to some degree.  If people only had personal religion that didn't affect politics and society we wouldn't be here.

You seem to be under the assumption that your personal belief should be protected from criticism due to it being a personal belief.  On an individualistic level your belief is no more rational than that of a muslim, christian, scientologist, or mormon.  I would even suggest that it is more irrational due to your ability to recognize the fact that you are making it all up.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Leuthesius wrote:

Leuthesius wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Tarpan, Renee, and Stunt... thanks. Everything I would've said has been said for now. I'm revisiting this thread soon though. For clarification with the O.P. "Rational Responders" believe theism is irrational.

 

 


So, based simply on the fact that I believe that God exists, you would as a group, throw me to the wolves on the prime issue? Little kids being told, practically by force, that "They Will Believe In Jesus And God Or Else They Will Burn In Hell For All Eternity"?

You would throw me to the wolves even though I agree that Religion does not belong in the classroom and that there is an explicit Seperation of Church and State?

You would say that I can not respond rationally to completely irrational people because I keep my irrational belief to myself in my every day life and yet still do all other things rationally?

 

You all say it is a cause, and I would agree. Except that with a cause, not everyone has to see eye to eye for a common goal. I'm thinking of the children that are the victims of prothelitizing preachy pastors?

 

Cause: An objective where many peoples from a multitude of backgrounds despite varying and inconsistent discrepancies and disagreements come together for a mutual goal.

Religion: A collective of people that cast out any and all that do not match up with a central directive.

 

The cause: Changing people's views about delivering religion to young minds that are not mature enough to handle the thoughts of God or Hell.

 

So. I'll take back the "Rational Responder" title claim if that is absolutely important, but you all need to accept that there are people like me out there that support your noble objective... or cause, whatever you want to call it.

I'm just not kicking God/MySchizophrenicBestFriendThatSharesTheSameSkullAsIDo/

TheGreatDiety/Goddess/UniverseA/Universe24/StephenHawking'sSeveredSpineofHoly/Etc to the side.

 

Also, just because I believe in something that is irrational, does not make me an irrational person.

{ Added a line feed to long string to fix formatting -- Edited by: Mr. Atheist }

I just truly don't understand your message.

 

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Leuthesius wrote: Sapient

Leuthesius wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Tarpan, Renee, and Stunt... thanks. Everything I would've said has been said for now. I'm revisiting this thread soon though. For clarification with the O.P. "Rational Responders" believe theism is irrational.

 


So, based simply on the fact that I believe that God exists, you would as a group, throw me to the wolves on the prime issue?

We disagree on the prime issue.  I am glad to have you around just understand that to actually be part of "The Rational Response Squad" it's been said hundreds of times, one must believe theism to be irrational and want it gone off the planet.   Knowing that I don't see why you would even want to call yourself a rational responder.

As for the anti-"religion" stance you take, that's noble, and I do hope you weigh in on the site, I was just trying to offer clarity.

 

Quote:
Also, just because I believe in something that is irrational, does not make me an irrational person.

I can agree with that.  I'll take it a step further and admit that it's possible on some issues you approach them more rationally than I do.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So, based simply on

Quote:

So, based simply on the fact that I believe that God exists,  you would as a group, throw me to the wolves on the prime issue? Little kids being told, practically by force, that "They Will Believe In Jesus And God Or Else They Will Burn In Hell For All Eternity"?

You would throw me to the wolves even though I agree that Religion does not belong in the classroom and that there is an explicit Seperation of Church and State?


What wolves are you being thrown at?
Being a secularist is great.
I don't really understand what you are trying to get.  Membership to the RRS?

Quote:

You would say that I can not respond rationally to completely irrational people because I keep my irrational belief to myself in my every day life and yet still do all other things rationally?


Who said that?
People who are irrational about their faith are quite capable of being rational about other things, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Quote:

You all say it is a cause, and I would agree. Except that with a cause, not everyone has to see eye to eye for a common goal. I'm thinking of the children that are the victims of prothelitizing preachy pastors?


And there are many secular organizations with religious supporters.  We support those secular organizations.
 
Quote:

Cause: An objective where many peoples from a multitude of backgrounds despite varying and inconsistent discrepancies and disagreements come together for a mutual goal.

 Religion: A collective of people that cast out any and all that do not match up with a central directive.


I think you'll find many different opinions on many different topics and even different opionins about the approach.

You just seem to be mistaken about the objective.
 
Quote:

The cause: Changing people's views about delivering religion to young minds that are not mature enough to handle the thoughts of God or Hell.


The issue of child indoctrination is one of the methods that people use to expand their irrational beliefs to other people, but it is the irrational beliefs that is opposed.
 
Quote:

So. I'll take back the "Rational Responder" title claim if that is absolutely important, but you all need to accept that there are people like me out there that support your noble objective... or cause, whatever you want to call it.


We do, you are not the only secular theist in the world.  And you are not the only theist on these forums that is supportive of the organization and 'most' of it's objectives.

Quote:

I'm just not kicking God/MySchizophrenicBestFriendThatSharesTheSameSkullAsIDo/

TheGreatDiety/Goddess/UniverseA/Universe24/StephenHawking'sSeveredSpineofHoly/Etc to the side.  



That is your choice, but don't expect people to respect your belief.
You should also probably learn to accept that once in awhile you'll get confused for a Christian just as the deists do from time to time.  It is a high percentage assumption that a theist on these forums are Christian due to the focus on America.
 
Quote:

Also, just because I believe in something that is irrational, does not make me an irrational person.


I don't recall seeing any comments or making any comments about you, just your belief.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Leuthesius wrote: The

Leuthesius wrote:

The question has been asked as for "How I can still believe in God?", and it has been asked on many occasions. The answer is fairly simple.

 

Rational Responders as a whole, seems to have a hard time wrapping its head around the idea that one can believe in God faithfully and without doubt, yet still hate and despise what God and Religion bring to humanity as a whole. Pain. Death. Misery. Plagues. 5 year olds being anally raped by priests. Contradiction. Closed mindedness. Stupidity. The list carries on and on.

 

I hate religion. Religion to me, is the next best thing to the next worst thing on Earth, whatever that might be. I despise it. I dislike the idea that I should have someone else talking to God for me for the sake of my own salvation. I dislike the idea that I should believe in what everyone else believes for the sake of unity. I dislike the notion that some guy named Jesus is my one and true savior, circumventing my own belief that God is out there and actually gives enough of a damn to occasionally talk to me.

 

I get along with God. I refuse to say I love him, because on occasion when things aren't going my way I'll be by myself, screaming up into the skies cursing his very name and damning his own soul for what he has "allowed" to happen to me. At other times, I find myself laughing with him in dreams. This, needless to say, is a long, long drawn out explanation and is not something I will go into unless someone specifically asks me to. My direct relationship with God is a strange one. But I have no RELIGION. Soemthing entirely different from Faith.

 

Rational Responders from what I understand, are there less as an Atheistic society, and more against the negatives that religion brings. Such as scaring little 5 year olds into believing in God or they're going to Burn in Hell for eternity. An hour long car ride for a kid is an eternity. Imagine just how badly that scars a child's mind. THAT is what I am against, and THAT is why I talk to people about their religion.

 

The very fact that I believe in God actually gives me a leg INto their society that screaming Atheism simply wouldn't. You guys need to really see yourselves from a distance. I've been watching for the better part of the last year. You guys have more or less become your own religion! Religion meaning that you all hold the same belief, and quite a few of you even accept the possibility that there are people like me out here that agree with you on the sole idea of ABUSE of religion.

My former roommate was actually a Christian and turned Atheist because of this place. Not to say it was a BAD thing. If it broke his faith in God, then his faith in God wasn't that strong to begin with. (No offense dude--to roomy).

 

God is not bad. The abuse of the idea of God, is bad. Religion is bad, because that's exactly what the abuse of God creates. Now it seems that RR's has become the exact same thing in some ways. Where instead of God, you have NoGod, and the top prophets preach that he doesn't exist.

I'm not going to knock your beliefs, in fact, I respect them. Just look at yourselves from the outside every once in a while. You've lost a great deal of focus from what I've been able to tell from my random every couple months of skimmings here and there.

You sound like an abused spouse who refuses to leave a bad situation.

If this "god" as you say allows bad things to happen to you what kind of caregiver is it? If such a god existed I would not want it baby sitting my child(if I had one).

The obvious reason that you are being torn by the good vs evil issuse is that you are determined to believe, which is different than being able to provide evidence for such a bieng.

|There is only one good reason to accept or reject any claim on any issue. EVIDENCE.

The moral delema would be enough for me alone, even if such a god existed, to say "go fuck yourself" with all the things that he allows under his watch.

But that would simply make him a prick if he existed.

No, even that is not enough to accept or reject a deity claim. But one certainly should dispise the moral inconsistances as a seperate issue.

When you strip the deity claim down to it's core, all religious labels asside, the atributes of a "God/god" fail not only morally but scientifically as well.

Morally, "Omiscient" fails. "God sees everything". Really? That really sounds like Orwell's 1984. So god watches me shit and pee and have sex? I dont know about you, but there are some moments I dont want to share with anyone. Yet theists want me to believe that there is a magical camera in the sky spying on me every second of my life. That isnt freedom, that is facism and tyrany.

And a famous atheist, the name excapes me, shows the absurdity in the design issue, regarding reproductive organs, "Who would put an entertainment center in the middle of a suage system?" 

Sceintifically "Omniecient" is rediculous as well. How are these actions recorded and not just the actions of one, but 6 billion people simitainiously? HOW is my question, not who.

All the theist has in response is, "God can do what he wants". Which is nothing but a claim backing up a claim and explains nothing.

Morally, "Omnipotent" fails. God has the power before hand to stop every child from ever being raped and murdered, but yet it still happens. "Sorry kid, I know I could save you, but I am going to sit on my hand and watch you die a horrible death. I have my reasons".

Would you hire a baby sitter who said the following, "I have baby sat 100 children. Some molesters came in and I shot them before they molested the child. Other molesters came in and I shot them after they molested the child. Other molesters came in, molested the child and I let them go.

Scientifically "Omnipotent" also fails. Can god "poof" make a decapitated human head instintainiously regrow? 

Your skepticism of "god's" preformance is the first step of letting go of superstition. You recognize the moral inconsistancies but still cling to the super natural.

You are simply at a stage many of us, including me, were once at. But we went further and didnt just reject the omi god claim for moral reasons, we reject ALL super natural claims(not just god claims) for the simplist reason, LACK OF EVIDENCE.

For the same reason you reject the claim of Thor making lighting and would rightfully reject Ouiji boards or multiple armed deities, we reject claims of ghosts knocking up girls and Allah picking the sex of the baby. None of those deities or super natural claims do we solely reject on moral grounds, that is simply one aspect, but not the core. We reject all those claims because there is NO GOOD REASON TO BUY THOSE CLAIMS.

You are halfway there. Dont allow your brain to stick to such superstition based on the flimsy reason, "Yea, I know bad things happen, but there must be something out there and a reason for it".

There is "something out there". It is called nature wich doesnt require Superman vs Kriptonite claims. The harm that affects humans is still natural.

Natural to the theist is only that which makes them feel warm and fuzzy. "Natural" to the scientist is that which repeats and can be studied. Bad things happen all the time that affect humans. cancer, aids, ecoli, tornados and unfortunatly crime. Calling those things natural does not mean we like them happening, it is merely a simple recongition that they do. And by recognizing those bad things we can study them to look for ways to reduce the harm to humans.

There is no need to cling to a magical puppiteer by any name to explain the good and bad that happen in life.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist

Mr. Atheist wrote:
Quote:

I didn't say you were the only one.


You perhaps missed my point. Different strokes for different folks. You may not agree or like the methods, but they work for some and don't for others.

 

Nah, I got the point, I was just clarifying.

 

Quote:
Quote:

Yes. And the best one is one where you don't anger people. You preach rationality, but your rationality is based [sometimes] solely on the fact that a belief in a God/Diety is irrationality. Due to fervor in your own cause, I have seen Rational Responders become Irrational Responders.

I can name one instance a year ago with Rook on Stickam where he made the irrational assumption that because I believed in a Diety that I was a Christian. That's skirting lines, but irrationality is in one sense where you become angry, not where you become oblivious.


Many people react well to anger.
Some people see the frustration that people display in regards to their faith and it makes them question it. If everyone was timid about their approach to social issues nothing would ever change.

 

Point. I can see that, and I can agree. Unfortunately, a great deal of reverse damage comes from those that recoil, and become even more zealous in their ways, and then cause more of what neither of us wants to deal with.

Quote:
Quote:

Correct. My issue is the abuse of Religion. Not my own private faith. That's why I came here with the RSS originally.


The issue for the RRS is not the abuse of religion, but the abuse of rationality. There would be no abusing of religion if people were rational about their beliefs in regards to religion.

 

I do agree.

 


Quote:
Quote:

The bottom line here, is that it is my relationship, and it is in my head, and it is for nobody else to screw with. Period.


This is common to most theists, and most religions, in that they feel their beliefs should be free of criticism. I personally think that your intentional and open acceptance of your own delusion is just as bad as any religion. It is just as irrational, and it is just as much an insult to your own brain as religion is. You admit that it's false yet still lend justification to other people believing in god. I have no respect for this kind of view just as I have no respect for cherry picking faiths.

The above highlighted text is absolutely true. It is mine. The fact that you believe it irrational is your own opinion, to which you are entitled to under the Constitution. To believe that it is an insult to my brains is also an opinion.

One thing that you assume, is that I do lend justification to other people for believing in God. They have absolutely no justification or proof [for the most part] to believe in God beyond what mommy and daddy told them, or what the preacher at the pulpit has told them. I have had experiences that lend credit to my own belief.

Understand this: People who have not questioned their religion, or more specifically their faith, have no RIGHT to believe in God.

Quote:
Quote:

Religious moderation is not what I suggested. People like you are required in order to test the faith of those who consider themselves "all knowing sons of God". People like you are required to go to those that go on and on about how they "Love Jesus" but simply cannot understand why--just because Mum and Dad told them to or they'll go to hell when they were just a child.

It just so happens, that because I believe in God, those very same people lower their guards to me. I have converted my own share of people from Christian to Agnostics and Atheists and other things aside from "Idiot Mindless Drone Zealot Christian". I did so, because of 1) things I learned from you folks here, and 2) because they were blind, and 3) because it was simply the moral thing to do. A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing.


So you openly lie about your belief in god (which you have said you know does not exist yet you convince yourself you need) so that you can have people lower their guards? Sorry, I prefer the path of honesty and truth.

That mega list of "excuses" was put in place to remove arguments from your side as to what my belief "could" be. Not necessarily "is", therefore I am not lying to myself.

I believe in Honesty and Truth, and live by it. And I would appreciate it if you all cut this little bit out of your future arguments, as it simply doesn't carry any real weight. Because of my ideals of honesty and truth, I can tell you honestly and truthfully that I have borne witness to unexplainable things that could only be described as divine. Any arguments of whether or not (as previously posted) they were rational or irrational have long since subsided.

 

Quote:
Quote:


I think that's a religious question, since usually only people who have "invented stories" are those that go to church and want to share them. Since I'm not religious, this simply doesn't carry any weight with me.


I don't believe religion matters. You are a religion / cult of 1. You still invent situations where you talk to yourself and claim that it is justified. I'm not seeing a stark contrast between your belief and any other belief excluding the fact that you haven't yet abused your belief for power. Regardless of this fact, it is no more rational, and perhaps even more irrational since you can't even blame it on culture but just your own invented delusion.

Religion matters greatly. Have I preached to you to believe what I believe or else? No. Does my belief in any way harm you? No. Does my belief in any way harm myself? No. Does religion in general do teh exact opposite? Yes.

Cult? Pfeh. Cults are where a bunch of idiots get shot out by the FBI like the folks in Waco, or people who took cyanide to chase the Jesus in the comet. Cultists are psychotic.

Quote:
Quote:

Good idea. Go give the idea to a church. You're insinuating that I'm religious here too.


No, I was insinuating that it is very easy to transform a personal belief into a religion through reasonable means.

 

...which I have absolutely no aim or desire to do, so the point is rather moot.

Quote:
Quote:

The problem is that when you have a score of people assaulting you from all directions, some chiding, and some lecturing, and some trying to play nice, and some just being rude, this only strengthens those who are foolish enough to "believe" that their lack of faith is actually faith. Idiots will recoil and be strengthened by nay sayers, moreso than someone like myself--who at least believes in God as well. I have a leg up on you in the very same battle.


Different strokes for different folks.

Quote:

As a second note (If I recall, your name is Bryan? It's only been a year since I've actively posted), please use spellcheck. The constant lack of proper spelling in your post makes you look unintelligent and angry, both of which I [hopefully] assume you are not.


No my name is not Bryan.

I don't think my spelling was a big issue here. After running it through a spell checker there were a few typos and a few spelling errors. None of these seemed to make the message I was generating unclear and considering the speed that I am typing at, and the size of the keyboard (and basic unreliability of the keyboard) it does not justify making the extra time out to go through a spell checker on a regular basis.

I don't see how any of my typing errors could have possible changed the meaning or tone of the message.

 

The general opinion about President Bush is that he's an idiot. He's labeled an "idiot" because he's a terrible orator.

Barrack Obama is considered the "next best king leader" because he delivers empty speeches with absolutely no real subject matter. But he does so well.

In the typing world, improperly spelled words are the exact same thing as bad oration. That is why I made it a point to say so.

 

Quote:
I propose that perhaps it is my contrary position to your message and your beliefs that you assume to be 'angry' when in fact it is nothing more than my opinion plainly stated. If it is your stance that a disagreement with your comments implies anger then there is no question that you will see a lot of "anger" in the threads here.

This all said, if you are converting people away from theism, great job. I agree with you fully when it comes to the opposition of the abuse of religion. If you don't want to hear criticism about your personal beliefs, then keep them personal don't state them on a public forum filled with anti-theists and skeptics.

 

I must have some re-adaptation to take as far as the forums are concerned.

I don't mind hearing criticism about my belief. My sole purpose is to make people question their faiths. If it makes them believe stronger, then I suppose it worked in some way. If it turns them into atheists, then that works too. The importance is faith. Not religion.

Quote:
Quote:

It is my suggestion to you all, that it is not your dislike of the religious' folk's rationalization of God that bothers you, it is what these people do because of their beliefs. It seems that all of the overtones you have reading over all of this again is because of RELIGION, and its negative effects. Like me, what you are against is what Humanity inflicts on Humanity for the sake of God, and religious commonality. On that front, I am a brother in that fight, and forever WILL be.


You are correct to some degree. If people only had personal religion that didn't affect politics and society we wouldn't be here.

 

BINGO. That is my objective.

Quote:
You seem to be under the assumption that your personal belief should be protected from criticism due to it being a personal belief.

Again. Is it harmful? No. Therefore it shouldn't be simply protected, but ignored.

Quote:
On an individualistic level your belief is no more rational than that of a muslim, christian, scientologist, or mormon. I would even suggest that it is more irrational due to your ability to recognize the fact that you are making it all up.

Again, that mega list of "excuses" was put in place to remove arguments from your side as to what my belief "could" be. Not necessarily "is".

 

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:
Leuthesius wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Tarpan, Renee, and Stunt... thanks. Everything I would've said has been said for now. I'm revisiting this thread soon though. For clarification with the O.P. "Rational Responders" believe theism is irrational.

 

 


So, based simply on the fact that I believe that God exists, you would as a group, throw me to the wolves on the prime issue? Little kids being told, practically by force, that "They Will Believe In Jesus And God Or Else They Will Burn In Hell For All Eternity"?

You would throw me to the wolves even though I agree that Religion does not belong in the classroom and that there is an explicit Seperation of Church and State?

You would say that I can not respond rationally to completely irrational people because I keep my irrational belief to myself in my every day life and yet still do all other things rationally?

 

You all say it is a cause, and I would agree. Except that with a cause, not everyone has to see eye to eye for a common goal. I'm thinking of the children that are the victims of prothelitizing preachy pastors?

 

Cause: An objective where many peoples from a multitude of backgrounds despite varying and inconsistent discrepancies and disagreements come together for a mutual goal.

Religion: A collective of people that cast out any and all that do not match up with a central directive.

 

The cause: Changing people's views about delivering religion to young minds that are not mature enough to handle the thoughts of God or Hell.

 

So. I'll take back the "Rational Responder" title claim if that is absolutely important, but you all need to accept that there are people like me out there that support your noble objective... or cause, whatever you want to call it.

I'm just not kicking God/MySchizophrenicBestFriendThatSharesTheSameSkullAsIDo/

TheGreatDiety/Goddess/UniverseA/Universe24/StephenHawking'sSeveredSpineofHoly/Etc to the side.

 

Also, just because I believe in something that is irrational, does not make me an irrational person.

{ Added a line feed to long string to fix formatting -- Edited by: Mr. Atheist }

I just truly don't understand your message.

 

 

Religion is the abused ..'thing' here.

God is something that nobody will ever be able to understand and nobody will ever be able to truely rationalize. So I question, what is the point in trying?

When a spouse is being irrational, does that mean that they are necessarily wrong?

 

Sapient wrote:
Leuthesius wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Tarpan, Renee, and Stunt... thanks. Everything I would've said has been said for now. I'm revisiting this thread soon though. For clarification with the O.P. "Rational Responders" believe theism is irrational.

 


So, based simply on the fact that I believe that God exists, you would as a group, throw me to the wolves on the prime issue?

We disagree on the prime issue. I am glad to have you around just understand that to actually be part of "The Rational Response Squad" it's been said hundreds of times, one must believe theism to be irrational and want it gone off the planet. Knowing that I don't see why you would even want to call yourself a rational responder.

As for the anti-"religion" stance you take, that's noble, and I do hope you weigh in on the site, I was just trying to offer clarity.

Ah. You see, I thought that the prime issue was the abuse of religion and the forced religion on young minds that are not mature enough to understand the idea of hell, or the implications therein. And I thought that the RRS attacked the idea of a supreme being simply because of the societally forced religious ideals.

Quote:
Also, just because I believe in something that is irrational, does not make me an irrational person.

I can agree with that. I'll take it a step further and admit that it's possible on some issues you approach them more rationally than I do.

I appreciate that.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
Leuthesius wrote:

The question has been asked as for "How I can still believe in God?", and it has been asked on many occasions. The answer is fairly simple.

 

Rational Responders as a whole, seems to have a hard time wrapping its head around the idea that one can believe in God faithfully and without doubt, yet still hate and despise what God and Religion bring to humanity as a whole. Pain. Death. Misery. Plagues. 5 year olds being anally raped by priests. Contradiction. Closed mindedness. Stupidity. The list carries on and on.

 

I hate religion. Religion to me, is the next best thing to the next worst thing on Earth, whatever that might be. I despise it. I dislike the idea that I should have someone else talking to God for me for the sake of my own salvation. I dislike the idea that I should believe in what everyone else believes for the sake of unity. I dislike the notion that some guy named Jesus is my one and true savior, circumventing my own belief that God is out there and actually gives enough of a damn to occasionally talk to me.

 

I get along with God. I refuse to say I love him, because on occasion when things aren't going my way I'll be by myself, screaming up into the skies cursing his very name and damning his own soul for what he has "allowed" to happen to me. At other times, I find myself laughing with him in dreams. This, needless to say, is a long, long drawn out explanation and is not something I will go into unless someone specifically asks me to. My direct relationship with God is a strange one. But I have no RELIGION. Soemthing entirely different from Faith.

 

Rational Responders from what I understand, are there less as an Atheistic society, and more against the negatives that religion brings. Such as scaring little 5 year olds into believing in God or they're going to Burn in Hell for eternity. An hour long car ride for a kid is an eternity. Imagine just how badly that scars a child's mind. THAT is what I am against, and THAT is why I talk to people about their religion.

 

The very fact that I believe in God actually gives me a leg INto their society that screaming Atheism simply wouldn't. You guys need to really see yourselves from a distance. I've been watching for the better part of the last year. You guys have more or less become your own religion! Religion meaning that you all hold the same belief, and quite a few of you even accept the possibility that there are people like me out here that agree with you on the sole idea of ABUSE of religion.

My former roommate was actually a Christian and turned Atheist because of this place. Not to say it was a BAD thing. If it broke his faith in God, then his faith in God wasn't that strong to begin with. (No offense dude--to roomy).

 

God is not bad. The abuse of the idea of God, is bad. Religion is bad, because that's exactly what the abuse of God creates. Now it seems that RR's has become the exact same thing in some ways. Where instead of God, you have NoGod, and the top prophets preach that he doesn't exist.

I'm not going to knock your beliefs, in fact, I respect them. Just look at yourselves from the outside every once in a while. You've lost a great deal of focus from what I've been able to tell from my random every couple months of skimmings here and there.

You sound like an abused spouse who refuses to leave a bad situation.

What bearing does that have on this? I hope that you are not simply a carrier of ad hominems.

Quote:
If this "god" as you say allows bad things to happen to you what kind of caregiver is it? If such a god existed I would not want it baby sitting my child(if I had one).

You insinuate that I believe in a Christian God. I haven't specifically stated which "God" I believe in, just simply that I believe in God. I'll also point out that I have no desire of allowing God to babysit my future children. He or She wouldn't be his responsibility, so why should I ask him to do something that isn't his job?

Quote:
The obvious reason that you are being torn by the good vs evil issuse is that you are determined to believe, which is different than being able to provide evidence for such a bieng.

Uh. I am not "determined" to believe, and I am not torn by the good vs evil issue, and I have no absolute way of proving that God exists, nor desire to.

First, determination insinuates that my faith is weak. It isn't. I believe. Period. That doesn't make me "determined", it makes me "am".

Second, there is no good vs evil issue. It is "Stupid Religous Blind Following Morons Who Have No Clue What The F*ck They're Talking About Or Impressing Upon Others" vs Innocence.

Quote:
There is only one good reason to accept or reject any claim on any issue. EVIDENCE.

Burned images of angelic figure on retinas. Supernational unexplainable occurences. For those like myself who has seen them, that is the evidence. It's not my fault that these things are not reproducable. If I had a chip in my head that could place the physical memory onto the computer I would do so, and if we had the technology to tell actual memories from imagined ones, it would prove that I am not giving you fake stories.

Quote:
The moral delema would be enough for me alone, even if such a god existed, to say "go fuck yourself" with all the things that he allows under his watch.

But that would simply make him a prick if he existed.

No, even that is not enough to accept or reject a deity claim. But one certainly should dispise the moral inconsistances as a seperate issue.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Based on your anger towards 'him', I would assume that you dislike the Christian beliefs. That's so ridiculously common.

Would you not agree that maybe the Christian portrayal of God is just incorrect? That the religions have simply destroyed his name for the sake of organizational and personal power? That maybe the "natural disasters" are simply that? "Natural"?

Quote:
When you strip the deity claim down to it's core, all religious labels asside, the atributes of a "God/god" fail not only morally but scientifically as well.

You are not making sense. You are throwing out nonsensical drivel.

Quote:
Morally, "Omiscient" fails. "God sees everything". Really? That really sounds like Orwell's 1984.

Ok.  

Quote:
So god watches me shit and pee and have sex? I dont know about you, but there are some moments I dont want to share with anyone. Yet theists want me to believe that there is a magical camera in the sky spying on me every second of my life.

1) I don't think God cares enough to watch you use the facilities, nor does he think that your amoratory adventures are interesting enough to watch.

2) I don't think God is necessarily "in the sky". What if he's in a rock I carry around?  

Quote:
That isnt freedom, that is facism and tyrany.

No, Clinton is facism. Religion is facism. Statism is tyranny. The Vatican is tyranny.  God has nothing to do with those things.

Quote:
And a famous atheist, the name excapes me, shows the absurdity in the design issue, regarding reproductive organs, "Who would put an entertainment center in the middle of a suage system?"

What makes you think I believe in creationism? What if I believe in the big bang? What if I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution? What if I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You're making an entirely too large of a list of assumptions here, son. 

Quote:
Sceintifically "Omniecient" is rediculous as well. How are these actions recorded and not just the actions of one, but 6 billion people simitainiously? HOW is my question, not who.

Not necessarily. Within the last several years, I read an article in Scientific American that theorized that the universe could be a computer program, because the universe seems to act like data. If that is the case, and we are just a piece of a computer program, then it wouldn't be implausible for the controller of that computer program to be considered "God", would it? Or that he would have full access to all data in that virtual univese? There's a possible "HOW", for you. 

Quote:
All the theist has in response is, "God can do what he wants". Which is nothing but a claim backing up a claim and explains nothing.

That would be because any normal Theist would have the drive to prove to you of his existence, and care enough about your opinion to try and push you towards the idea that God is real. I have neither that drive, nor care enough about your opinion on the existence of a supreme being.

Quote:
Morally, "Omnipotent" fails. God has the power before hand to stop every child from ever being raped and murdered, but yet it still happens. "Sorry kid, I know I could save you, but I am going to sit on my hand and watch you die a horrible death. I have my reasons".

Would you hire a baby sitter who said the following, "I have baby sat 100 children. Some molesters came in and I shot them before they molested the child. Other molesters came in and I shot them after they molested the child. Other molesters came in, molested the child and I let them go.

 How about, God isn't responsible? Why would you blame the sickening acts of sick people on God? What about the responsibility of that person to take their own ethical and moral issues into his own hands?

Quote:
Scientifically "Omnipotent" also fails. Can god "poof" make a decapitated human head instintainiously regrow?

What did the human do to get himself or herself in the position to be decapitated? 

Quote:
Your skepticism of "god's" preformance is the first step of letting go of superstition. You recognize the moral inconsistancies but still cling to the super natural.

You are simply at a stage many of us, including me, were once at. But we went further and didnt just reject the omi god claim for moral reasons, we reject ALL super natural claims(not just god claims) for the simplist reason, LACK OF EVIDENCE.

For the same reason you reject the claim of Thor making lighting and would rightfully reject Ouiji boards or multiple armed deities, we reject claims of ghosts knocking up girls and Allah picking the sex of the baby. None of those deities or super natural claims do we solely reject on moral grounds, that is simply one aspect, but not the core. We reject all those claims because there is NO GOOD REASON TO BUY THOSE CLAIMS.

You are halfway there. Dont allow your brain to stick to such superstition based on the flimsy reason, "Yea, I know bad things happen, but there must be something out there and a reason for it".

There is "something out there". It is called nature wich doesnt require Superman vs Kriptonite claims. The harm that affects humans is still natural.

Natural to the theist is only that which makes them feel warm and fuzzy. "Natural" to the scientist is that which repeats and can be studied. Bad things happen all the time that affect humans. cancer, aids, ecoli, tornados and unfortunatly crime. Calling those things natural does not mean we like them happening, it is merely a simple recongition that they do. And by recognizing those bad things we can study them to look for ways to reduce the harm to humans.

There is no need to cling to a magical puppiteer by any name to explain the good and bad that happen in life.

 

I stopped taking you even moderately seriously at the point where you went "you're almost there", "you're just at a stage like many of us are/were".

Take a note, son, "I." "Don't." "Care." About your little phases. I don't care about your thoughts on superstitious events. I believe what my own eyes have seen. I believe the images I have had burned into my own retinas like some sort of nuclear fire.  

If I were to suggest that God created me, I would suggest that he did not instill divine patience for repetitive nonsensical rhetoric.

You choose to assault based seemingly, solely on the idea that I'm a Christian, or come from that type of background. You also seem to be pushing your own issues on me in the subject matter you've brought up. 

It sounds to me like you really still question whether or not God exists, or you are still angry because he "doesn't".  Whatever the case might be, I'm not going to steer you in either direction, because I don't care enough about your opinion on it. 

When you feel like conversing with me in nature less crude, and more mature, then maybe I'll listen to you then. Until then, please get a grip.

Grip.

 

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I have to point out that

I have to point out that the defenses for your faith and the reasons you have them are not all that different than a Christians or a Muslims. They don't believe they are damaging, they believe they are doing a good thing so you can't factor that in. Many of them believe to have a very personal relationship with god; many claim to have "seen things that can't be explained". You actually hit word-for-word with a conversation I was a having where a Christian was defending their faith.

As for cults...not all cults are for the purposes of suicide. There are many out there and the majority is basically just religions with few members. The difference between scientology as a cult and scientology as a religion was just membership.

I am not going to go out and protest your religion, and your specific beliefs, but on a forum in general conversation or in person if you were to bring it up I would give it no more respect than any other faith and I will criticize the integrity of it.

We have deists here and I state that they are irrational in their faith as well. Most deists recognize this and accept it as well. If deists don't get a free-ride around here there is no way you can expect to since their belief is totally harmless and totally non-invasive to our universe.

 

I also took a look over your post and I noticed my spell-check saw at least 16 spelling errors in your text as well as at least as many, likely more, grammatical errors.

As a second note, please use spell-check (and spell-check the word “spellcheck”). The constant lack of proper spelling in your post makes you look unintelligent and angry, both of which I assume you are not.

The general opinion about President Bush is that he's an idiot. He's labeled an "idiot" because he's a terrible orator.

Barrack Obama is considered the "next best king leader" because he delivers empty speeches with absolutely no real subject matter. But he does so well.

In the typing world, improperly spelled words are the exact same thing as bad oration. That is why I made it a point to say so.

In summary, you are a hypocrite.

 


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote: I have

Mr. Atheist wrote:

I have to point out that the defenses for your faith and the reasons you have them are not all that different than a Christians or a Muslims. They don't believe they are damaging, they believe they are doing a good thing so you can't factor that in. Many of them believe to have a very personal relationship with god; many claim to have "seen things that can't be explained". You actually hit word-for-word with a conversation I was a having where a Christian was defending their faith.

You're missing my point, which is that it is not God that is the problem, but what man does in God's name. Lend evidence that God is the cause of a natural disaster or that he purposely killed someone by taking over someone's body and pulling a trigger or stabbing with a knife, and I'll take a note that my relationship with God is possibly damaging.

Quote:
As for cults...not all cults are for the purposes of suicide. There are many out there and the majority is basically just religions with few members. The difference between scientology as a cult and scientology as a religion was just membership.

*shudder* Don't even get me started on Scientology.

Quote:
I am not going to go out and protest your religion

What religion.

Quote:
and your specific beliefs, but on a forum in general conversation or in person if you were to bring it up I would give it no more respect than any other faith and I will criticize the integrity of it.

That is fine, and that is your right. In the mean time, ask yourself how much damage I am actually doing, believing in a supreme being. What damage am I doing, knowing that I will not be forcing the idea of religion and God down my future children's throats? What damage will I be doing when I engage in conversation that forces someone to question their faith in their God or Flying Shaghetti Monster?

Quote:
We have deists here and I state that they are irrational in their faith as well. Most deists recognize this and accept it as well. If deists don't get a free-ride around here there is no way you can expect to since their belief is totally harmless and totally non-invasive to our universe.

That's actually more of what I classify as, minus the Christian outlook upon it. Nevertheless, whether you agree or disagree with my faith, know that there are those such as me out there that do follow your goals, if not for the exact same reasons, or to the same effect.

 

Quote:
I also took a look over your post and I noticed my spell-check saw at least 16 spelling errors in your text as well as at least as many, likely more, grammatical errors.

As a second note, please use spell-check (and spell-check the word “spellcheck”). The constant lack of proper spelling in your post makes you look unintelligent and angry, both of which I assume you are not.

The general opinion about President Bush is that he's an idiot. He's labeled an "idiot" because he's a terrible orator.

Barrack Obama is considered the "next best king leader" because he delivers empty speeches with absolutely no real subject matter. But he does so well.

In the typing world, improperly spelled words are the exact same thing as bad oration. That is why I made it a point to say so.

In summary, you are a hypocrite.

That. Wow.

What was the point of that? Have you any clue how immature and petty that makes you look? Do you not understand the intent and meaning behind my request that you use spellcheck?

You, Mr. Atheist, are the Website admin. You, Mr. Atheist, are one of the people that a great deal of your ilk look up to and go to for advice and leadership. Is it not more important for you, Mr. Atheist, to appear as intelligent as you [as far as I know] are?

I won't go so far as to assume that you are lacking argument against me, but why would you go so far as to sound like a 10 year old on a topic that doesn't really even hold a grain of salt to everythinig else in the discussion?

My criticism of you, your grammar, and your spelling, was constructive criticism, and not meant to make you look stupid or uneducated, or lazy, or anything else in the least. Not only that, but I did so because yours were absolutely obvious incorrectly spelled or mistyped words. For you to do the same thing to me does absolutely no good for you or anyone else here because to you I am nothing but another Theist speck of nothing on the wall that does not agree and abide by the general culture of this website (And that's talking rationally and realistically instead of emotionally and irrationally, which could be the only possible reason for you to go through that sort of time and effort to make that 2nd rate hobo-like petty statement).

I think I've made it blatantly clear that I respect you all here for at least some of your ideals, but don't verbally castrate you for those that I don't agree with. That's a neutral stance. An unhostile stance. I now have to question whether or not more of you choose to take petty stabs at others like you just did to me, Atheist or not, and I must question whether or not my respect for you is even well placed. This also makes me question my thoughts on donating to the cause.

If my own hypocracy is the only standing argument or statement you can make, then obviously I've won at least a little bit of my case.

Your objectives involve a lot of public relations. If this is how you publicly relate to someone who only wants to help your cause, then maybe you should pack in and go home.

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Like I said, I don't

Like I said, I don't believe you are causing harm but within the confines of a forum I will debate that it is just as irrational.  And that's really the point of these forums, rationality.

I do not claim leadership, nor intelligence.  I claim an ability to work with technology which is why I am a Web Administrator.  I am both uneducated and lazy.

As for going through the work, you will note that all I did was copy and paste your own statements so it didn't take a lot of effort (seconds actually).  It was petty, and gave me a little bit of enjoyment.  Do not provide a criticism that you do not follow yourself, is all that I am getting at.  Typos happen, particularly on a 10 inch laptop with tiny keys.  Some of yours were blatant misspellings as well.

Shit happens.  People type quickly and are lazy about it.  I accept this and don't comment on other people’s bad grammar and spelling errors because I accept it as a reality of the internet.

Don't take it so hard.  Accept the comment as a light jab. If you can't laugh at yourself for committing the same error you just finished commenting on, then either don't comment on an error or don't commit it.  I suggest learning to laugh at yourself.


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote:

Mr. Atheist wrote:

Like I said, I don't believe you are causing harm but within the confines of a forum I will debate that it is just as irrational. And that's really the point of these forums, rationality.

Which despite our disagreement on whether or not there exist divine beings that shoot lightning bolts from between their brass testicles, I agree with.

I am not sure if you are aware of my history, but I was once an Agnostic. I was once a Wiccan. I was once what could be 'considered' a Christian. I was once even an Atheist. What I will not do is tell you "how to stop being an Atheist and find God", because there is simply no way that it can happen unless something specific happens to you that only you can even recall. At least that's how it happened to me. Because I bore witness to the divine, I find it rational to believe in its existence. Because I cannot prove that I saw it, it is irrational to you, and all others that believe the same way.

Nothing right or wrong with that, it's just the way it is.

 

Quote:
I do not claim leadership, nor intelligence. I claim an ability to work with technology which is why I am a Web Administrator. I am both uneducated and lazy.

As for going through the work, you will note that all I did was copy and paste your own statements so it didn't take a lot of effort (seconds actually). It was petty, and gave me a little bit of enjoyment. Do not provide a criticism that you do not follow yourself, is all that I am getting at. Typos happen, particularly on a 10 inch laptop with tiny keys. Some of yours were blatant misspellings as well.

 

Shit happens. People type quickly and are lazy about it. I accept this and don't comment on other people’s bad grammar and spelling errors because I accept it as a reality of the internet.

I clearly misunderstood what being a leader means here. My understanding of leadership is that those in the place should be the brightest minds and the most well informed and well educated. Not necessarily college educated, but well read in the very least and understand grammatical consistency.

If you choose to represent yourself as an uneducated, lazy, unintelligent, non-leader, then why should those you wish to pull to your way of thinking think highly enough of you to follow you to the greener grassy null?

Just because someone believes in God does not mean that they are as uneducated and lazy as you claim to be yourself. 

Quote:
Don't take it so hard. Accept the comment as a light jab. If you can't laugh at yourself for committing the same error you just finished commenting on, then either don't comment on an error or don't commit it. I suggest learning to laugh at yourself.

I was laughing silently to myself. Until you called me a hypocrit. If you had not said it, I would not have gone on my little tirade.

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ugh, you're reading very

Ugh, you're reading very literally into everything I say.

Okay...

I didn't say that I wasn't intelligent. I tend to be very modest. I am not an expertise in any specific field. This 'jack of all' approach is appropriate for my line of work.

I was joking to a degree about uneducated and lazy. What I was trying to get at is that Web Administrator does not imply a leader. It should, however, imply a technologist of some form.

I am quite open to constructive criticism.

One thing that you lack is a clear understanding of leadership qualities and how to display them. For one, it should be noted that calling someone out in a public forum (of any type) regarding any kind of negativity is going to draw a defensive reaction. It loses all of its ability to act as constructive due to the nature of the delivery. A good leader will not demean the people they are attempting to lead by calling them out in public and focusing a highlighter on their error regardless of the size of the error. A good leader will notify the person of it in a private forum allowing the person to make the correction on their own allowing them take credit or avoid embarrassment from their mistakes. This is a very basic tenant of leadership qualities that you will discuss in any leadership courses / workshops.

Of course, I'm just a technologist, so what the hell do I know.


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote: Ugh,

Mr. Atheist wrote:

Ugh, you're reading very literally into everything I say.

Okay...

I didn't say that I wasn't intelligent. I tend to be very modest. I am not an expertise in any specific field. This 'jack of all' approach is appropriate for my line of work.

To say that you don't claim intelligence implies that you feel that you are not intelligent.  I can understand modesty, but being straight forward tends to work a little better on many things.

Quote:
I was joking to a degree about uneducated and lazy. What I was trying to get at is that Web Administrator does not imply a leader. It should, however, imply a technologist of some form.

Ah. 

Quote:
I am quite open to constructive criticism.

One thing that you lack is a clear understanding of leadership qualities and how to display them. For one, it should be noted that calling someone out in a public forum (of any type) regarding any kind of negativity is going to draw a defensive reaction. It loses all of its ability to act as constructive due to the nature of the delivery.

The intent regardless of its delivery was meant as non-negative constructive criticism. I apologize if I ruffled any feathers.

Quote:
A good leader will not demean the people they are attempting to lead by calling them out in public and focusing a highlighter on their error regardless of the size of the error. A good leader will notify the person of it in a private forum allowing the person to make the correction on their own allowing them take credit or avoid embarrassment from their mistakes. This is a very basic tenant of leadership qualities that you will discuss in any leadership courses / workshops.

 Of course, I'm just a technologist, so what the hell do I know.

Again, I want to make it clear that it [my criticism] was not meant to demean or devalue you, but to bring it to your attention based on what I thought you were [a leader].

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote: Ugh,

Mr. Atheist wrote:

Ugh, you're reading very literally into everything I say.

Okay...

I didn't say that I wasn't intelligent. I tend to be very modest. I am not an expertise in any specific field. This 'jack of all' approach is appropriate for my line of work.

I was joking to a degree about uneducated and lazy. What I was trying to get at is that Web Administrator does not imply a leader. It should, however, imply a technologist of some form.

I am quite open to constructive criticism.

One thing that you lack is a clear understanding of leadership qualities and how to display them. For one, it should be noted that calling someone out in a public forum (of any type) regarding any kind of negativity is going to draw a defensive reaction. It loses all of its ability to act as constructive due to the nature of the delivery. A good leader will not demean the people they are attempting to lead by calling them out in public and focusing a highlighter on their error regardless of the size of the error. A good leader will notify the person of it in a private forum allowing the person to make the correction on their own allowing them take credit or avoid embarrassment from their mistakes. This is a very basic tenant of leadership qualities that you will discuss in any leadership courses / workshops.

Of course, I'm just a technologist, so what the hell do I know.

 

I think your site fritzed. I lost it. But more or less I was nodding in some way shape or form, and didn't have anything tangible enough to say, ergo did not remember it when this thing died.     

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
S'all good...I don't ruffle

S'all good...I don't ruffle easily.  This is just talk.  Snide at times, but that's all.

Anyways, I'm glad you're here and determined to fight against organized religion. Just because I disagree with your assertion on your faith that doesn't mean I don't appreciate your efforts.

I'm quite capable of respecting people even if I disagree with them on some topics Eye-wink 


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Ah, alright. Then it's

Ah, alright. Then it's settled and all is good. When and if time permits, I may join you guys on stickam if it's even still a venue for all of you/us.

 

All I ask is that you all simply recognize my belief as something I'm not going to just stop. I'm not going to ask you all to acknowledge it, as I already know that'll never happen (and I'm ok with that), but just leave it be so that we can all go fight the good fight against religion.

What you do with folks once/if they've dropped organized religion is on your own time. I won't help you past that. 

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Leuthesius, I wasn't

Leuthesius,

I wasn't kidding about being happy you're here.  At this point I think it would be best for all of us if we moved forward and picked on the mutual enemy together.  We have a few people (wavefreak, cpt pineapple, one or two more) that are technically theists but also take stances against organized religion.  Every once in a while they disagree with us as well.  You should jump in, maybe even purposefully find some places to get your views out where all of us will be able to sit back and enjoy working together on all that you claim to want to work together on.  

Also, I've added the rare "agnostic deist" qualifier badge to your account.  This'll make it a little easier to get respect around here, or at least help give people a heads up, that you're not the typical fundy.  If you don't want the label, please just say so.

 Let's move on.  Cool?

- Brian 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I've even warmed to the

I've even warmed to the idea of leaving your 'ilk' alone in order to channel efforts against religion.

Zinger-Miller would put us at conflict level 3 which is supposed to be more productive than being either friends or enemies.

In the past and more than likely in the future, the willfully labeled 'fundamental atheists' like myself have and will have problems with even the mild concept of belief in god(s).

That might be something that YOU will need to get used to as well. Meeting halfway doesn't entail full tolerance in my opinion. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I can hang with Agnostic

I can hang with Agnostic Deists.  They're harmless as far as I can tell.


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:I've even

darth_josh wrote:

I've even warmed to the idea of leaving your 'ilk' alone in order to channel efforts against religion.

Zinger-Miller would put us at conflict level 3 which is supposed to be more productive than being either friends or enemies.

In the past and more than likely in the future, the willfully labeled 'fundamental atheists' like myself have and will have problems with even the mild concept of belief in god(s).

That might be something that YOU will need to get used to as well. Meeting halfway doesn't entail full tolerance in my opinion.

 

On the contrary, meeting half way is full tolerance. I have no problem with you, and actually have a better understanding of you than you possibly ever will of me (as a former atheist gone theist). I have no issue whatsoever with your beliefs, and will never criticize them in any tangible way.

You will simply have to accept me as I am.

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Leuthesius,I

Sapient wrote:

Leuthesius,

I wasn't kidding about being happy you're here. At this point I think it would be best for all of us if we moved forward and picked on the mutual enemy together. We have a few people (wavefreak, cpt pineapple, one or two more) that are technically theists but also take stances against organized religion. Every once in a while they disagree with us as well. You should jump in, maybe even purposefully find some places to get your views out where all of us will be able to sit back and enjoy working together on all that you claim to want to work together on.

Also, I've added the rare "agnostic deist" qualifier badge to your account. This'll make it a little easier to get respect around here, or at least help give people a heads up, that you're not the typical fundy. If you don't want the label, please just say so.

Let's move on. Cool?

- Brian

 

Cool.

I'm still not allowed in freethinkers anonymous am I? Thats one of my most enjoyed venues....

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Leuthesius wrote: Cool.I'm

Leuthesius wrote:
 

Cool.

I'm still not allowed in freethinkers anonymous am I? Thats one of my most enjoyed venues....

 

Sorry, no, still a theist.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Leuthesius, Let's take this

Leuthesius,

 

Let's take this relationship slower.  It's not you, it's me.  I'm not ready for that level of commitment yet. Sticking out tongue

 

You will not find the "mutual enemy" in freethinkers anonymous.  Give us some time, we'll re-look all of this in a while after we see more from you and after the craziness of all the site changes we're going through slows down a bit.  As for now, no anyone with a theist badge of any sort gets deleted by mods in freethinking anonymous.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:

Leuthesius,

 

Let's take this relationship slower.  It's not you, it's me.  I'm not ready for that level of commitment yet. Sticking out tongue

 

You will not find the "mutual enemy" in freethinkers anonymous.  Give us some time, we'll re-look all of this in a while after we see more from you and after the craziness of all the site changes we're going through slows down a bit.  As for now, no anyone with a theist badge of any sort gets deleted by mods in freethinking anonymous.

 

 

Maybe someday.

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Leuthesius wrote:On the

Leuthesius wrote:

On the contrary, meeting half way is full tolerance. I have no problem with you, and actually have a better understanding of you than you possibly ever will of me (as a former atheist gone theist). I have no issue whatsoever with your beliefs, and will never criticize them in any tangible way.

You will simply have to accept me as I am.

Most of us are religious gone agnostic theist gone atheists. Not dramatically different, just different conclusions.

And I always accept people for the way they are.  It is actually my stance that the argument against religion and the deterioration of it will not happen within our generation so this is not a fight so much to convince people to become atheists so much as prevent their children's children from becoming theists.  So I generally accept peoples faith as their faith as long as they don't push it on others and keep it out of politics.

In the short term, I see the winnable fights as being the one for secularism as well as the expansion of awareness to atheists that being atheist is fine, and to theists that atheists are numerous and not cohorts of satan.

There's a lot of ground here for working with theistic organizations as long as they are okay knowing that i think they are wrong and "capable" of being just as dangerous as the mainstream religions.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Leuthesius wrote:So, based

Leuthesius wrote:
So, based simply on the fact that I believe that God exists, you would as a group, throw me to the wolves on the prime issue? Little kids being told, practically by force, that "They Will Believe In Jesus And God Or Else They Will Burn In Hell For All Eternity"?

You would throw me to the wolves even though I agree that Religion does not belong in the classroom and that there is an explicit Seperation of Church and State?

Your questions are not just irrational, but off-the-wall. The dramatic "throw me to the wolves" doesn't really help. You're not a victim here. You believe something that is demonstrably non-existent, and you were told that's irrational. Because it is. No wolves, no tortured children, just one premise that is irrational.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Leuthesius wrote:Sapient

Leuthesius wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Leuthesius,

 

Let's take this relationship slower.  It's not you, it's me.  I'm not ready for that level of commitment yet. Sticking out tongue

 

You will not find the "mutual enemy" in freethinkers anonymous.  Give us some time, we'll re-look all of this in a while after we see more from you and after the craziness of all the site changes we're going through slows down a bit.  As for now, no anyone with a theist badge of any sort gets deleted by mods in freethinking anonymous.

 

 

Maybe someday.

 

HUH?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Leuthesius

Sapient wrote:

Leuthesius wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Leuthesius,

 

Let's take this relationship slower.  It's not you, it's me.  I'm not ready for that level of commitment yet. Sticking out tongue

 

You will not find the "mutual enemy" in freethinkers anonymous.  Give us some time, we'll re-look all of this in a while after we see more from you and after the craziness of all the site changes we're going through slows down a bit.  As for now, no anyone with a theist badge of any sort gets deleted by mods in freethinking anonymous.

 

 

Maybe someday.

 

HUH?

I believe he's saying "nuts".  I'm not clear if that's "nuts" as in "aw shucks" or nuts as in "you're crazy".