Religion

[Princess Artemis]

I agree with the statement of "arrogance" and would even open it up to a more broad scope of things. Religious theists say "We have no evidence for the existence of god. But there is a god. Not only that, it's our god! This god in this book and every other theist is wrong!" and then you get extremists who extend that arrogance as using their belief system to justify killings.

You believe someone having a different worldview than you is arrogance? Some people are not materialists, you know.

[Kelkelen]

I went to a Maundy Thursday service last night and the minister mentioned in his sermon that it was not clear if Jesus was actually celebrating the Last Supper on the day of the Passover or the day before. I think that's the first time I've heard a minister actually say that in a service and I like that he made us think.

 

I love Easter. Far more than Christmas, I think of it as the highlight of the church year. These last few days leading up to it are so dark (spiritually/emotionally) it makes the celebration even more wonderful.

 

Happy Passover to all who celebrate it, and Happy Easter to all who celebrate that!

 

Zombie comments aside, what do others think of the celebrations at this time of year?

I was raised Catholic, and now consider myself more broadly spiritual than adhering to any one religion, though I'm still kind of more-Catholic-than-anything-else.

 

I love both Christmas and Easter, in different ways. I think Easter is very special in the way that it's more internalized and personal. Christmas is both secular and spiritual, and I love how, where I live, it reaches out and encompasses everyone, whether that's through faith, through charity, through decorating houses, or whatever -- but I love how Easter is quiet. It's reflective, it's thoughtful, and if you've been observing Lent, Easter is really like waking up and attuning yourself to God and to the rebirth of the world in Spring. It's white and light and lilies and promise and hope. Christmas is love and family and contentment; Easter is transcendence and joy. It's the high point of the Christian spiritual year, and I know that in the years where I've focused more on prayer and reflection, I have really felt the significance of that. I also love that it doesn't omit or deny the basic, earth-based idea of death and rebirth, winter and spring, lying fallow and growth, reproduction and abundance. I enjoy that the ancient, non-Christian aspects of rabbits and eggs still survive culturally in Easter practices.

 

My family is American, of Italian, Slovak, and Russian descent. We have traditional holiday foods which I very much enjoy. I always loved doing the Easter baking alongside my mother, and the awareness that I was engaging in the same task as her mother and her mother's mother, all the way back. Since we don't "cook ethnic" all year long, those dishes are very special to me. We have paska, the sweet Easter bread; different areas bake it in different shapes, and my family's way is to make two braids of dough and lay them in a cross over the top of a round loaf. (On the Italian side, the Easter bread is similar, only colored and slightly flavored with saffron, and with raisins baked into it; also, the whole loaf is one big fat braid. We don't usually bake both breads, but on occasion, we have.) There's sidek, which is basically a little loaf of egg and milk, kind of like condensed scrambled eggs; kolach, which is a long pastry roll that's a spiral when cut in cross-section, and we usually fill it with walnut, apricot, poppyseed, or prune filling; kolachki, which are little cookies with the same fillings, but different ingredients -- shaped like little rolls or like pinwheels; kielbasi, a sausage, which we eat with hren, which is horseradish (either white and hot, or cut with beets and milder), and, of course, we dye hard-boiled eggs. There's the tradition of breaking the eggs, where one person says "Christ is risen!" and the other replies "Truly, he is risen!" and then you smash your eggs together.

 

My family also always did the Easter egg hunt with Easter candy hidden all around the living room and dining room of the house. Aaaaand, despite my siblings and I all being adults, we still do a candy hunt if our youngest cousin comes to visit!

 

I was a church organist when I was younger, and the Easter music in the Catholic church is some of my favorite. So triumphant, joyful, and hopeful! I'm really missing it this year, because I'm living abroad. Wish I could be with my family today!!

[KageSora]

You believe someone having a different worldview than you is arrogance? Some people are not materialists, you know.

I think (and I may be wrong, this is just what I read), from their post, they're not saying that having a different worldview is arrogant--but it's how you explain your worldview that makes you come off as arrogant. Implying that your worldview is the most correct and that others are WRONG and thus inferior is, in fact, arrogant. Simply holding your worldview while acknowledging others, even if you don't agree with them, is not--as long as you don't claim or imply (especially intentionally, though I understand that unintentionally it happens, too) that others are somehow inferior because yours is the only one that could hold any shred of truth and is thus vastly superior.

 

But, by that reasoning, each person is at least a little arrogant because they feel their views are most correct, because if other views were more correct surly they would hold those more correct views instead of intentionally clinging to views they themselves admit are incorrect and inferior? A little bit of arrogance is natural, and is perfectly understandable. It's when that arrogance starts causing you to refuse to admit that hey, maybe somebody else has a point and you could reconsider what you previously thought was the correct worldview that it becomes a problem.

 

 

For example, I feel that those who think "My view is the ONLY view that's even remotely correct, and that everybody else is just completely and utterly WRONG and has to convert to MY specific view (and hey, screw the other denominations--they're wrong too if they're not EXACTLY like mine! And even the other people in my denomination are wrong if they hold somewhat different views from me!) because otherwise they're WRONG! No, I don't have more proof than this old religious text, but it's totally 100% accurate and can't possibly have a different correct interpretation besides mine, and screw your evidence or "proof" that might disprove one of my views! And because I'm right, I can do anything I want, like kill you people who are totally in the wrong." are incredibly arrogant.

 

Of course, that's most definitely NOT how all religious (or non-religious people, as atheists can be every bit as arrogant as theists, since we're all human and arrogance is a human trait, not a religious trait) people think. Many are perfectly accepting of other worldviews, even if they don't believe those views are correct, they won't imply that a person is inferior for having those beliefs. Even if they view the beliefs as somewhat inferior, they aren't jerks about it. There's that little bit of arrogance that's inescapable in human nature, though their religion tells them that it's not arrogance, it's that they know the Truth.

[Princess Artemis]

KageSora, believing that one's own views are right is not arrogant. Please don't water down the word 'arrogant' by attempting to argue that every human is insolent in their pride and overbearing in their assumptions. Pretty much every human believes they are right about what they believe, but only a fraction are arrogant about it.

 

What I was pointing out was that Silens had chosen to describe religious theists in a way that is overwhelmingly negative...mostly, as it appears, because he doesn't agree with them. He posted that he believed the arrogant descriptor ought to be expanded to religious theists, up from people who believe the earth is young. Note that he did not say religious theists who say X, or religious theists that say X, which would limit it to only some of that category of people. He simply gave us his description of religious theists after saying that calling people who believe in a young earth 'arrogant' is too narrow.

 

So, yeah. I take issue with that.

[philpot123]

That actually sounds interesting, would you mind reporting back anything interesting they said?

Sure! I'll definitely be taking notes. It sounded like a pretty neat opportunity.

 

 

KageSora, believing that one's own views are right is not arrogant.

 

This. So much. As for me being arrogant, take what I believe for a second. I'm sure you all have gathered that I'm a bible-believing Christian. Taking my worldview at face value, I believe God exists and that He revealed Himself to us through His word. Now, that's what I believe with every fiber of my being, but that doesn't prove anything. However, the fact remains that I DO believe it, and whether you think it's because of ignorance or stupidity or misinformation or whatever doesn't matter, it's what I believe. Based on that, I believe God's word is true, and I have a burden to share it and apply its principles to my life. IF, hypothetical here, IF God really does exist, and the Bible really is His word, it would be arrogance on my part to assume that I could add or take anything away from what He gave me to work with. I'm not being arrogant by being consistent with my worldview, in fact just the opposite. If I'm to hold true to what I believe, to ascribe to anything beyond that which is scriptural would be arrogant, because I'd be presuming that I was more right than the God I claim to be Lord of the universe. If I'm arrogant for holding fast to my beliefs, than every single one of you are as well, because you would fight for your beliefs as strongly as I fight for mine when they're challenged.

[Silens]

KageSora, believing that one's own views are right is not arrogant. Please don't water down the word 'arrogant' by attempting to argue that every human is insolent in their pride and overbearing in their assumptions. Pretty much every human believes they are right about what they believe, but only a fraction are arrogant about it.

 

What I was pointing out was that Silens had chosen to describe religious theists in a way that is overwhelmingly negative...mostly, as it appears, because he doesn't agree with them. He posted that he believed the arrogant descriptor ought to be expanded to religious theists, up from people who believe the earth is young. Note that he did not say religious theists who say X, or religious theists that say X, which would limit it to only some of that category of people. He simply gave us his description of religious theists after saying that calling people who believe in a young earth 'arrogant' is too narrow.

 

So, yeah. I take issue with that.

I say theists, because the belief of a god is the main point of it. I say religious because you get theists who say they accept the possibility of any god but believe there must be at least one.

 

Not all religious people have a god.

Not all theistic people specify a particular god.

 

I'm an atheist agnostic. There's no proof for a god, so it is illogical to believe in one. If you can prove there's a god, I'll be embarrassed as hell but, as Tim Minchin says, "once I've recovered from the shock, I'll take a compass and carve 'fancy that' on the side of my c**k".

[Princess Artemis]

I say theists, because the belief of a god is the main point of it. I say religious because you get theists who say they accept the possibility of any god but believe there must be at least one.

 

Not all religious people have a god.

Not all theistic people specify a particular god.

None of this was actually confusing at all. It was understood that you were saying that religious theists are arrogant. That is what I had the problem with.

 

As I said, not all people are materialists. They do not require scientific proof of a god because their worldview allows for more than the material and so it is not illogical for them to believe in one.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Silens]

None of this was actually confusing at all.  It was understood that you were saying that religious theists are arrogant.  That is what I had the problem with.

 

As I said, not all people are materialists.  They do not require scientific proof of a god because their worldview allows for more than the material and so it is not illogical for them to believe in one.

It is illogical by definition. Opinion does not matter.

 

"il·log·i·cal/iˈläjikəl/

Adjective:

Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning: "an illogical fear".

Synonyms:

inconsequent - irrational - illegitimate - unreasonable"

 

It lacks clear, sound reasoning. Hearing god speak to you, or "feeling him" is not sound reasoning. You cannot empirically or logical prove the existence of god. You can't actually even have physical contact with him, and something which could be described as purely psychological to an individual is not valid proof of him. It doesn't matter how hard I believe in fairies, the evidence (or lack thereof) does not support the existence of fairies and in a mature context you shouldn't believe in fairies. But, again, I'm agnostic of fairies in the same I am agnostic of god. They're supernatural. There's no evidence for them, but heck I can't prove you wrong. Even if I came up with some way of measuring something that proved the non-existence of god, it's quite simple to say that he exists outside of those laws of the universe and still exists.

 

 

Side note: I refer to god as 'him' because I often have these discussions with Christians. Apologies to those who worship any goddesses (Some friends of the family do).

Edited April 8, 2012 by Silens

[St. Jimmy]

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/goth.htm

 

Someone please tell me this is a joke... sadly I can see it being totally serious. (Note: there's some pretty graphic images on the main site of cut up fetuses, in case you decide to look into this further.)

[Princess Artemis]

Silens, one can, with clear, sound reasoning, show a belief in something which is actually false by evidence. One can, with clear, sound reasoning, show a belief in something which cannot be proven with evidence either way. One can, with clear, sound reasoning, show belief in something which is true by evidence. It happens all the time in very mundane everyday life.

 

Can one empirically prove the existence of a god? No...not yet anyhow, given that I've heard quantum physics may explain the existence of souls (sorry, no links). But one can have a clear, sound reason to believe in one.

 

What one cannot do is prove scientifically the existence of something which is not, by definition, material (although as I've said, quantum physics studies some freaky stuff). It is not unreasonable or illogical to believe in something which cannot be scientifically observed. A good many people believe art exists, for example, that it's more than can be scientifically described about a piece of art. Things like that are not unreasonable or illogical to believe in just because science cannot observe them or quantify them. Other people, well, don't believe any of those things are more than science can observe for that very reason.

 

What one cannot do, is say that by definition, beliefs that disagree are arrogant. Well, one can, but when one does, one looses a good bit of credibility.

[philpot123]

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/goth.htm

 

Someone please tell me this is a joke... sadly I can see it being totally serious. (Note: there's some pretty graphic images on the main site of cut up fetuses, in case you decide to look into this further.)

Oh dear heavens. In case you haven't realized.... most Christians aren't like this. My favorite band is hardcore. Much heavier than... lol... Marilyn Manson... the lead singer has plugs, tattoos... and he's a pastor. There are certainly Christians who take positions like this, but it's not in any way representative of the whole. And that article almost sounds like it was written by a self absorbed 12 year old with no grammar skills or life experience...

[Rosedamai]

Oh dear heavens. In case you haven't realized.... most Christians aren't like this. My favorite band is hardcore. Much heavier than... lol... Marilyn Manson... the lead singer has plugs, tattoos... and he's a pastor. There are certainly Christians who take positions like this, but it's not in any way representative of the whole. And that article almost sounds like it was written by a self absorbed 12 year old with no grammar skills or life experience...

I agree with philpot, although I'm an atheist. Sadly, those that are the most "radical" (in my view-misguided) are often the ones that are most vocal, staining the public's views about them and basically spitting on the face of the whole community.

[KageSora]

KageSora, believing that one's own views are right is not arrogant.  Please don't water down the word 'arrogant' by attempting to argue that every human is insolent in their pride and overbearing in their assumptions.  Pretty much every human believes they are right about what they believe, but only a fraction are arrogant about it.

 

What I was pointing out was that Silens had chosen to describe religious theists in a way that is overwhelmingly negative...mostly, as it appears, because he doesn't agree with them.  He posted that he believed the arrogant descriptor ought to be expanded to religious theists, up from people who believe the earth is young.  Note that he did not say religious theists who say X, or religious theists that say X, which would limit it to only some of that category of people.  He simply gave us his description of religious theists after saying that calling people who believe in a young earth 'arrogant' is too narrow.

 

So, yeah.  I take issue with that.

I don't mean just "believing that you're right" (or even "believing that you're right and trying to convince others"), though looking back I see I didn't word what I wanted to say properly. I meant more "believing that you're right, and therefore your views are superior which makes you better/more important/etc." and then people acting in accordance with that supposed superiority that them being right makes them feel and in their words and actions indicating that they think themselves above those who do not follow their views. (Those who respectfully share their views and attempt to convert others, however, I don't see as arrogant--because they are being respectful, and not coming from the "I'm so superior to you, you should be grateful for what I'm trying to for you inferior people with offering you a chance to be equal to me by converting to my beliefs")

 

We're not all arrogant all the time of course, but most people have moments when they think something to the effect of "Wow, I'm glad I'm not that guy, I'm way smarter (aka better) because I'm right!" That may not be arrogant in action, but it is in thought--as long as we catch ourselves when we think this way, it's not really a problem unless we go through with actions that would cause harm under the idea that we're better because we're right. The problem comes when the extremists use that arrogant belief that their being "right" makes them superior to excuse cruel behavior.

 

 

Aaaaaand I still have the feeling that I'm not wording what I'm trying to say properly. Bah. I swear it makes sense in my head--it's the getting it to make sense in words that isn't working so well.

 

 

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/goth.htm

 

Someone please tell me this is a joke... sadly I can see it being totally serious. (Note: there's some pretty graphic images on the main site of cut up fetuses, in case you decide to look into this further.)

I've seen that site before, it never fails to make me cringe/want to cry/laugh. That entire site is kinda sad/funny/terrifying. Also, the design is just terrible. It looks horrible.

 

Not to mention all of the terrible "information" they're spreading. I just hope that anybody who looks at it realizes it's terrible just from the look! It reminds me of those crappy old GeoCities sites we all used to make back in jr. high because it was popular and it was the new fun thing to do. Man, those were terrible! Just like this site.

[Princess Artemis]

I think I get what you're saying KageSora. "I'm right and therefore better than you" is arrogant. "I'm right and let me help you be right too" is just...human : ) And yeah, we pretty well all have a flash of thought here and there which we ought not act on; hopefully when we do, and recognize it, we work on not doing it again. (Although it's not wrong to recognize being smarter if it's really true, so long as it's not a way of putting people down. Everyone's smarter than someone. Everyone is also stupider than someone. Realistic self-respect is important.)

[KageSora]

I think I get what you're saying KageSora.  "I'm right and therefore better than you" is arrogant.  "I'm right and let me help you be right too" is just...human : ) And yeah, we pretty well all have a flash of thought here and there which we ought not act on; hopefully when we do, and recognize it, we work on not doing it again.  (Although it's not wrong to recognize being smarter if it's really true, so long as it's not a way of putting people down.  Everyone's smarter than someone.  Everyone is also stupider than someone.  Realistic self-respect is important.)

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. Wish I could have figured it in so few words!

 

(And yes, I agree with that, too. It's quite possible to admit to being smarter than somebody or better than somebody in one (or even multiple) area(s), without being arrogant--you get to be arrogant when you start thinking that it means you're worth more as a person. Until that point, it's not arrogance.)

 

 

Also, hope those who celebrated it had a happy Easter! :3 (or are having a happy Easter, for those still celebrating it!) I did, found out my rather religious family is actually a lot more flexible than I thought, willing to accept that not every part of the Bible might be literal and that some parts might be just stories created to prove a point or that they may have been exaggerated to prove a point.

 

They just always came off as a lot more literal than that before. Happy discovery! (Since I'm one of the more liberal and least religious people in the family)

[philpot123]

So if "some" parts of the Bible "might" be stories or exaggerations... how do you decide what's real and what's not? O.o why even use the Bible anymore? When you start picking and choosing pieces of it, why use it instead of formulating your own beliefs completely independently from a book you believe to be outdated and erroneous? That's effectively what Benjamin Franklin did. He didn't agree with much of the Bible, and after deciding pure deism wasn't pragmatic, he just developed his own moral system separate from the Bible.

[7Deadly$ins]

So if "some" parts of the Bible "might" be stories or exaggerations... how do you decide what's real and what's not? O.o why even use the Bible anymore? When you start picking and choosing pieces of it, why use it instead of formulating your own beliefs completely independently from a book you believe to be outdated and erroneous? That's effectively what Benjamin Franklin did. He didn't agree with much of the Bible, and after deciding pure deism wasn't pragmatic, he just developed his own moral system separate from the Bible.

This is what I think. I'm an atheist -- I don't need anything else to define my morals for me.

[Princess Artemis]

Jesus spoke in parables. So, quite plainly, telling stories to make a point isn't outside the realm of possibility. Taking the Bible literally in every part is not how it was written. Song of Songs and the Psalms are poetry and songs. Reading a poem or a song as a history, for example, takes something away from them. Job is poetry; that doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it is reasonable that reading it literally might not be the best way to understand it.

 

What comes across as history likely should be taken as history. Begats are begats, there's no reason not to take them as being exactly what they say they are. Apocalyptic is a literary style so reading the apocalypses as mind-bending exercises in symbolism is the way to go.

 

I think plagues and miracles happened as stated, and I do believe God created the heavens and the earth, but I don't think that the creation story was quite meant to be read as a blow-by-blow history.

 

Happy Easter KageSora : ) My family doesn't really do anything for it. For the longest time though, I've wanted to celebrate Passover. I think that would mean more to me than Easter does, because to me, Easter is a day made up after the fact, kinda. Maybe I'll find a way to do Passover without feeling like I'm stepping all over Jewish toes someday.

[KageSora]

So if "some" parts of the Bible "might" be stories or exaggerations... how do you decide what's real and what's not? O.o why even use the Bible anymore? When you start picking and choosing pieces of it, why use it instead of formulating your own beliefs completely independently from a book you believe to be outdated and erroneous? That's effectively what Benjamin Franklin did. He didn't agree with much of the Bible, and after deciding pure deism wasn't pragmatic, he just developed his own moral system separate from the Bible.

Well, you go by what you think is reasonable. That's what accounts for all the different interpretations of the Bible, after all--I mean, if there was only one universal possible interpretation, we'd only have one denomination and there would never be any debate over it aside from what occurs between those who believe in what the Bible says and those who don't.

[philpot123]

Jesus spoke in parables.  So, quite plainly, telling stories to make a point isn't outside the realm of possibility.  Taking the Bible literally in every part is not how it was written.  Song of Songs and the Psalms are poetry and songs.  Reading a poem or a song as a history, for example, takes something away from them.  Job is poetry; that doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it is reasonable that reading it literally might not be the best way to understand it.

 

What comes across as history likely should be taken as history.  Begats are begats, there's no reason not to take them as being exactly what they say they are.  Apocalyptic is a literary style so reading the apocalypses as mind-bending exercises in symbolism is the way to go.

 

I think plagues and miracles happened as stated, and I do believe God created the heavens and the earth, but I don't think that the creation story was quite meant to be read as a blow-by-blow history.

 

Happy Easter KageSora : )  My family doesn't really do anything for it.  For the longest time though, I've wanted to celebrate Passover.  I think that would mean more to me than Easter does, because to me, Easter is a day made up after the fact, kinda.  Maybe I'll find a way to do Passover without feeling like I'm stepping all over Jewish toes someday.

Ahhh, okay, I get what you're saying. In that case, yes, I think it's plainly obvious that there are portions of the Bible meant as stories. Jesus' parables were not factual, clearly. And I would say much of the book of Revelation is figurative in relation to John's visions in heaven, but I personally hold to the eschatological view that much of it is literal and will take place, such as the two witnesses, mass conversions from the tribes of Israel, etc. There's obviously much difference between different thought circles about that, but everyone agrees there's a lot of figurative language there. But usually when people say "oh a lot of the Bible was figurative" it means rejecting a lot of foundations of faith, including the miracles of Jesus, death as a penalty for sin, Jesus' literal resurrection, etc.

 

As far as Genesis goes, I wouldn't have a problem with the creation story representing periods of time, but to me it's irreconcilable to the rest of scripture. If "God-guided" evolution took place, that places death before the Fall, and before sin, which completely turns the idea of death entering into the world through and as a penalty for sin on its head. I just can't fit that with my worldview.

 

Well, you go by what you think is reasonable. That's what accounts for all the different interpretations of the Bible, after all--I mean, if there was only one universal possible interpretation, we'd only have one denomination and there would never be any debate over it aside from what occurs between those who believe in what the Bible says and those who don't.

 

Right, but, obviously my way is best, and my denomination is the only right one.

 

KIDDING. /Is actually non-denominational.

 

But to me, ascribing to the Christian faith means ascribing to all of it. Picking and choosing pieces of the Bible to believe and disbelieve negates that. It completely ignores certain scriptures for the sake of what the individual thinks is right, purely based on feeling, which is a little different than minor doctrinal differences between denominations. For instance, arguing about whether or not baptism should be by sprinkling or immersion is not as large of a gap as arguing about whether or not Christ actually rose from the dead.

Edited April 9, 2012 by philpot123

[KageSora]

But to me, ascribing to the Christian faith means ascribing to all of it. Picking and choosing pieces of the Bible to believe and disbelieve negates that. It completely ignores certain scriptures for the sake of what the individual thinks is right, purely based on feeling, which is a little different than minor doctrinal differences between denominations. For instance, arguing about whether or not baptism should be by sprinkling or immersion is not as large of a gap as arguing about whether or not Christ actually rose from the dead.

It's not always only believing certain parts while ignoring the rest.

 

You can believe a part has meaning without taking it to be a literal account. It's not that you think some parts are fabricated and thus can be ignored. It's that while you read some things literally, you still take an important meaning from those parts you don't believe are literal. You take a metaphorical meaning from them that's spiritual, or you take them as teaching us a lesson through a fictional or somewhat exaggerated (but still based on reality) setting.

[Princess Artemis]

As far as Genesis goes, I wouldn't have a problem with the creation story representing periods of time, but to me it's irreconcilable to the rest of scripture. If "God-guided" evolution took place, that places death before the Fall, and before sin, which completely turns the idea of death entering into the world through and as a penalty for sin on its head. I just can't fit that with my worldview.

S'cool. To be very honest, I think there was a little of both going--special creation and 'directed' evolution. I don't have an issue with death existing pre-Fall, since in order to eat a plant, it has to die. I don't think the Fall brought death for fish, etc..

[TikindiDragon]

I don't mean just "believing that you're right" (or even "believing that you're right and trying to convince others"), though looking back I see I didn't word what I wanted to say properly. I meant more "believing that you're right, and therefore your views are superior which makes you better/more important/etc." and then people acting in accordance with that supposed superiority that them being right makes them feel and in their words and actions indicating that they think themselves above those who do not follow their views. (Those who respectfully share their views and attempt to convert others, however, I don't see as arrogant--because they are being respectful, and not coming from the "I'm so superior to you, you should be grateful for what I'm trying to for you inferior people with offering you a chance to be equal to me by converting to my beliefs")

You know it's sad - but most of the people I've met that have been like this have been Atheist. I've made a point of speaking to people of different denominations of Christianity, and different religions in general, and the vast majority are respectful about the whole business. The only ones that have ever left me coming away with the feeling they thought they were superior and/or that I was an idiot for not agreeing with them have been the Atheists. Certainly has never helped any of their points that they seem to think being rude about the divine one believes in is the way to stop that person believing in it.

[KageSora]

You know it's sad - but most of the people I've met that have been like this have been Atheist. I've made a point of speaking to people of different denominations of Christianity, and different religions in general, and the vast majority are respectful about the whole business. The only ones that have ever left me coming away with the feeling they thought they were superior and/or that I was an idiot for not agreeing with them have been the Atheists. Certainly has never helped any of their points that they seem to think being rude about the divine one believes in is the way to stop that person believing in it.

From what I see, it's generally the loudest Christians who cause such a reputation for the group (same for other religions), and they're by no means the majority (in general). But there are more atheists who behave that way, but I wonder if they behave that way in response to the expected behavior of the Christians who get the most attention for their loudness?

 

But really--being militantly atheist and attacking those who have religion is as likely to convert them to atheism as them attacking atheists and shoving their religion down atheist throats in an attempt to convert them. All it does is cause bad feelings all around, and gives the offending group a negative reputation... But I think the media likes to pay more attention to the crazy/rude/loud religious than the crazy/rude/loud non-religious...

[Kai]

Its just a sample bias. Atheists don't really have anything to say that isn't a negative. This is why you perceive more of them as rude etc. While Christians can talk all about what they do on Sunday, how can you talk about what you don't do on a Sunday? The only thing to do is to talk about how they don't agree with things, which people don't like to hear.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Kai