Jump to content

Rude W*nkers I have met - Atheism & Religion in the Social Context 2


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Which one of you godless heathens will go to this baseball game tomorrow?

For one hot August night, the St. Paul Saints, a Minnesota minor league baseball team, will become the "Mr. Paul Aints" in a game sponsored by a local atheist group.

Dubbed "A Night of Unbelievable Fun," the Aug. 10 game against the Amarillo Sox will include an auction of players' special "Aints" jerseys, fireworks and a ceremonial first pitch by David Silverman, president of American Atheists.

The letter "S" in all Saints signs and logos around the stadium will be covered, and there are planned references to Big Foot, UFOs and other targets of the skeptical community, team officials said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of this sort of debate would be unnecessary if people just acted like they had some manners. I would never think of trying to tell someone what to believe or how to believe, or what not to believe. That's like asking how much money you make and who you're sleeping with. It's so rude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that TP's "wasted prayer" approach is not making a big deal out of it? If someone said that to me, I would think they were very rude.

Yeah, same here. That seems pretty rude to me unless the person is praying for you to not be damned in a snide or condescending way. If it's someone just saying "I hope God [Jesus or Allah] helps you through this" what's the harm? I'm not Christian [or Muslim] and I don't have a problem with that.

I find it strange people attribute all bad things to religion. Abolitionist movement was motivated by Christians right? The slave rebellion in Haiti was based around African animism, what was later called "Voodoo". Nonviolent rebellion for Indian independence was based around the Hindu concept of Ahimsa IIRC, and Civil Rights movement grew out the Black Church right?

The only thing I probably ever risked my future for was sit in against my uni using sweatshops to make apparel, and there were Catholics and Protestants and Pagans and what have you risking expulsion with me, all motivated by their religious beliefs.

In my Americorps stints just about everyone was religious in some vein, not just my school but all the Universities involved.

I get the feeling some people use "I not part of war starting religions" as a badge, like some religious people use "I'm a good Christian because I'm not gay nor am I pagan/Muslim/Hindu/whatever".

It's just an excuse for morality of absence, where you don't help people but stroke your ego [for not being something]. Goes back to the wanker is a wanker rule I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS. If you are a Tea Partier who has just lost his job and I say "I hope the government gets you through this", he'd probably punch me before shooting me with a bullet made out of scraps of his shredded up welfare check.

Some people find it aggravating to be presented with reminders of stuff they dont believe in, even if it was done sans malice. I'd probably shrug it off in most cases though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@I<3Telsa: I hope Vishnu invites you into the sea of milk, lets you sleep upon the coils of Shesha, and helps you see the error of your ways. ;-)

eta: I'm curious to see how many boarders want to talk about how illogical/stupid/whatever they find the above statement that billion of people would have little to no problem with.

Or do you only get Liberal Points - used towards gear and drinks at participating establishments - for shitting on Christianity as a whole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, same here. That seems pretty rude to me unless the person is praying for you to not be damned in a snide or condescending way. If it's someone just saying "I hope God [Jesus or Allah] helps you through this" what's the harm? I'm not Christian [or Muslim] and I don't have a problem with that.

It's rude because the believer is making it about him/herself, and disrespecting the atheist's beliefs. Ego stroke, just as you continually been accusing atheists of all thread. You keep trotting that out and its making you seem like a wanker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's rude because the believer is making it about him/herself, and disrespecting the atheist's beliefs. Ego stroke, just as you continually been accusing atheists of all thread. You keep trotting that out and its making you seem like a wanker.

Mate, that's 'cause I AM a wanker.

eta:

Ego stroke, just as you continually been accusing some atheists of all thread.

FYP. Don't take it to heart if it doesn't apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... I would say that mainstream Christians (again, not fundamentalists) do not ascribe to the only speak to me at home, woman version of things. ...

Last time I noticed, mainstream Christianity was the Catholic Church. Given that they don't allow women priests and that they think that women should be subservient to their husbands and that the purpose of sex is child bearing, I think they are in pretty close agreement with Paul's views on women.

(Of course in developed countries they are forced to ignore leanings toward more equalitist views. But that does not mean that their hierarchy is happy about it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's rude because the believer is making it about him/herself, and disrespecting the atheist's beliefs. Ego stroke, just as you continually been accusing atheists of all thread. You keep trotting that out and its making you seem like a wanker.

From my atheist POV, it doesen't matter: They're praying to nothing, so they're just expressing a vague sense of good will.

From a religious POV though they're actually seeking intercession on your behalf by the Divine. Whether or not you believe or not is irrelevant since God Exists.

sea of milk

Wouldn't that get really messy and sticky?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I noticed, mainstream Christianity was the Catholic Church. Given that they don't allow women priests and that they think that women should be subservient to their husbands and that the purpose of sex is child bearing, I think they are in pretty close agreement with Paul's views on women.

(Of course in developed countries they are forced to ignore leanings toward more equalitist views. But that does not mean that their hierarchy is happy about it.)

I do not agree with women not being allowed to be priests. Mainstream Catholics use birth control. Mainstream Catholic women are not subservient. In developed countries they are not "forced to ignore leanings toward more" egaliterian views. At least in America there is separation between church and state. One doesn't tell the other what to do. There are religious fanatics that include stupid things in party platforms that may be considered religious in nature. People who vote on one issue are stupid, and not mainstream. I don't know what you are talking about. No one shuts me up, dear. Religious traditions change with times as do languages and culture. Get over it. It you don't like it, stay out of it. No problem here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Ok. Paul was a man. If you are hung up on language from a thousand years ago, written in Aramaic, translated to Greek, then to Latin, transcribed into English five hundred years ago, then no problem. I have problems with people who pick one passage of the Bible or other text and focus on that exclusively. That literal use of small parts of religious text is not my philosophy and I find it dangerous in some instances. I would say that mainstream Christians (again, not fundamentalists) do not ascribe to the only speak to me at home, woman version of things. Sadly, we will find misogynistic practices in all fundamentalist religions today.

Those passages in Timothy and Corinthians are the precise basis for the prohibition against women priests in the Catholic Church. 24% of all Christians in the United States are Roman Catholics. 26.3% are Evangelicals. Evangelicals might not say that women are lesser, but the majority would say that the role of women and the men in church is different, and that the role of women does not include leadership and/or many teaching positions. This is also based on those same passages.

I can't help it if the majority of Christians in the United States believe certain things about the role of women primarily because of those two verses. That's not some devious strategy on my part to defame Christianity. I understand being an exception to the rule, and I'm sure it can be frustrating, but the majority of people in this country practicing the religion you practice believe that your God holds that women cannot lead men. As such, I don't really want anything to do with your God. I think that's a pretty reasonable position. If you find other meaning there and can get around that personally, that is 100% great. I don't have any problem with you finding meaning in and believing whatever you want to, and I hope you manage to reform Christianity's understanding of what God thinks about women. But until then, surely you can respect my objection?

ETA: The mainstream Catholic divergence from its leadership is puzzling to me. I mean, the Pope says women cannot be priests. The whole reason you are Catholic concerns your beliefs about the received wisdom of the Pope. At least, this is why everyone else isn't Catholic. If you think the Pope is wrong, how can you have any faith in Catholicism??? I'll never understand it. And it's too bad - if Catholics actually tried to make Catholicism align in its teachings to a religion any of you actually believe in, you might have something there.

I'm also pretty sure I'm not an extremist. I don't think Bai is either. I don't understand how that became part of the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If some white dude moved to India and posted here about being sick of seeing all the temples/mosques and people watching Mahabharat (yes I know it's been years) at the train station and felt ill when people had Hindu/Muslim iconography on their person....

We'd see very different responses. Probably along the lines of "If you don't like it, move, you whiny crybaby."

I've seen people rail against Christianity but have nothing to say about Islam though things like damnation of unbelievers, treatment of women are comparable when looking at extremists.

Likely because the high of condmenation isn't present when attacking a religion you have no personal history with. It's the whole fighting for your tribe feeling when utilizing shaming tactics attacking the intelligence and reasoning of others.

As such, I don't really want anything to do with your God.

What you're really saying is you don't want anything to do with an organizaton that ascribes these characteristics to God. By saying "your God", you're unfairly saying Baitac is kneeling before a deity that has characteristics that she doesn't believe He possesses.

To me this is like saying to a Muslim "Your God celebrates 9/11".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my Americorps stints just about everyone was religious in some vein, not just my school but all the Universities involved.

I've been involved in outreach programs since 2009 (at a local jail) and 95% of the volunteers are Christian. They're our best pool of volunteers because they make an effort to give their time. I rarely see non-Christians ask what they can do for our community project. Rarely. It's sad, really, because the inmates don't always want something religious-based. Our program is the only non-secular program at the moment and we have a waiting list - have to turn people away.

It's kind of why I cringed at the whole chick-fil-a meme saying "hey, if you all cared about chicken this much, you'd help feed the homeless and volunteer more."

Thing is, Christians do volunteer a lot. A fuggin' lot. More than any atheist/agnostic or other group combined, so I found that nonsense kind of shitty.

I'd love to see more "non believers" volunteer. We need programs that don't offer a way to "pray away" these peoples' difficulties (computer classes, GED glasses, etc.). But, the numbers aren't there. They're never there. So, getting back round to your comment about Americorps . . . (always want to type AmericorpsE for some reason, haha), well, it's a service program. I'm not surprised that most people are involved in religion.

On the other hand, I was one of the few non-Christian volunteers when I was in the direct service program and I did feel like I had to keep it to myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If some white dude moved to India and posted here about being sick of seeing all the temples/mosques and people watching Mahabharat (yes I know it's been years) at the train station and felt ill when people had Hindu/Muslim iconography on their person....

Ah, but we're not talking about some Asian dude moving to the US posting about being sick of Christian symbols. The atheist posting in this thread have all (or at least most of them) grown up in a more or less Christian nation.

I'd love to see more "non believers" volunteer.

What an odd statement. Doesn't seem to be a dearth of volunteers for non-religious charities where I come from. Might it just be that where you live, the Christian charities have established a sort of monopoly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, Christians do volunteer a lot. A fuggin' lot. More than any atheist/agnostic or other group combined, so I found that nonsense kind of shitty.

On the other hand, I was one of the few non-Christian volunteers when I was in the direct service program and I did feel like I had to keep it to myself.

Just a thought, but it might have to do with the fact that all the atheists/agnostics in the US combined are far far fewer than the number of Christians. And then when you have small groups such as volunteers at charities, the statistical probability of small subsets of population not being represented in that group increases dramatically.

I dont donate much time and prefer to give money to charity, and almost all of them are religious in nature. I already feel uncomfortable with the letters I get from them that talk about god, so I'd imagine the barrier for other secularists like myself to actually join such organizations would be high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but we're not talking about some Asian dude moving to the US posting about being sick of Christian symbols. The atheist posting in this thread have all (or at least most of them) grown up in a more or less Christian nation.

So if a white dude grows up in India, its okay for him to say he's sick of all the Hindu/Muslim stuff around him?

I guess I'd find it instinctually offensive, but wouldn't mind it as much if at all if the person was one of us brown folk. Not sure it that's hypocrisy hypocritical or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If some white dude moved to India and posted here about being sick of seeing all the temples/mosques and people watching Mahabharat (yes I know it's been years) at the train station and felt ill when people had Hindu/Muslim iconography on their person....

This analogy fails. A white dude voluntarily moving to India and bitching about Hinduism is not the same as a white dude being involuntarily born in America and bitching about Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...