Is religion being picked on?

[Strange]

 

How do you know what is factual and what is not factual?

 

You look for independent corroboration. Someone claiming that have been attacked or insulted does not make it true. That is why we have courts of law, for example.

 

What claim in particular are you asking for supporting evidence?

 

Your repeated claim that the religious are being picked on by atheists. (Have you read the title of the thread and the posts by "Jagella"?)

 

One has to assume that the number of such attacks is in some way disproportionate or the motive is clear for some other reason, otherwise it would be indistinguishable from a random person X picking on random person Y where religion or lack of it plays no part.

 

It sounds like you are just being evasive now.

[Jagella]

Your repeated claim that the religious are being picked on by atheists. (Have you read the title of the thread and the posts by "Jagella"?)

 

That's easy enough. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

 

 

Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922-1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism–Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism–Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.

 

Not enough? The Library of Congress tells us:

 

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.

 

So there's the type of evidence you asked for. Strange, now you need to come up with some way to reject this evidence. You might try moving the goalpost by demanding evidence that has traits in addition to what you already posted. You can also try to attack the sources as not being credible. Finally, just say that my evidence is not in accord with "the facts" all the while not bothering to support your claim that you have the facts.

 

Jagella

[Strange]

So there's the type of evidence you asked for. Strange, now you need to come up with some way to reject this evidence.

 

No I don't. No one has denied that there are cases where people or organizations which are atheist attack the religious. However, there are also cases where atheists have been attacked by religious people or organizations. So you have only fulfilled half the brief. You have ignored the point about putting this in context. This is what is known as "cherry picking"; a highly dishonest activity.

 

"In 13 countries around the world, all of them Muslim, people who openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam face execution under the law, according to a detailed study issued on Tuesday."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE9B900G20131210

 

"Discrimination against atheists, both at present and historically, includes the persecution of those identifying themselves or labeled by others as atheists, as well as discrimination against them. As atheism can be defined in various ways, those discriminated against on the grounds of being atheists might not have been considered as such in a different time or place"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

 

I'm sure there are also cases where people who don't play football have attacked people who don't play chess.

 

In other words, you have not established that there is a significant problem caused by atheism. People and groups attack other people and groups. This is a sad fact of human life. You have not established that atheists are a bigger problem than any other group.

 

So it is still not clear why you are attacking atheists. (Apart from your own personal issues which you raised earlier.)

BTW that Wikipedia article has a longish list of religious groups that have been persecuted in the sidebar. A quick review of those suggest that in the vast majority of cases, this persecution has been by other religious groups. Not by atheists.

 

So why are you picking on atheists?

Edited November 6, 2015 by Strange

[Jagella]

In other words, you have not established that there is a significant problem caused by atheism. People and groups attack other people and groups. This is a sad fact of human life. You have not established that atheists are a bigger problem than any other group.

 

I have already posted that I don't know if there is a "significant problem caused by atheism." I'd suggest you review this thread and more carefully read what I've posted. You seem to read into what I say resulting in numerous straw-man arguments.

 

So why are you picking on atheists?

 

Don't you think that's a rather loaded question? (e.g. Why do you kick your dog?) I don't like what some atheists have done including what they've done to me. I prefer more honest, polite, and rational behavior.

 

Jagella

[dimreepr]

 

Don't you think that's a rather loaded question?

 

 

Not as loaded as your answer, bullies aren’t born they’re made.

[Strange]

I prefer more honest, polite, and rational behavior.

 

But only from atheists.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Strange

[Jagella]

 

But only from atheists.

 

Another textbook example of a straw-man argument. It's hard to defend what I never said. Better reading comprehension is sorely needed on this thread.

 

Jagella

[Strange]

 

Another textbook example of a straw-man argument.

 

What you said was: "Don't you think that's a rather loaded question? (e.g. Why do you kick your dog?) I don't like what some atheists have done including what they've done to me. I prefer more honest, polite, and rational behavior."

 

It certainly soudns as if you are demanding that atheists, specifically, should be more honest, polite, and rational.

 

So why aren't you insisting that everyone is more fair, polite, and rational?

 

Why pick on atheists? It hardly seems far or rational.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Strange

[dimreepr]

 

What you said was: "Don't you think that's a rather loaded question? (e.g. Why do you kick your dog?) I don't like what some atheists have done including what they've done to me. I prefer more honest, polite, and rational behavior."

 

It certainly soudns as if you are demanding that atheists, specifically, should be more honest, polite, and rational.

 

So why aren't you insisting that everyone is more fair, polite, and rational?

 

Why pick on atheists? It hardly seems far or rational.

 

 

A bully hates because he/she is taught to do so; if, for instance, the teacher is a man or atheist then all men or atheists are hated, dogs just happen to be an easier substitute/target.

[John Cuthber]

OK, what evidence will you accept that some atheists have harmed the religious? Do you promise to accept that evidence if I come up with it?

 

Jagella

Nope, that's not going to fly.

You moved the goal posts.

Nobody has denied that some atheists have harmed some religious people. that has been accepted all along.

But that's not what the topic is asking about.

It's not the irreligious picking on the religious- because for it to be that, they would have to do disproportionately or in the name of atheism.

So, to get anywhere like showing that religion is "picked on", you have to show that it's religion that's picked on, rather than a handful of people who happen to be religious who are picked on.

So do you actually have any evidence of that?

 

Where are the atheists picking on the theists?

(Please note that not all communists are atheists and not all atheists are communists so showing that communists picked on religion is not even close to the same as saying that atheists picked on theists.)

[Jagella]

 

So why aren't you insisting that everyone is more fair, polite, and rational?

 

I thought I already did say that everybody should be fair, polite, and rational. If not: Everybody should be fair, polite, and rational. All better?

 

Why pick on atheists? It hardly seems far or rational.

 

I will answer that question when you answer this one: Why do you cheat on your taxes?

 

Jagella

[iNow]

Religious youth exhibit fewer delinquent behaviors. Perhaps religion inhibits as many crimes as it induces.

I stipulate that is entirely possible, but posit (what I consider to be) a far more parsimonious explanation: Perhaps belonging to a nonviolent group of any kind as a youth facilitates more pro-social behaviors given the experience of community and reinforcement that comes from kinship. I suspect it just so happens that religion is the most common nonviolent group to which youth belong so it mistakenly receives the accolades for this outcome of lower delinquency. Edited November 6, 2015 by iNow

[swansont]

 

That's easy enough. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

 

 

Not enough? The Library of Congress tells us:

 

 

So there's the type of evidence you asked for. Strange, now you need to come up with some way to reject this evidence. You might try moving the goalpost by demanding evidence that has traits in addition to what you already posted. You can also try to attack the sources as not being credible. Finally, just say that my evidence is not in accord with "the facts" all the while not bothering to support your claim that you have the facts.

 

Jagella

 

I'll ask again what this has to do with the question "So is religion being unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought? Is any mention of gods automatically to be censored from scientific discourse?" Or the question of atheists persecution of Christians?

 

Do some governments persecute Christians? Yes, absolutely. Not all countries have religious freedom, so is this really surprising?

[Strange]

I thought I already did say that everybody should be fair, polite, and rational. If not: Everybody should be fair, polite, and rational.

 

I don't remember you saying that. But in that case, why have had to put up with eight pages of you repeatedly saying atheists should do this, that and the other?

[Jagella]

 

I don't remember you saying that. But in that case, why have had to put up with eight pages of you repeatedly saying atheists should do this, that and the other?

 

That's a very strange question. You don't know why atheists should be exhorted to act civilized? Is doing so an unfair burden? Is that what some people here mean by "picking on atheists."

 

In any case, I've already explained some of my negative experiences with some atheists. That's why I exhort them to be "good."

 

Just carefully read without prejudice what is posted That way you are more likely to understand the intended meaning of what is stated.

 

Jagella

[Phi for All]

 

That's a very strange question. You don't know why atheists should be exhorted to act civilized [MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE]?

 

I fixed that for you with big, bold brackets, so you wouldn't be strawmanning Strange, and because it's obvious you knew that's what he was really asking, since you're smart.

[overtone]

The majority of the atheistic people on this planet are religious.

 

Just something that seems to need mentioning, once in a while.

 

I'm kind of wondering how this fundie would describe his imaginary encounter with those rude and arrogant atheists, apparently the non-religious kind, back in those days when they used to be "religious" (meaning theistic, and one would assume Abrahamic monotheistic, since all these guys come from that tradition).

 

btw: I don't cheat on my taxes. Not a penny. It's not really a virtue - things are set up so it would be hard to do, and not worth it - but there it is. But that's an interesting tack from one of these guys.

Edited November 6, 2015 by overtone

[Arete]

I'm also wondering when "Your religion is pretty silly" became more offensive than "You'll suffer immeasurably for eternity for disagreeing with me on religion".

[John Cuthber]

 

I don't like what some atheists have done including what they've done to me.

 

Exactly what didn't you like and was it anything to do with the fact that they were atheists?

For example, could you have experienced the same issues with people from another faith or members of different branches of the same faith?

[Jagella]

Exactly what didn't you like and was it anything to do with the fact that they were atheists?

 

I already posted that i was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian. They ridiculed my faith.

 

For example, could you have experienced the same issues with people from another faith or members of different branches of the same faith?

 

Yes. My mother, a Roman Catholic, called me an "asshole" because I attended an Assembly of God church.

 

Religion is rough!

 

Jagella

[Phi for All]

 

I already posted that i was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian. They ridiculed my faith.

 

I'm not saying this is what happened, but is there a chance that these people, being atheists and hopefully rational thinkers, offered up reasons to support why they thought your faith was ridiculous (don't answer that yet, two-part question)? And you, being religious at the time and armed mostly with emotional appeals, doctrine full of contradictions and errors, and an abiding faith that absolutely won't allow you to be wrong about your religion, is there a chance you perceived that criticism as ridicule?

 

And because it's about your faith, it feels like it's about you. So here are these atheists, seemingly mocking you personally, but it might be that they were just using their knowledge of the natural world to explain where your doctrine failed the reality test, or to point out that strong faith means accepting a single explanation about a phenomenon without question even though you can't possibly know something like that.

 

Some folks believe in hundreds of gods, some in just one. Atheists think everything makes more sense with one fewer than that.

[John Cuthber]

 

I already posted that i was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian. They ridiculed my faith.

 

 

If you had told people that you believed there were fairies at the bottom of your garden, they would probably ridicule that idea too.

It's because the idea is ridiculous.

When they ridiculed your faith, did you explain to them that there were sound reasons for it, based on evidence?

If not, do you see why they might think that your faith in the the sky fairy/ invisible friend you called God deserved to be ridiculed?

 

What was picked on here wasn't religion but gullibility.

People criticise daft beliefs all the time.

Why should religious beliefs be exempt?

[puppypower]

 

I can only take your word for it about your dreams. I can also only take your word for it that your god exists. Therefore, in making decisions about my life, both are irrelevant at best.

 

I like the analogy though and would like to extend it to say god is naught but a dream some humans have.

 

I used the example of the dream as being a form of natural data that the brain generates. If we could get computers to spontaneously generate such content, it would be marveled at.

 

We all have had dreams to know such data does indeed exist. We also have all had dreams with unique content. Since this unique content is real ad may occur millions of times a night, but can't be proven in a scientific way, what is real millions of time is called irrelevant. This means data can be left out, so one can draw biased conclusions, called acceptable.

 

Psychology, is called soft science because it will make use of unique data and not stick its head in the sand, based on the philosophy of science. But since this is not fully by the book; repeatable, it is deemed soft science, meaning it used too much data and departs from the collective external data only bias.

 

Instead of a dream, say my unique data was a feeling of God. This data can also be real data. The best you get out of the philosophy of science will be soft science at best or irrelevant at worse.

 

 

Most atheists worldwide are religious in some way (Buddhist, Daoist, Animist, etc) . Are they among the "we atheists" who need to learn not to pick on "religion"?

 

 

This is a good observation. Not all religions have deities. There is no God in Buddhism, yet this is called a religion. God is not the common thread that defines a religion unless you use part data. There is something more fundamental with atheism a non-deity religion.

 

This religion angle could explain why a nativity scene to an atheist is like sunlight to a vampire. The nativity scene creates external data; object that is reproducible. The atheist religion needs to get rid of all the external data from its competitor, so what is left is only internal data, which can be denied.

 

What such atheists need to do is go up to a nativity scene and observed the internal things that it may trigger, knowing this data, although real, will be denied. They appear to get spooked by what they see and feel, yet the method is not applied to them. This is because the atheists only apply this to competing religions and not heir own godless religion.

Edited November 7, 2015 by puppypower

[Strange]

We all have had dreams to know such data does indeed exist. We also have all had dreams with unique content. Since this unique content is real ad may occur millions of times a night, but can't be proven in a scientific way, what is real millions of time is called irrelevant.

 

That can't be right. There is whole field of science devoted to the scientific study of dreams in a scientific way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneirology

 

 

There is something more fundamental with atheism a non-deity religion that denies data to support its own religion.

 

So you are saying that my indifference to football is a sport?

[Phi for All]

So you are saying that my indifference to football is a sport?

 

At this point, the misunderstanding of the perspective we've been explaining seems forced and purposeful. So many theists NEED atheism to be a religion, the way the miserable need company.