Customer Discussions > Religion forum

A Provactive Question About Atheism.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 763 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 15, 2013 8:41:27 PM PST
MMX says:
If religious people are oppressive, dishonorable, and/or annoying for trying to impose their religious beliefs on to everyone else, are atheists oppressive, dishonorable, and/or annoying for trying to impose their religious doubts on to everyone else?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 8:47:56 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 9:07:49 PM PST
'probabilist says:
[A Provocative Question About Atheism.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 9:09:30 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 15, 2013 9:10:52 PM PST
'probabilist says:
MMX asked:

> If religious people are oppressive, dishonorable, and/or annoying
> for trying to impose their religious beliefs onto everyone else,
> are atheists oppressive, dishonorable, and/or annoying
> for trying to impose their religious doubts onto everyone else?

Perhaps it all depends upon whose ox is being gored at the moment?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 11:04:27 PM PST
Yes, it sure is a 'provactive' spelling of the word! It provacted me to ignore the question entirely!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 3:58:09 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 16, 2013 4:45:10 AM PST
prob, Yes -and which Ox is doing the Goring...

Still, MMX poses a fair question and i'm not sure we can have it both ways. Of course it's probably not the case that most religious or unreligious people are " oppressive, dishonorable, annoying " - and i'll add bigoted - againest those who don't share their POV.

On the other hand clearly there are people on either side of the
God{s} /religion cotroversy that are all these unpleasent things and many more and that list could include folks like Jehovah {sic} Moses, the Prophets, Jesus and Paul { at times} , numerous Popes, Luther,Mohammed, most Televangelists, Francis Bacon,Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hitch, Colbert and whoever said:

"There are no atheists in foxholes" isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
or

"Religion was invented when the first Charlatan met the first fool"
{ probably both Twain and Voltaire } -and that's not even a partial list of hardcore Yay and Nay sayers - all of them patetnly annoying to their opponents...

So, to return to the question - it's not just hardcore atheists or Bible nuts that are obnoxious, oppressive and intolerant but pretty much anyone who presumes that certain knowledge is attainable and that they themselves{ with or without divine assistance} have attained more of it than those who question or reject their poetic or noetic mania.

So in answer to MXX's question, YES !
Certainly some atheists
{ excessively represented on this forum} are as certain and as obnoxious with their rationalized disbeliefs { or Scientific Fundamentalism} as some religious people
{ also over-represented here} are with their noetic /Biblical certainties, Faith or Beliefs .
And why not face it -one way or another - nearly everyone has at least a few dishonorable or obnoxious inclinations - even Prophets,Kings, Generals and El Presidente's.
It was ever thus.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 4:05:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 17, 2013 3:56:37 AM PST
Lao Tzu says:
Hi MMX

You are trying to turn a truth claim into a matter of mere opinion. If I like horror movies, and you like romantic comedies, and I run around denigrating you, and writing hollywood to tell them to stop making romantic comedies, you would tell me I am overwrought, and if I don't like romantic comedies, to simply not watch them.

Religious people however, are making truth claims about cosmology, physics, epistemology, ethics, politics, psychology, biology, paleontology, and many other disciplines.

For this reason they should be fought with some zeal. I would like to see the human race shed this infantile philosophy, both for their sake and mine.

And also MMX, I never got the impression you were a "strong" Christian. Are you just arguing for the sake of it?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 5:38:09 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 16, 2013 12:09:40 PM PST
Lao Tzu says: You are trying to turn a truth claim into a matter of mere opinion"

But what you are saying is contingent on the opinion that the distinction between matters of truth and those of opinion isn't just a matter of metaphysical { or epistemological } taste where in fact the only quantifiable consideration is between the " truth status" of collective and individual experience.
Nietzsche doesn't share your opinion on this mutually exclusive distinction - with romantic comedies over here and " cosmology, physics, epistemology, ethics, politics, psychology, biology, paleontology...over there - and neither do Oscar Wilde or even Neils Bohr for that matter:

" The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth

" Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."
" When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images."

Niels Bohr

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 5:52:56 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
Lao Tzu to MMX: "Are you just arguing for the sake of it?"

Good call.

Posted on Feb 16, 2013 6:06:08 AM PST
S. Schoby says:
The answer is simple the preponderance of historical examples gives enough evidence of harm done to others in the name of self holy righteousness ,Of course not leaving out the original post as yet another endless example.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 6:56:39 AM PST
Mark Hubbell says:
I believe MMX makes a good point.

That said, what I wish we could find more of in the Religion forum is discussion of questions in a winsome manner. The name calling and denigration of contributors, their faith (or lack of it), or their positions undermines the value of the forum.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 7:11:18 AM PST
G. Heron says:
MMX

You mention atheists imposing their religious doubts on others but do not all followers of religions doubt al the other religions?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 7:18:26 AM PST
Yes, other people sure are annoying!

So, I say, let's get rid of them! Every last one. There should be no one on earth, besides me--or, at the very least, no one who doesn't think precisely as I do! Differences of opinion are SO annoying!

Just a minute... I had a thought. Wasn't religion supposed to be the cure for all that? Make us all love one another?

Yeah, I heard that somewhere. I can't quite remember the guy's name, though. Jim? Jenson? Something with a j...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 9:23:18 AM PST
mark says:
I will say no, unless you exchange "religious doubts" for "non-religious beliefs", in which case, I will say yes.

Hint: true analytic/possible synthetic dichotomy rears its beautifully reasonable head.

Giggle if you don't see it.

Peace.

Posted on Feb 16, 2013 9:36:42 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 16, 2013 9:47:38 AM PST
D. Thomas says:
A provocative question about misspelled and garbled OPs: Why don't we just f'ing ignore them?

Or, better yet, Amazon should give the Original Poster the opportunity to make corrections before the sixth reply has been posted.

It is annoying as hell to be constantly confronted with stuff like "provactive" and uncapitalized proper nouns, especially those referring to religious and ethnic groups. Dictionary.com, folks!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 9:48:42 AM PST
D. Thomas says:
Imposing? What do you mean by "imposing"?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 4:28:52 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 16, 2013 5:06:24 PM PST
MMX says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 4:31:59 PM PST
MMX says:
S. Schoby: "The answer is simple the preponderance of historical examples gives enough evidence of harm done to others in the name of self holy righteousness."

MMX: A thought experiment.

Let's examine two alien species on the planet Neptune. The first species, "the Elders", has been around for 95% of Neptune's evolutionary history, whereas the second species "the Youngers", has only been around for 45%.

Given this imbalance of time, doesn't any argument which states, "When you look at the total history of both groups, the fact that the Elders have done damage for a longer period of time indicate that they're more evil.", suffer from flawed methodology?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 4:35:12 PM PST
MMX says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 4:36:29 PM PST
whomper yes

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 4:37:35 PM PST
MMX says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 4:39:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 16, 2013 5:05:48 PM PST
MMX says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 4:56:22 PM PST
MMX says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2013 4:00:33 AM PST
Lao Tzu says:
Niels Bohr says: " The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth

Lao says: Not if you state the context, which is essential to a truth claim.

Lao: 1, Neils Bohr: 0

No, I refuse to have a physics contest with him, I'm....I'm busy right now. :D

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2013 4:10:37 AM PST
MMX - "trying to impose their religious beliefs on to everyone else"

Depends on what you mean by "impose." Attempting to persuade is not, to me, an imposition. Trying to take over the government so you can craft laws more in guidance with your supposedly infallible holy text (by which I mean, your putatively infallible interpretation of what God 'really' meant, per your interpretation of said holy text) is a different matter. Regarding the imposing of doubt, I don't consider my doubt in God to be qualitatively different than my doubt in telepathy or dowsing. Taken to this extreme, any effort to persuade anyone of anything would be "oppressive." So I'd say no, unless you've loaded your terms to such an extent that they preclude any disagreement on any subject whatsoever.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 31 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  56
Total posts:  763
Initial post:  Feb 15, 2013
Latest post:  Apr 15, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions