Why do you care?

[Innominate]

Bluepriest, using stereotypes and generalizing does not aid your cause. Atheists (I belong to that group as I have not found a religion which I can 100% fully believe in and stand for, and thus I choose not to be affiliated with any at all) are divided. Every single one of us is an individual, just as every single theist is an individual. The difference being that atheists do not have a shared base of faith (eg: All Christians worship Christ, all Hindus believe in karma) which would mean that generalizing would be even less accurate.

If you wish for respect, give it and you shall receive it? (This goes for both sides of course).

Religion is a delicate subject and often people try to argue and convince people with firm stances that will not budge in any way (once again, both sides). Personally, I believe that you don't have to agree with a persons stance but that does not mean that the person lacks valid points. If an argument gets too off topic, it might be because people try to find common ground, or try to avoid it

And lastly: It is the Internet. And we are on a mystical/fantasy game site, not Christian Science Monitor. So people here are probably less prone to theism.

Not to seem rude, but there does seem to be some conflict between the two sections I've underlined.

Also I think you've sort of missed the point Bluepriest is trying to make. Even in threads that are not remotely controversial, such as Jmizzle's thread about Christian musicians, there's always at least one person who comes into the thread, announces themselves as an atheist, and either starts an off-topic discussion or begins trying to disprove all religion.

Why is this? It seems like an unusual phenomenon and this isn't the only site I've noticed it at either.

You may not have noticed, but theists pretty much pioneered the "turn up somewhere and denounce whatever's happening" business. Some atheists are either insecure or just overly confrontational, but theists have been doing this as long as we've had theism.

The exact phenomenon you're talking about happens with the religious (once again, the insecure or confrontational) turning up at atheistic sites and threads. Religion and atheism both define themselves in opposition to what everyone else is ("I'm saved and you're not", "You're religious and I'm not", etc.) and so this tends to happen fairly often.

[BluePriest]

You may not have noticed, but theists pretty much pioneered the "turn up somewhere and denounce whatever's happening" business. Some atheists are either insecure or just overly confrontational, but theists have been doing this as long as we've had theism.

really? Show me this proof. Seems like an assumption, I honestly feel the opposite of that.
btw isnt that a stereotype?

Its a 2 sided coin, and just because it happens, doesnt mean it should.

[Innominate]

You may not have noticed, but theists pretty much pioneered the "turn up somewhere and denounce whatever's happening" business. Some atheists are either insecure or just overly confrontational, but theists have been doing this as long as we've had theism.

really? Show me this proof. Seems like an assumption, I honestly feel the opposite of that.
btw isnt that a stereotype?

Its a 2 sided coin, and just because it happens, doesnt mean it should.

I assume you've read the Bible? Do you remember all the stories where the various prophets went into towns and told the people that they were all sinners and deserved to be turned into pillars of salt? Or the stories where Jesus showed up the pharisees and both parties kept telling each other what to do? Almost the entire old testament is about the prophets telling other people how to act. Even after Jesus, the epistles and acts show the religious constantly telling others how they should behave. About the only relief from being told what to do is when God smites people or grants the Israelites victory in battle.

The Qur'an is the story of how Muhammed spent his lifetime telling people what to do (often, like the early Christian Romans and later the European Christians, by violence). From when he first hears the angel talking to him in a cave he is constantly telling others how to act, or taking over cities and imposing his will on them directly.

The Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Confucianists and practically every religion ever have all been part of theocracies. In most cases, the only thing that toppled the theocracy was the establishment of a new one of a different religion. Even without theocracy, missionaries from various religions have travelled around the world to tell people what to do (to their credit, in more recent times they have done aid work primarily). In the modern age, protesters of everything from stem cell research and abortion to the separation of church and state have overwhelmingly been religious. Religious organisations routinely interfere in the exercise of individual freedoms and the running of secular states.

It is difficult to find a religion whose proponents don't interfere with the lives of others on a regular basis. If you know of any, feel free to share.

[KyuubisSlave]

You may not have noticed, but theists pretty much pioneered the "turn up somewhere and denounce whatever's happening" business. Some atheists are either insecure or just overly confrontational, but theists have been doing this as long as we've had theism.

really? Show me this proof. Seems like an assumption, I honestly feel the opposite of that.
btw isnt that a stereotype?

Its a 2 sided coin, and just because it happens, doesnt mean it should.

I assume you've read the Bible? Do you remember all the stories where the various prophets went into towns and told the people that they were all sinners and deserved to be turned into pillars of salt? Or the stories where Jesus showed up the pharisees and both parties kept telling each other what to do? Almost the entire old testament is about the prophets telling other people how to act. Even after Jesus, the epistles and acts show the religious constantly telling others how they should behave. About the only relief from being told what to do is when God smites people or grants the Israelites victory in battle.

The Qur'an is the story of how Muhammed spent his lifetime telling people what to do (often, like the early Christian Romans and later the European Christians, by violence). From when he first hears the angel talking to him in a cave he is constantly telling others how to act, or taking over cities and imposing his will on them directly.

The Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Confucianists and practically every religion ever have all been part of theocracies. In most cases, the only thing that toppled the theocracy was the establishment of a new one of a different religion. Even without theocracy, missionaries from various religions have travelled around the world to tell people what to do (to their credit, in more recent times they have done aid work primarily). In the modern age, protesters of everything from stem cell research and abortion to the separation of church and state have overwhelmingly been religious. Religious organisations routinely interfere in the exercise of individual freedoms and the running of secular states.

It is difficult to find a religion whose proponents don't interfere with the lives of others on a regular basis. If you know of any, feel free to share.

well said

[Artois]

You may not have noticed, but theists pretty much pioneered the "turn up somewhere and denounce whatever's happening" business. Some atheists are either insecure or just overly confrontational, but theists have been doing this as long as we've had theism.

really? Show me this proof. Seems like an assumption, I honestly feel the opposite of that.
btw isnt that a stereotype?

Its a 2 sided coin, and just because it happens, doesnt mean it should.

I assume you've read the Bible? Do you remember all the stories where the various prophets went into towns and told the people that they were all sinners and deserved to be turned into pillars of salt? Or the stories where Jesus showed up the pharisees and both parties kept telling each other what to do? Almost the entire old testament is about the prophets telling other people how to act. Even after Jesus, the epistles and acts show the religious constantly telling others how they should behave. About the only relief from being told what to do is when God smites people or grants the Israelites victory in battle.

The Qur'an is the story of how Muhammed spent his lifetime telling people what to do (often, like the early Christian Romans and later the European Christians, by violence). From when he first hears the angel talking to him in a cave he is constantly telling others how to act, or taking over cities and imposing his will on them directly.

The Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Confucianists and practically every religion ever have all been part of theocracies. In most cases, the only thing that toppled the theocracy was the establishment of a new one of a different religion. Even without theocracy, missionaries from various religions have travelled around the world to tell people what to do (to their credit, in more recent times they have done aid work primarily). In the modern age, protesters of everything from stem cell research and abortion to the separation of church and state have overwhelmingly been religious. Religious organisations routinely interfere in the exercise of individual freedoms and the running of secular states.

It is difficult to find a religion whose proponents don't interfere with the lives of others on a regular basis. If you know of any, feel free to share.

well said

In a nutshell.

[BluePriest]

what you are doing brings me back to the original point. So is that why you care? Because God tells you what to do? What is it he tells you that you shouldnt do that you have a problem with? Murder? Stealing? Lieing? Adultery? Do you not like it that he says to love your neighbor?

[Innominate]

what you are doing brings me back to the original point. So is that why you care? Because God tells you what to do? What is it he tells you that you shouldnt do that you have a problem with? Murder? Stealing? Lieing? Adultery? Do you not like it that he says to love your neighbor?

I have no problem with the loving the neighbour stuff. It's the "eternal hell" bit that gets to me.

[BluePriest]

what you are doing brings me back to the original point. So is that why you care? Because God tells you what to do? What is it he tells you that you shouldnt do that you have a problem with? Murder? Stealing? Lieing? Adultery? Do you not like it that he says to love your neighbor?

I have no problem with the loving the neighbour stuff. It's the "eternal hell" bit that gets to me.

The part that we have a choice of if we want to go to heaven or hell, and you can choose hell if you want? Yeah, choices stink. Why cant God just either
A)Give no consequences for anything, and make us live in a life where we can do whatever we want, whether its kill or rape or whatever and get to go to heaven regardless
B)Become a galactic serial rapist and force us to love him so that theres no point in a hell.
That would make life death so much simpler.

[ratcharmer]

Okay, first off this is threatening to rapidly degrade into a mudslinging contest, which I don't think is what we're going for.

Secondly, allow me to suggest an analogy that may help both sides to understand what's going on here:

Suppose I'm at a party, and from across the room I see a friend of mine set her drink down for a moment and a shady looking character pours something into her drink. The room is crowded and by the time I can get close enough to talk to her, she's picked up the beverage and is about to drink it.

Now, I don't want my friend to come to harm, so rather than politely waiting for the opportune time to let her know she may be drinking a roofie, I smack the drink out of her hand. Generally this would be a very rude thing to do, and she probably won't be happy with me, but I would say it's inarguably the right thing to do under the circumstance.

But suppose for a moment I was wrong. Suppose the the guy I thought was so shady looking was actually the guy who was mixing the drinks, and he'd forgotten to add the lime juice to my friends drink? Was it still the right thing to do to knock it out of her hand? I would argue that it was.

Now apply this to the present discussion. There are two groups with opposing views, and each is convinced that the other is doing themselves great harm by following their beliefs. Responses between the two tend to get heated, not because of any inherent hate in either group, but out of desperation to try and "help" the other.

Does this sound like a reasonable explanation to both parties?

[BluePriest]

Okay, first off this is threatening to rapidly degrade into a mudslinging contest, which I don't think is what we're going for.

Secondly, allow me to suggest an analogy that may help both sides to understand what's going on here:

Suppose I'm at a party, and from across the room I see a friend of mine set her drink down for a moment and a shady looking character pours something into her drink. The room is crowded and by the time I can get close enough to talk to her, she's picked up the beverage and is about to drink it.

Now, I don't want my friend to come to harm, so rather than politely waiting for the opportune time to let her know she may be drinking a roofie, I smack the drink out of her hand. Generally this would be a very rude thing to do, and she probably won't be happy with me, but I would say it's inarguably the right thing to do under the circumstance.

But suppose for a moment I was wrong. Suppose the the guy I thought was so shady looking was actually the guy who was mixing the drinks, and he'd forgotten to add the lime juice to my friends drink? Was it still the right thing to do to knock it out of her hand? I would argue that it was.

Now apply this to the present discussion. There are two groups with opposing views, and each is convinced that the other is doing themselves great harm by following their beliefs. Responses between the two tend to get heated, not because of any inherent hate in either group, but out of desperation to try and "help" the other.

Does this sound like a reasonable explanation to both parties?

I like that example, and was going to use something similar to it if I thought of something and the opportunity presented itself (although, Ill definitly say that would have been better than anything I could come up with). The only thing Im curious about though, is how am I possibly causing myself great harm by following my beliefs?

[ratcharmer]

It's less important that you could actually come to harm due to your beliefs as it is that someone else genuinely believes that you could.

I have heard various hypothetical explanations of how leading a religious life is harmful, ranging the gauntlet from Marx's "opiate of the masses" to blaming religion for pretty much every war in recorded history. I personally don't believe any of these, and if someone wants to explain them I'll let that person do so rather than giving a biased account.

[johannhowitzer]

Couple minor things to add:

Ok, so it's just depressing ^^

Haha, Seddy, if you want depressing, read Ecclesiastes sometime.  I gave up long ago on trying to be an "original" thinker or writer or musician... now I just want to be an influential one.  As in I want to improve people's lives.

The only thing Im curious about though, is how am I possibly causing myself great harm by following my beliefs?

Those who believe religion is harmful to individuals usually talk about how it's keeping you back from learning about the world around you.  I don't believe that, though - an example often given is how Christian musicians tend to fall far short of the standard of excellence seen elsewhere, but I have little respect for most of the popular music scene because of the lack of artistic growth.  Like the guitarists everywhere who learn five chords, use a capo, and play background over screeching vocals.  I'm being an elitist, I know, but if you care about your music at all, you'll continue to learn.  I've been a pianist for 22 years and I just now picked up the violin and intend to improve to the point that I can play in an orchestra.  (Can you tell this is a pet peeve?  Sorry for the rant...)

Another example is that you might investigate scientific matters less thoroughly or honestly, but are you a scientist?  And even if you were, we have peer reviewing for a reason.

To boil that down, I don't see religion as an inhibitor to intellectual growth, and I trust you have common sense enough to avoid poisoning yourself with kool-aid just because someone in says so.  Religion in the past has only been harmful when men in positions of authority used it to control people.