They are not all bad I suppose

[KarlD]

We had mormons or seventh day eventists on the door step again and I hate these people with a passion with their swivelly eyes setting out to 'save' people, but I do know decent people who are what i would call christian depite the fact that I don't share their faith, one guy is a minister in some church, possibly the cleverest guy I know, not really a people person but he never mentions his faith, doesn't shove it down your throat, just gets on with whatever he does.The other guy goes out and does soup kitchens and roams the streets at night helping homeless people find shelter and works with drug centers and all the rest of it, never says a word about it, gets on with it and you wouldn't know about his faith unless he chooses to tell you.
It just reminds me of a passage in the bible about beware the guys with the conspicious praying on the street and God having a special punishment in store for them.

 

[Stormkhan]

It's surely good to judge a person by their actions rather than their declared faith.

 

[PeniG]

As my Methodist mother taught me long ago, no group of people can be comfortably labeled as "all bad."

Well, maybe serial killers. All generalizations are false.

And most of the folks whom people with a prejudice against Christians cite as evidence are - like the folks cited as evidence by people with any other prejudice - either the extreme, or ordinary thoughtless people whose thoughtlessness is mistaken for malice. Whatever you've got in your heart is a natural topic of conversation. But bear in mind what one of my childhood ministers said: "There's two kinds of talkative Christians: those who like to talk about how much God loves them, and those who like to talk about how much they love God." The first is full of gratitude and humility; the second - well, isn't.

 

[KarlD]

As my Methodist mother taught me long ago, no group of people can be comfortably labeled as "all bad."

Well, maybe serial killers. All generalizations are false.

And most of the folks whom people with a prejudice against Christians cite as evidence are - like the folks cited as evidence by people with any other prejudice - either the extreme, or ordinary thoughtless people whose thoughtlessness is mistaken for malice. Whatever you've got in your heart is a natural topic of conversation. But bear in mind what one of my childhood ministers said: "There's two kinds of talkative Christians: those who like to talk about how much God loves them, and those who like to talk about how much they love God." The first is full of gratitude and humility; the second - well, isn't.

There is actualy a third type, ones who are intelligent enough to not talk about god to people who don't want to know , they make the assumption that actions talk louder than words and most people with any sense have made their own minds up about what they believe.

 

[PeniG]

I said two types of talkative Christians.

And you don't know why untalkative Christians aren't talkative on the subject. For some it's too personal to expose to the hostility and argument that they're likely to get from people who disagree with them, including other Christians with differing interpretations.

 

[KarlD]

I said two types of talkative Christians.

And you don't know why untalkative Christians aren't talkative on the subject. For some it's too personal to expose to the hostility and argument that they're likely to get from people who disagree with them, including other Christians with differing interpretations.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, the reason people are hostile towards talkative christians is that they know what they believe and being bullied by some hectoring zeolot is simply going to drive them into a more hostile attitude.

 

[PeniG]

But not every talkative Christian is like that, and you being rude to them preemptively makes things worse.

If you should ever meet my mother the ex-minister, to whom religious subjects are just one more normal topic of conversation and who is not proselytizing just because she uses the word "Jesus" or refers to "the Kingdom," I will expect you to behave better than that. Wait until somebody gives you a cause to be offended before you get all huffy, please.

We don't learn much in conversations with people we agree with, after all.

 

[KarlD]

I wouldn't dream of insulting your mother but like a lot of people I find that anyone who talks about god or jesus even in everyday settings gets my back up.Its just the way I and a lot of other people are.

 

[PeniG]

So they have to put up with the way you are, but you don't have to put up with the way they are?

My mother wouldn't dream of insulting you, either, but if Jesus came up in a conversation she was having with you, and you reacted to her in a spirit consistent with the one that founded this thread, you would both insult each other. And the fault would be yours, because you're the one going into the conversation with the attitude that a certain topic is not a legitimate one and cannot be discussed cordially. Unless you're wearing a t-shirt that says: "Don't talk to me about Jesus," she had no way of knowing you had such a topic, or what it was.

If you read a thread talking about how not all blacks, or all Jews, or all Scots, or all gays, or all athiests or vegetarians or roleplaying gamers or fat people or blondes or any definable group, were all bad; and the examples of "good ones" cited were of ones who "knew their place" and went about their business quietly, not flaunting it or insisting on being treated with respect, how would you react?

I'm pushing 50. I live in the southern half of the US. I've seen this so many times I could weep. It's an ugly thing. But it's a thing that can be overcome with a little self-awareness.

And if I have to make myself obnoxious by pointing that out, well, so be it. The alternative is keeping my mouth shut and tacitly betraying my mom, and my husband, and my sister, and my niece, and the gay Christians I've known, and the nice nun in my advanced German class, and all the other Christians you expect to feel grateful when you single them out as exceptions.

 

[segovius]

People who think they are right and have no interest in other people's opinions whilst claiming to always hack other people off.

We used to just have to deal with this from the religious and political nutters...used to be ok..take one out with each hand. Life goes on.

Now we have atheist nutters attacking from the rear. Can't fight all three. It's over. They finally did it - reached critical moronic mass. Somehow they elevated moronicism to a desirable brand. Not an art-form - that was from when the rationalists had a say. Now an 'artform' is a cool logo or a celeb with massive gazungas.

The barbarians aren't at the gate anymore...they are drinking your whisky, smoking your cigarettes and shagging your wife on the pine kitchen table you bought for a bargain at the bootfair....

 

[Peripart]

The barbarians aren't at the gate anymore...they are drinking your whisky, smoking your cigarettes and shagging your wife on the pine kitchen table you bought for a bargain at the bootfair...

... and very often, talking intolerant crap in internets forums.

 

[segovius]

Yeah...I always avoid forums for that reason.

Used to be one called "Fortean Times" or some such that was immune to the dumbing down for a long time.....then it got to be at the vanguard of the New Ideal.

I wonder what happened to it?? Glory days......

 

[Dingo667]

I don't mind when religious people talk about their belief. As a matter of fact I always listen very closely and try to see it from their point of view. What gets up my nose [and everyone else who is a "normal" :? atheist or without putting a label on; a person who doesn't believe in gods] is when religious people, try and convince you that their way should be tried by you.
"I'm not preaching but I am so happy now, you should give it a try."
No I won't, I have educated myself enough to know what I like and dislike.
If they then never try again, it gets annoying.
I feel as if my point of view is not justified, can be ignored or belittled by a belief that has not one iota of evidence behind it.
BTW it should be the same for atheists who try and do the same to believers. Forcing someone to your opinion is just annoying.
However anyone should have the right to talk ABOUT their belief, just leave others out of it.
Atheists trying to "convince" believers that they are right has a solid grounding compared to religious types. They don't want others to "join" their belief [we believe that we believe in nothing without evidence] but make others "question" their own.
I mean religion has been tried for a long time now and has had quite a few nasty side effects, maybe we should try atheism for a while.

 

[Peripart]

Yeah...I always avoid forums for that reason.

Used to be one called "Fortean Times" or some such that was immune to the dumbing down for a long time...then it got to be at the vanguard of the New Ideal.

I wonder what happened to it?? Glory days...

You know, my comment wasn't directed at you particularly. I just found myself banging my head against a metaphorical wall after reading the OP. I hope that Karl didn't mean to come across as he did, because his post came out as "I hate intolerant people", which is almost funny, in an ironic kind of way. As Peni says:

As my Methodist mother taught me long ago, no group of people can be comfortably labeled as "all bad."

Exactly. Most people, from almost any group you'd care to mention, are pretty decent types. Yes, there are nutters in every walk of like, and perhaps organised religion does attract the sort of zealots who apparently camp outside Karl's door. But still, silly comments like:

We used to just have to deal with this from the religious and political nutters...used to be ok..take one out with each hand. Life goes on.

... add very little to the debate.

 

[segovius]

But still, silly comments like:

We used to just have to deal with this from the religious and political nutters...used to be ok..take one out with each hand. Life goes on.

... add very little to the debate.

What would you like to add to the debate? I've tried for a long time and watched for a long time and I see no-one trying - let alone 'adding' - for or to any debate.

Still, if it ever happens. I'll be here.

Probably.

 

[stu neville]

We try our best to keep the Barbarians at bay, and in the main succeed. Being careful not to confuse barbarism with idiosyncratic means of communication, that is - the most apparently mono-syllabic can still have a good tale to tell or an entirely valid point of view. No, the true Barbarian just wants to make noise and drown out everyone else, or get everyone else discussing them as opposed to the actual topic, as someone once put it like some berk in a small coffee shop screaming nonsense over a megaphone.

...Used to be one called "Fortean Times" or some such that was immune to the dumbing down for a long time.....then it got to be at the vanguard of the New Ideal....

I'd take issue with that one. Yes, there are threads the very existence of which cause bafflement, or display such self-righteous mirror-blindness as to fall into parody, but there's still plenty of pure, good-natured, well-argued Fortean stuff on here.

 

[segovius]

I'd take issue with that one. Yes, there are threads the very existence of which cause bafflement, or display such self-righteous mirror-blindness as to fall into parody, but there's still plenty of pure, good-natured, well-argued Fortean stuff on here.

It's true..I stand corrected... I think my initial comment was a bit unwarranted and written in the light of spending too much time in the Religions and Cults Forum and not visiting the others so much...

 

[PeniG]

I don't think there are any barbarians, or any gates. I think people get ruts in their brains and tend to follow them heedlessly, unless derailed. We all feel persecuted - I would say, we all are persecuted, at one time or another, sometimes over the silliest things (you should have seen the flamewars on my husband's gaming newsgroup last year when WotC released 4th Edition D&D!) - and it's easier to pass the persecution on than to handle it appropriately. Then it's more comfortable to pretend that your persecution of someone else isn't really persecution, than it is to admit yourself in the wrong and work to do better. We can't control what other people do, only what we do, and only if we strive to be aware of what we're doing. But we all lose our big picture and do some kind of knee-jerk crap from time to time, so we may as well be gentle with one another whenever we can, to build up credit for the next time we need gentleness ourselves.

I say "gentleness" rather than "tolerance" because I think there's an insidious evil hidden in the word. Or rather, I recognized it when I read YA author/editor David Levithan on the subject last year:

I am sick and tired of being tolerated. It’s not that I want to be intolerated -- I am still very much against intolerance. But I don’t understand how “tolerance” became the benchmark for acceptance of (and respect for) basic human rights. “Tolerate” is something you should do to a drunk relative who is talking your ear off, or a harried waitress who in her distraction can’t get your order right the first time. It is not something to do to a group of human beings. “Tolerate” is, at best, a thin veneer of polite resolve that barely masks the hostility underneath. “Tolerate” means “I am better and more deserving than you, but I will let you co-exist with me until you push it too far.”

Any time we feel like patting ourselves on the back for being nice to one of "those people," just as if they are normal human beings - that's a time we need a reality check. And that's all I wanted to do here, so I guess I'm done.

 

[KarlD]

I don't mind when religious people talk about their belief. As a matter of fact I always listen very closely and try to see it from their point of view. What gets up my nose [and everyone else who is a "normal" :? atheist or without putting a label on; a person who doesn't believe in gods] is when religious people, try and convince you that their way should be tried by you.
"I'm not preaching but I am so happy now, you should give it a try."
No I won't, I have educated myself enough to know what I like and dislike.
If they then never try again, it gets annoying.
I feel as if my point of view is not justified, can be ignored or belittled by a belief that has not one iota of evidence behind it.
BTW it should be the same for atheists who try and do the same to believers. Forcing someone to your opinion is just annoying.
However anyone should have the right to talk ABOUT their belief, just leave others out of it.
Atheists trying to "convince" believers that they are right has a solid grounding compared to religious types. They don't want others to "join" their belief [we believe that we believe in nothing without evidence] but make others "question" their own.
I mean religion has been tried for a long time now and has had quite a few nasty side effects, maybe we should try atheism for a while.

Exactly I have read all the religious texts, and happen to think that you would have to be pretty delusional to believe that they make any kind of sense, so I treat people who talk at me about god and jesus in much the same way as I do people who come up to me and start talking about flying bananas and I don't see why, no normal person would be expected to hold a conversation with someone talking about flying bananas.
You might say I am insulting people by saying I think their beliefs are delusional but I say the same thing to people who think that the Earth is hollow and full of nazis in UFOs

I may be wrong and god may be preparing to give me a good old fashoined smitting, but really the guy needs to get some better PR if he is for real.

 

[river_styx]

The PR is half the problem. Most modern religious types will try to paint god as some warm and loving grandfather figure only too happy to share its Werther's Originals. They like to gloss over all that wrath, punishment and the 'Kill your only son for me and we'll be just fine' type stuff of the Old Testament.

The truth is that, god, if it does exist, is a mean spirited git.

 

[segovius]

The PR is half the problem. Most modern religious types will try to paint god as some warm and loving grandfather figure only too happy to share its Werther's Originals. They like to gloss over all that wrath, punishment and the 'Kill your only son for me and we'll be just fine' type stuff of the Old Testament.

The truth is that, god, if it does exist, is a mean spirited git.

Seems a bit lame.

To a fly you are God...and probably a mean spirited git when you swat it too

That is to the flies that actually believe - most probably are gibbering on about 'no evidence'. They're right too...there is no evidence a fly could ever have for your existence.

What you call God probably has some conception of a higher being too. It's all a question of scale.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Now we have atheist nutters attacking from the rear. Can't fight all three. It's over. They finally did it - reached critical moronic mass. Somehow they elevated moronicism to a desirable brand. Not an art-form - that was from when the rationalists had a say. Now an 'artform' is a cool logo or a celeb with massive gazungas.

The barbarians aren't at the gate anymore...they are drinking your whisky, smoking your cigarettes and shagging your wife on the pine kitchen table you bought for a bargain at the bootfair....

Segovious, you are the Richard Littlejohn of this forum. All these damned militant atheist nutters taking our forums and 'attacking from the rear' in public debates. Next thing you know, they'll be hanging around the school gates, enticing children into rationalist discourse while brazenly flaunting their copies of The God Delusion in public!

 

[KarlD]

aparently Christian types are under attack and we should all feel sorry for them, but like Homer says to grandpa Simpson 'if you don't start making more sense we are going to have to put you in a home '

 

[river_styx]

The PR is half the problem. Most modern religious types will try to paint god as some warm and loving grandfather figure only too happy to share its Werther's Originals. They like to gloss over all that wrath, punishment and the 'Kill your only son for me and we'll be just fine' type stuff of the Old Testament.

The truth is that, god, if it does exist, is a mean spirited git.

Seems a bit lame.

To a fly you are God...and probably a mean spirited git when you swat it too

That is to the flies that actually believe - most probably are gibbering on about 'no evidence'. They're right too...there is no evidence a fly could ever have for your existence.

What you call God probably has some conception of a higher being too. It's all a question of scale.

True. But then I'm not knocking on the fly's door and asking him to believe that I am a god.

Personally I don't call anything god, capital 'G' or otherwise.

 

[KarlD]

The only thing I would say is if people want to go round doing good stuff for people who need help then I am all for that, we need a lot more of that.
I think what i was originally trying to say was that you don't need to justify doing good stuff with dellusional beliefs, just do them because they need to be done.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

But what is your problem KarlD when people do good things for a religious reason. Can't you just be happy that they're doing good things and not bad ones?

Does it really offend you that much that some people have belief - because that is the way you come across on these boards.

People who are so seriously offended by someone elses belief system - whatever that is - are in my opinion one step away from the Christian Fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics, Islamic Terrorists, KKK, Nazis and Spanish Inquisition.

 

[segovius]

The only thing I would say is if people want to go round doing good stuff for people who need help then I am all for that, we need a lot more of that.
I think what i was originally trying to say was that you don't need to justify doing good stuff with dellusional beliefs, just do them because they need to be done.

I suppose one could make a fairly solid argument that the concept of doing 'good stuff' derives in the main from religious teaching anyway so in effect it is 'delusional beliefs' which are responsible for you to be able to 'to good' without basing it on 'delusional beliefs'.

If one wanted to get more philosophical, one could examine why - in the absence of a deity, judgement, or concept of sin - such 'good' would ever 'need to be done' but I suppose that might be a bit advanced for now...

 

[KarlD]

The only thing I would say is if people want to go round doing good stuff for people who need help then I am all for that, we need a lot more of that.
I think what i was originally trying to say was that you don't need to justify doing good stuff with dellusional beliefs, just do them because they need to be done.

I suppose one could make a fairly solid argument that the concept of doing 'good stuff' derives in the main from religious teaching anyway so in effect it is 'delusional beliefs' which are responsible for you to be able to 'to good' without basing it on 'delusional beliefs'.

If one wanted to get more philosophical, one could examine why - in the absence of a deity, judgement, or concept of sin - such 'good' would ever 'need to be done' but I suppose that might be a bit advanced for now...

Its because despite evidence to the contrary I think most people are basically good and don't need the idea of punishment by some god if they don't bahave themselves.What annoys me is religious types who do good stuff under the impression that if they don't they will be squished by some sky fairy, its like people who say there is only one reason for a moral code ,because it was given by god, well no the fact is that people who are not religious are able to form their own morals and amazingly they are pretty much the same as those 'given by god' the difference being that non-religious people try to stick to them because it would be wrong for them not to, not because they think that they are going to be sent to hell if they shag the neibours cat.
From the way i see it religious types live their lives on their knees saying 'oh look how good I am don't squish me wonderous god' which is pretty pathetic.

 

[segovius]

Its because despite evidence to the contrary I think most people are basically good and don't need the idea of punishment by some god if they don't bahave themselves.

But that might be because of thousands of years of religious conditioning no? I mean before this religious framework maybe they DID need that idea of punishment?

What annoys me is religious types who do good stuff under the impression that if they don't they will be squished by some sky fairy, its like people who say there is only one reason for a moral code ,because it was given by god, well no the fact is that people who are not religious are able to form their own morals and amazingly they are pretty much the same as those 'given by god' the difference being that non-religious people try to stick to them because it would be wrong for them not to, not because they think that they are going to be sent to hell if they shag the neibours cat.

Imo very few religious types think like this, or at least do good for this reason. They would do it anyway....religion serves a different function for them.

And this is where I think you and I may diverge - to me, all people are - more or less - unbalanced and the differences merely exist in to what degree and how aware they are of their psychological imbalance.

For those that are aware, there are many roads to try to equilibriate oneself; therapy, drugs, spirituality, drugs, religion, philosophy...and on...

All these methods can be valid or can mess you up even more. All they are is a means to an end; psychological balance. So I think if one sees it this way then it is a bit offensive to downgrade it if it works for that person.

Of course there are cases where it does not work - door-stopping fundie prostletysers imo are not actually balanced but rather are faking it by trying to convert others on the principle '1000 converts can't be wrong' - but to label all religious types like this is wrong imo. Many have achieved closure through it and many are in the process of doing so even though they might be bloody annoying till they do...

Anyway, it might not be your way or my way but that does not mean it can't be someone else's...

From the way i see it religious types live their lives on their knees saying 'oh look how good I am don't squish me wonderous god' which is pretty pathetic.

Seems a bit wild. there are billions of 'religious types' currently on the loose....I have seen this behaviour very, very rarely and then only in a psychotic case...