Atheists and attacking/vehemently questioning others' faith

[skadistic]

Anti religion is not taught in school, school is a government funded program, thus separation of church and state makes it so. They don't force you to believe in evolution in Bio or whatever, they give you Evolutions side of the story and lets you choose. (FYI, most of the other side of the story was learned in CCD classes and that).

CCD?!?! I havent heard that in years.

You very right schools don't teach religion pro or con. They deal with science not dogma.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

In this paragraph you make the insinuation my statement encourages aggressiveness in "our" responses to the religous. But I said I am not religous, therefore how would my response encourage that? should it not encourage agressive responses to agnostics and your athiests?

The quote in the spoiler below is the the statement that would provoke an aggressive response towards the religious. If one was not religious it would provoke a general defensiveness. Most people when they feel insulted or threatened switch over to defense mode.

It would be automatically assumed that you are religious by making such statements, regardless of whether or not you actually are. Such a statement would be associated with the thought that it is being said by a religious person, and I'm sure you've heard of guilty by association.

Spoiler :

Atheists who attack another persons religion are fool's who cannot accept that another person has different views, opinions and beliefs then himself. usually quite agressive too.

They should be ignored or mocked

@skadistic: Well I haven't been there since second grade, stopped right after communion (I'm a sophomore in college now). And I called it that because that's what it was called then and I have no desire to think about that or to note changes in its name.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Are constently forcing it down their throats? or pointing out and many occasions how they are weak-minded morons who believe in fairy tales?

No. However, many religious types do constantly force things and point out how weak-minded I am .

 

[Oruc]

No. However, many religious types do constantly force things and point out how weak-minded I am .

Thats not how I see things

The quote in the spoiler below is the the statement that would provoke an aggressive response towards the religious. If one was not religious it would provoke a general defensiveness. Most people when they feel insulted or threatened switch over to defense mode.

It would be automatically assumed that you are religious by making such statements, regardless of whether or not you actually are. Such a statement would be associated with the thought that it is being said by a religious person, and I'm sure you've heard of guilty by association.

How would it provoke an agressive response? I was merely stating my view on how people react to the religous.
If you react in such a way towards an non-religious person it merely proves my point on how foolish you are.

 

[Katheryn]

CCD?!?! I havent heard that in years.

You very right schools don't teach religion pro or con. They deal with science not dogma.

In History, they teach anti-West in the Crusades, in the discovery of America, in early American history...in just about every possible conflict, it is the Western Christian society to blame.

 

[Katheryn]

Point me to the part of the tax code were a gay person can pass their estate to their "spouse" with a full exemption from estate taxes? I can certainly point you to where a straight person could.

Now, you are not talking about equality, but tax preferences.

And, this can be done easily if one creates a trust.

The reason why there are tax preferences for married couples is because there are CHILDREN to consider, and at one point in time, women stayed home with their children and did not work. That is not the case for gay couples.

 

[JollyRoger]

In History, they teach anti-West in the Crusades, in the discovery of America, in early American history...in just about every possible conflict, it is the Western Christian society to blame.

What's anti-West about teaching historial facts? As for early American history, most textbooks actually give a pro-West slant, substituting the phrase "Manifest Destiny" for the more realistic term - genocide.

 

[Trajan12]

Ive rad through the thread and Ive see many people say that religion is irrational, a myth, a cult, ect. Then wonder why people think they are attacking and insulting. I know a lot of people who would be really pissed if you said that to them. If I said atheism is irrational, id be labeled a zealot, whatever the hell that is. When atheists imply that Im not inteligent for believing what they interpret as a myth, it almost makes me want to join in with the "death to the infidels crowd". Though Id never kill anyone over religion.

 

[skadistic]

In History, they teach anti-West in the Crusades, in the discovery of America, in early American history...in just about every possible conflict, it is the Western Christian society to blame.

I learned a very pro christian crusade story. The only anti christian part about the coquest of the new world was how the convert or die practice of the Spanish was implimented. But lets be honest hear the christians were far from nice when they invaded. Early American history like thanksgiving? Maybe you can show me how exactly it is specificly anti-christian. Pointing out how the indigonous peoples of the new world were slaughtered isn't anti anything.

 

[croxis]

Did you even go to public school? A critical examination of events is NOT so called liberal propaganda. To paint everything the west/america has done with fluffy bunnies and rainbows in the sky is not the truth and definitely has no place in an inquiry based education. Crusades were a war in which nasty things were done, discovering america was done for economic reasons (which isn't bad in and of itself) in which the native population was enslaved and even went so far and did biological warfare.

Now if things were done differently then a critical examination would show that people did the best they could for the circumstances at the time. If the natives were treated with respect and not removed to the most unwanted pieces of lands on the continent then history would say "wow they were a bunch of good decent fellows."

What you are asking is blind faith that everything your idolized west in history is perfect, something that I am sure many athiets argue against.

 

[skadistic]

Now, you are not talking about equality, but tax preferences.

And, this can be done easily if one creates a trust.

The reason why there are tax preferences for married couples is because there are CHILDREN to consider, and at one point in time, women stayed home with their children and did not work. That is not the case for gay couples.

What about couples that dont have kids? or gay couples that do have kids by way of divorce or adoption or lesbians that used a suraget?

 

[skadistic]

Ive rad through the thread and Ive see many people say that religion is irrational, a myth, a cult, ect. Then wonder why people think they are attacking and insulting. I know a lot of people who would be really pissed if you said that to them. If I said atheism is irrational, id be labeled a zealot, whatever the hell that is.

If you said atheism was irrational you'd be asked to back that statement up.

 

[ironduck]

Now, now, don't you know reality has a liberal bias?

 

[ironduck]

The reason why there are tax preferences for married couples is because there are CHILDREN to consider, and at one point in time, women stayed home with their children and did not work. That is not the case for gay couples.

In that case I'm sure you agree that gay couples that have children should be allowed to get married under the law and claim the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple with children.

 

[Sidhe]

Hard atheism is as irrational as gnositicism, or belief without proof. Thus I see no need to espouse either side of the debate, there both lacking in a logical framework to maintain the argument.

I have no problem with any belief system, the only problem I have is the hypocrisy that comes along with it: for example saying "life is paramount", and by doing so condemning more to die than would otherwise do so. I think we all know the issues, so I wont expose them.

Atheism assuming that because the other side is leaning towards faith not science and thus must be wrong is just as bad, particularly when the religous in this case are the good guys and working towards a better path for humanity. The worlds a big enough place to accept both sides of the argument, if one side undermines the other unjustly then they are in the wrong. Either side needs a kick up the arse sometimes though.

 

[JollyRoger]

Now, you are not talking about equality, but tax preferences.

It shows the federal government does not recognize same sex marriage. If it did, gays could pass their estate to their "spouse" free from the estate tax.

And, this can be done easily if one creates a trust.

Actually, you cannot get the unlimited estate tax exemption via a trust. Even if you could, why should a gay couple have to set up a trust to do what a straight couple gets automatically?

The reason why there are tax preferences for married couples is because there are CHILDREN to consider, and at one point in time, women stayed home with their children and did not work. That is not the case for gay couples.

The estate tax exemption has nothing to do with children. Plus, even your stay-at-home mom would be able to keep the first couple of million if she didn't have the full exemption.

 

[Trajan12]

Id really prefer that if you didnt care about my religion you just say, ok , and move on. I dont like arguing over religion.

 

[GenMarshall]

Id really prefer that if you didnt care about my religion you just say, ok , and move on. I dont like arguing over religion.

However thats not an option that some atheists dont have. You will always have ones that will vehemently question your faith, some that would politely question your faith, and some that would say "Ok, you believe what you want" (in a polite manner of course).

 

[ironduck]

Seriously, Trajan and CivGeneral: If you present your faith in a debate forum where viewpoints are debated and questioned how can you possibly be surprised or irritated that they are debated?

 

[GenMarshall]

Seriously, Trajan and CivGeneral: If you present your faith in a debate forum where viewpoints are debated and questioned how can you possibly be surprised or irritated that they are debated?

Mainly we only like to answer questions that are presented to us in a polite fashon. You attract more bees with honey than with vinager.

However ironduck, I was mearly directing my post towards Trajan that not every atheists would not care about one's religion, just say ok, and then move on. I informed him that there will always be people who would vehemently question your faith in an agressive manner and some that would have no care in the world if you believe the moon is made of cheese. Not just here in the forums, but out in the world as well.