• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

How about a respectful religious vs non-religious discussion?

You're free to interpret his post however you like, but looking at the context of his larger point that's how it reads to me. I could be wrong about his intent, and if he wants to further explain himself I welcome it. I think he meant to be helpful with his remarks but I disagree with his point as I see it.
 
wish I had a dollar for every time I've had Stalin/Hitler/any other murderous tyrant thrown in my face. I could pay a significant chunk of my rent.

It's tiresome, being blamed for things that happened on the other side of the world in countries where I've never been, in a time before even my mother was born.

My answer to having Stalin/Hitler thrown into my face (after pointing out that Hitler was a theist) is to say that these men where as far removed from the ethos I follow as they could possibly be. I tell them that I am a secular humanist and ask them to provide examples of atrocities committed it the name of secular humanism. If they are unwilling to do that than I feel I have the right to throw every single nasty thing done in the name of every theistic religion into their face.
 
Cory Booker's speech at the 2016 DNC had this nice passage:

"And upon this faithful foundation we built a great nation, and today, no matter who you are – rich or poor, Asian or white, man or woman, gay or straight, any religion or none at all – you are entitled to the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship." [source]​

I'd really like to see that sentiment catch on.
 
My answer to having Stalin/Hitler thrown into my face (after pointing out that Hitler was a theist) is to say that these men where as far removed from the ethos I follow as they could possibly be. I tell them that I am a secular humanist and ask them to provide examples of atrocities committed it the name of secular humanism. If they are unwilling to do that than I feel I have the right to throw every single nasty thing done in the name of every theistic religion into their face.

They probably don't know the difference...or even acknowledge that there is a difference.
 
It should be a truism. It's not?
It's rare to see a politician at the national level acknowledging the rights of atheists. Booker clearly has aspirations for a future Presidential candidacy. That acknowledgement is something that he would get points for from me, all the more so if he keeps it up when he actually runs.
 
His whole post was about people not behaving the way they want to in order to change perception among those who refuse to accept them. Atheists should start behaving like a religion in order to gain acceptance, just like the LGBT people who preferred to remain single and have casual sex supposedly stopped and settled down so people would accept them:

I am a member of the LGBT community. The tide turned rather quickly, when we changed the public perception from a gay man hooking up in a gay bar, spreading disease and being promiscuous, to families. Committed, long-term relationships, that are homes for children, and love was equal.

First off, I reject the notion that a non-monogamous lifestyle need be one that is synonymous with spreading disease. It certainly can be and often has been, both for heterosexuals and homosexuals, if one is careless and doesn't practice safe sex, but it's entirely possible to have casual sex and be safe.

Secondly, I don't think the gay community have all settled down and traded in the single life in favor of family life, and I don't think those that did so did it primarily to change perception so they can be more accepted; I think they did it because that's what they wanted to do and because they were finally being afforded the opportunity to do so. Back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s it was much more difficult (and in some places impossible) for an LGBT couple to adopt and much more expensive to use techniques like IVF to get pregnant at the time, and you couldn't take advantage of the benefits of married life because same sex couples couldn't get married by law. They didn't choose family life in the late-90s and 2000s in higher numbers to change perception, they chose it because for the first time they were finally being given the same rights to live their lives and make choices like everyone else had.

Greater public acceptance grew organically from that as people saw that same sex couples weren't causing the downfall of civilization as the far right had demonized and sensationalized, but it wasn't some concerted effort to be something people were not in order to influence public perception. Which leads me back to my original point that people should not have to pretend to be something they don't want to be in order to be accepted by others, because that isn't actually acceptance. The LGBT people that settled down and started families did so because they wanted to, not as a PR campaign. And atheists shouldn't have to become more like a religion in order to impress religious people, or what's the point?

What? Look up the word "perception." Act like a religion? Organizing for rights, is what I call it. SInce it has to be said, I reject the notion that people suddenly "settled down." The fact is, every single force that a heterosexual relationship has, the same force can be applied to a homosexual relationship--marriage (and all the varying reasons for it), engagement, being in a relationship, dating, a crush, hookups, disrespect (I AM NOT ENDORSING IT, BTW), domestic violence (NOT ENDORSING IT), being burdened by a lover's quarrel, being smitten, being envious--the list is endless, because love is equal and boundless. That said, perception changed. Seriously, look the word up. Denying the history of HIV/AIDS, and its PERCEPTION as the "gay plague," Ronald Reagan's refusal to do anything about it, and letting the disease rampage, instead of directing research and saying "this problem is an American problem," is to deny the HISTORY OF OUR COMMUNITY. So, no, I won't apologize for what I said. I won't change my belief that we need apathy or acceptance to achieve a place at the table, as atheists, just as we organized for rights, organized for acceptance, in the LGBT community. Your responses, to me, are baffling.
 
Depends on the dance. More Angels can Pogo on a pinhead than can Lindy Hop.

Hey, Macarena!

Oh, and my response to those who would throw Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot/Trump into atheists' faces is, don't do it, because we wouldn't want everyone to think we were like those Westboro assholes.

(Although I stand firm in my belief that the WBC is actually not a church, it's just a front organization created so those people can provoke people into attacking them and then sue. Who knows, the actual WBC building is probably empty!)
 
Hey, Macarena!

Oh, and my response to those who would throw Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot/Trump into atheists' faces is, don't do it, because we wouldn't want everyone to think we were like those Westboro assholes.

(Although I stand firm in my belief that the WBC is actually not a church, it's just a front organization created so those people can provoke people into attacking them and then sue. Who knows, the actual WBC building is probably empty!)

WBC is basically one family and most of the adults are lawyers.
 
What? Look up the word "perception." Act like a religion? Organizing for rights, is what I call it. SInce it has to be said, I reject the notion that people suddenly "settled down." The fact is, every single force that a heterosexual relationship has, the same force can be applied to a homosexual relationship--marriage (and all the varying reasons for it), engagement, being in a relationship, dating, a crush, hookups, disrespect (I AM NOT ENDORSING IT, BTW), domestic violence (NOT ENDORSING IT), being burdened by a lover's quarrel, being smitten, being envious--the list is endless, because love is equal and boundless. That said, perception changed. Seriously, look the word up. Denying the history of HIV/AIDS, and its PERCEPTION as the "gay plague," Ronald Reagan's refusal to do anything about it, and letting the disease rampage, instead of directing research and saying "this problem is an American problem," is to deny the HISTORY OF OUR COMMUNITY. So, no, I won't apologize for what I said. I won't change my belief that we need apathy or acceptance to achieve a place at the table, as atheists, just as we organized for rights, organized for acceptance, in the LGBT community. Your responses, to me, are baffling.
I'm well aware of what the word "perception" means, thanks. It was how you seemingly suggested atheists should change their perception with religious people (and the prior example of how LGBT people did) that I objected to, because I felt you were asking atheists to take on some of the traits of a religion. In order to appease critics, you suggested setting up atheist sponsored homeless shelters/soup kitchens/charitable drives and the formal organization and group meetings implementing that would require. You suggested offering a "moral alternative", which is the purview of a proselytizing religion, not disorganized individuals. If that wasn't your intent, I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I can quote you where you said it. If that's not what you meant you were not at all clear.

I'm not sure where you're getting any of this stuff about denying the HIV/AIDS crisis or that it was perceived as a gay disease in the 80s. I didn't deny anything of the sort. Nor did I ask you to apologize for anything. We just have a disagreement on how to achieve change and what people should have to compromise about themselves in order to get it, but I acknowledged that I thought your ideas were well-meaning, if misguided, in my opinion. Perhaps we're talking past each other a bit.
 
Hey, Macarena!

Oh, and my response to those who would throw Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot/Trump into atheists' faces is, don't do it, because we wouldn't want everyone to think we were like those Westboro assholes.

(Although I stand firm in my belief that the WBC is actually not a church, it's just a front organization created so those people can provoke people into attacking them and then sue. Who knows, the actual WBC building is probably empty!)

You really need to read the accounts of those have left the WBC and see just how much they had religion thrust down their throats.
 
^ But that's the thing. The WBC was never about religion. It's all a ploy to make money from suing people. Just like Scientology was also invented (by L. Ron Hubbard) solely to make money.

Whatever may have been "thrust down the throats" of the people in the WBC family had NOTHING to do with any of the true tenets of Christianity. (Just like the 'Islamic' State has nothing to do with actual Islam.)
 
They follow an extreme version of hyper-Calvinism but Nathan Phelps (who is now an atheist) says his family do truly believe it.

Mark Phelps who was the first to leave was absolutely terrified that he was going to wake up in Hell the day he left, so strongly did he believe the religion that his father taught him.

They might use it to make money but they do seem to believe in all the crap they espouse.
 
Yes people often want to deny WBC is a church or religion but that's exactly what it is. A very small, very terrible, very disgusting cultic church. They believe all that stuff just like some kind and socially caring church believes all their stuff. There's plenty of cult like church groups people don't feel compelled to deny are churches.

I think the publicity the WBC gets is ridiculous, exactly what they want and totally out of proportion to their size and actions. We have HUGE denominations that believe gay people are going to hell and should not teach or raise children, as well as other odious beliefs but their size gives them a pass in mainstream news a lot of the time. Much easier to write about soundbite lunatics like WBC even though they are no danger to people's human rights.
 
The thing that always bugs me, well more amuses me rather then just bug me out completely is this.

A pastor can stand in front of a congregation of people week after week and preach and give sermons and say that he talks to God and God talks back to him or her but if you were do say the same things and not be a pastor but just an ordinary person who believes that God talks to them too they'd be labelled as somewhat crazy and sent off to the loony bin.

Why do we make that distinction?

Also prosperity doctrine, I despise that .....That people have billion dollar empires made off fleecing people for their beliefs.
 
The thing that always bugs me, well more amuses me rather then just bug me out completely is this.

A pastor can stand in front of a congregation of people week after week and preach and give sermons and say that he talks to God and God talks back to him or her but if you were do say the same things and not be a pastor but just an ordinary person who believes that God talks to them too they'd be labelled as somewhat crazy and sent off to the loony bin.
No, they're talking to the Metatron. Metatron acts as the voice of God. Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims God has spoken to them, they're speaking to him. Or they're talking to themselves.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
No, they're talking to the Metatron. Metatron acts as the voice of God. Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims God has spoken to them, they're speaking to him. Or they're talking to themselves.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


An intermediary
 
An intermediary

tumblr_n5jhhgtCd51sjxysio5_400_zpswbl3q94g.gif
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top