Atheism

Clearly you bear a grudge against GratefulFan because she has called you out on a lot of bullshit you've posted here in the past. You can't see it yourself obviously, but you're a very intolerant person, masquerading as a liberal. You're always the first to take someone's comments out of context or interpret them is some bizarre way that fits your own agenda, and you're always first to resort to insults when you don't get your way. Failing that, you run off and hide after someone has called you on your behaviour. Regarding the substance of this topic, GF is simply trying to provide her own experiences and compare them against some of the blanket anti-religion statements of, for example, The Real Wizard. Now I'm mostly in agreement with Wizard on this, having seen the damage first hand of the darker side of religious intolerance. However, I also understand that for many, religion is a source of comfort and is not necessarily incompatible with modern Western liberalism. In short, there's room enough for us all on this tiny planet ...

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

I am frankly disgusted by the posts of GratefulFan in this topic. He/she is trying to spin a perfectly honest personal experience by magicalfreddiemercury into an example of bigotry by the latter... [/QUOTE]

It might come as no surprise, but I greatly appreciate this post. I have spoken of my personal experiences here, and have tried to bring that point to the fore several times.

In fairness, though, the responses here - including the subtle twists of meaning - are rather common. People often become uncomfortable and defensive when I relay my experiences (of which these barely touch the surface) and my resulting opinion of religion. Some people understand and some do not. Yet. But I have hope.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

I am frankly disgusted by the posts of GratefulFan in this topic. He/she is trying to spin a perfectly honest personal experience by magicalfreddiemercury into an example of bigotry by the latter... [/QUOTE]

It might come as no surprise, but I greatly appreciate this post. I have spoken of my personal experiences here, and have tried to bring that point to the fore several times.

In fairness, though, the responses here - including the subtle twists of meaning - are rather common. People often become uncomfortable and defensive when I relay my experiences (of which these barely touch the surface) and my resulting opinion of religion. Some people understand and some do not. Yet. But I have hope. [/QUOTE]

I'm very glad to see that you are brave enough to say what you think, feel and believe, and to act on it, when faced with such hostility. You should be proud of that.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

Clearly you bear a grudge against GratefulFan because she has called you out on a lot of bullshit you've posted here in the past. You can't see it yourself obviously, but you're a very intolerant person, masquerading as a liberal. You're always the first to take someone's comments out of context or interpret them is some bizarre way that fits your own agenda, and you're always first to resort to insults when you don't get your way. Failing that, you run off and hide after someone has called you on your behaviour. Regarding the substance of this topic, GF is simply trying to provide her own experiences and compare them against some of the blanket anti-religion statements of, for example, The Real Wizard. Now I'm mostly in agreement with Wizard on this, having seen the damage first hand of the darker side of religious intolerance. However, I also understand that for many, religion is a source of comfort and is not necessarily incompatible with modern Western liberalism. In short, there's room enough for us all on this tiny planet ...[/QUOTE]

Why don't you address the points I raise instead of resorting to amateur psychology? Do you deny that GratefulFan is attempting to spin an honest, very injust personal experience into an exercise in hate? Do you deny that he/she is attempting to make the victim of intolerance into the perpetrator? I am of the opinion that magicalfreddiemercury was being unfairly treated, so I responded to that.

You are right that I don't like GF, though your "because..." part is nonsense (I have an intense dislike of conservatism, whereas GF appears to be a convinced conservative, that is the long and short of it), but as you might have noticed had you paid attention, I deal with that by ignoring his/her posts whenever I can. This time, I was so deeply angered that I responded.

Of course you think I'm intolerant, but there is something you completely fail to notice, which you show in your phrase "but you're a very intolerant person, masquerading as **a liberal**" (my emphasis): you are judging me by AMERICAN standards. I am not "a liberal". That is an American concept, unique to American society. I am a social democrat. I am not an American. Like it or not, Europe is not America. Things work differently here. One of those things is that we don't accept some of the things you do. Whereas Americans tend to view our disgust at those things as "intolerance", we view your "tolerance" thereof as lawlessness. We regard as freedom many of the things you see as tyranny - an example being firearms legislation and less room for religion in the public sphere. The other way around, you see many of our freedoms (i.e. our lenient approach to drugs) as perversions.

How very observant of you not to notice I'm from the UK. So much for your attempt to psycho-analyse me. 

I addressed your points: I explained what I think GF is doing. Did you miss that as well?

My observations about your online persona are based on your past and current behaviour. Your previous post is evidence that I'm not far off the mark.  

Do I deny that "GratefulFan is attempting to spin an honest, very injust personal experience into an exercise in hate?" Of coruse I deny it. It's bullshit for the reason I previously stated. It's your intellectually dishonest interpretation of GF's honest, personal experience. Clearly you only like "honesty" when it fits your narrow view of the world.

"You are right that I don't like GF ... GF appears to be a convinced conservative, that is the long and short of it), but as you might have noticed had you paid attention, I deal with that by ignoring his/her posts whenever I can. This time, I was so deeply angered that I responded."

So when GF has ripped holes in your previous arguments you failed to respond because you were so angry?
Right. I had assumed it was because you had made such an ass of yourself. Silly me.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

I'm very glad to see that you are brave enough to say what you think, feel and believe, and to act on it, when faced with such hostility. You should be proud of that. [/QUOTE]

My lessons on religion were so powerful that I'm not sure I could avoid speaking out even if I wanted to. I've said - here and elsewhere - that what others believe is their business as long as they don't shove it onto me (or onto others who want no part of it). I don't spend my days spewing anti-religious sentiments, and I don't look for ways to insult the faithful. However, when a discussion about religion begins, I rarely hesitate to state my opinions and some of the many reasons for them. By doing so, I have found others who have gone through similar times. Sad as that is, I'm always relieved to learn I'm not alone.

Some will hear what I'm saying and 'get it' while others will (and do) take offense, twist my meaning and/or dismiss it. It is what it is. I know where I stand and why, and so does my kid. To me, that's what really matters.

[QUOTE] [b]Donna13 wrote:[/b]

My niece asked me who God was when she was about four years old. I just said to her that he watches over us and helps us.
[/QUOTE]

I know you meant well, but telling a child that someone or something else has control over their destiny is one of the worst things we as elders can do to them. We should be empowering children to believe anything is possible and completely within their control. The "god" stories tend to accomplish the exact opposite.

There is no correct answer to this question - arguably the biggest question of all: "what is out there that we don't know about?" Offering simple, packaged answers to complex questions does an extreme disservice to a child. It may be a plausible temporary solution, but down the line it tends to create weak, dependent people.

If that were my kid, my response would be - "nobody knows who or what God is." And then I'd change the subject to something that actually exists. We need to teach our children *how* to think, not *what* to think.

We're in the 21st century. Ghouls, goblins, humpty dumpty, and invisible men in the sky do not exist as far as we can understand. Every second spent on teaching these mythical things to a child is a second wasted on what could be time spent teaching them how to *tangibly* make this world a better place.

Fantasy has an important role a child's upbringing, and it is healthy as long as the child knows it's fantasy. Lord Of The Rings is a story. And so are the tales of theism in scripture. The only major difference is - one of these two things became politicized in 4th century Rome and is the most-read story of all time because of the political power it once had. Children may not need the history lesson, but they do need to know that in both cases, people sat down one day, got creative and put pen to paper (or equivalent).

Lying to a child is the worst thing you can do them. They will resent you for it later in life for it (likely in about a decade - i.e. "teenage angst"). Of all the parents I know who never lied to their children about anything, none of their kids had teenage angst. Perhaps this is just my experience, but it is a very interesting observation nonetheless.

Children need to learn the difference between fact and fiction. These lines must not be blurred if they are going to be critical thinkers instead of blind recipients. Religion is probably the single biggest impediment that stands between one and the other, because it is the single most powerful force in a child's life that requires a relinquishment of critical thinking skills should you introduce it to them.

I know I will be slammed for this post. Bring it on. I can take it :-)

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

GF is simply trying to provide her own experiences and compare them against some of the blanket anti-religion statements of, for example, The Real Wizard. Now I'm mostly in agreement with Wizard on this, having seen the damage first hand of the darker side of religious intolerance. However, I also understand that for many, religion is a source of comfort and is not necessarily incompatible with modern Western liberalism. In short, there's room enough for us all on this tiny planet ...[/QUOTE]

Fair play.

I fully recognize that religion is a positive thing in many people's lives, but I do believe it comes with a price - critical thinking. At best, people with critical thinking in many areas of their lives disengage it when it comes to their religious beliefs.

Wondering about powers beyond us is natural, and discussion is healthy. But latching onto specific beliefs means all other options are rendered to be "wrong."

I'd say this is exclusively dangerous, but I have been to events involving the Bahai faith, and these people have their marbles together. Modern liberalism and religious faith certainly do have possible merging points, but I've come to see that the two rarely meet - with few (and hopefully growing) exceptions.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

In fairness, though, the responses here - including the subtle twists of meaning - are rather common. People often become uncomfortable and defensive when I relay my experiences (of which these barely touch the surface) and my resulting opinion of religion. Some people understand and some do not. Yet. But I have hope. [/QUOTE]

Fortunately western society is generally one of progression and not regression.

Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Ahlquist

I think you misunderstood me, Real Wizard. I gave my niece what I considered to be the most accurate answer, said in a way that she could understand, based on my own basic belief from years of contemplation and life experience. My comment about her accepting what I said was more a comment on her trust in me and her acceptance that I was the one who would be able to answer this question, which seemed cute and funny to me, because you would think she would ask her own parents such a question instead. But I wasn't lying to a child, as you put it. You have your version of the truth, but that is personal to you, I think.

I don't see God as a controlling man in the sky. I see God as a helpful force and this isn't based on someone else's writings or website; this is from my own life experience. I am a free thinking person, and I also have complete confidence in my niece and I am very proud of the person she is becoming. She is both intelligent and adaptive and she is empathetic, and has a very good sense of humor.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Do you deny that he/she is attempting to make the victim of intolerance into the perpetrator? I am of the opinion that magicalfreddiemercury was being unfairly treated, so I responded to that.[/QUOTE]

She is both the victim of intolerance and the perpetrator of it. Unless your argument is that anti-religion ugliness and injustice is somehow superior to it's mirror image found in religion, several of you in this recent exchange would benefit from more self-awareness. You are intolerant.

I started this discussion with the point that people feel entitled to make universally negative and dismissive statements about the place of faith and religion in society without the burden of a cohesive argument for such sweeping positions. That remains the core of my point. It's simply expected that anybody sufficiently intelligent and evolved will nod and stroke their metaphorical beard wisely when intensely personal and widely varied experiences with faith and religious tradition are reduced and homogenized well past the point of absurdity. Unfortunately for those of you accustomed to coasting on lousy and frankly lazy arguments when it comes to religion, that annoys me on principle.

I had specific objections to what I view as the holes in MFM's arguments when they were projected outside of her own personal choices and views. Unless she associates with morons, her parsing of the exchange regarding her daughter's character and achievements with her parochial schools friends was self serving and suspect. The casting of faith based home schooling groups that require a connection to and participation in that faith as an example of the rigidity and arrogance of religion is a classic case of begging the question. If respect existed for the value of faith to other people to begin with, or at least a willingness to walk the walk on an intellectual acceptance of it , one wouldn't have to question why membership would be reserved for those who share those views and goals. The position starts with faith and religion being irrelevant and ends with faith being rigid and arrogant for professing it's relevance. Neat trick. And where's the support for the assertion that non-secular home schooling groups do not educate their children about other faiths? It may be true but it's counterintuitive to me, particularly in experiential learning, and it it is another example of a broad statement for which no support is apparently required.

My arguments and questions in this discussion are concrete and addressable. But rather than addressing them people retreat into increasing vagueness, somewhat bizarre deflection (I'm uncomfortable?) and generally behave like Scarlett O'Hara with a case of the vapours because I think sloppy anti-religious sentiment should be examined and that intellectual honesty benefits religious discourse as much as it does any other subject. Why don't any of you just address the points and answer the questions?

I can't even get anybody to actually list examples where secularism has triumphed over religion for the good of mankind in the last several hundred years, and that's an easy one. Apparently reaffirming previous non-statement statements is illuminating enough for the Queenzone religion intelligencia.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
You are right that I don't like GF, though your "because..." part is nonsense (I have an intense dislike of conservatism, whereas GF appears to be a convinced conservative, that is the long and short of it), but as you might have noticed had you paid attention, I deal with that by ignoring his/her posts whenever I can.[/QUOTE]

I'm a conservative like Holly is a cattle rancher from Texas. Seriously, how can anybody be that self absorbed?

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

In fairness, though, the responses here - including the subtle twists of meaning - are rather common. People often become uncomfortable and defensive when I relay my experiences (of which these barely touch the surface) and my resulting opinion of religion. Some people understand and some do not. Yet. But I have hope. [/QUOTE]

Fortunately western society is generally one of progression and not regression.

Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Ahlquist [/QUOTE]


Angry, aggressive, intolerant haters - like those who harassed this brave teen and her valid position – do nothing to assuage the impression that religion is a repressive and dangerous thing. At least the courts did what was right. That is a step in the right direction.

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Do you deny that he/she is attempting to make the victim of intolerance into the perpetrator? I am of the opinion that magicalfreddiemercury was being unfairly treated, so I responded to that. [/QUOTE]

She is both the victim of intolerance and the perpetrator of it. [/QUOTE]

GratefulFan I did not realize I was expected to show proof of my experiences. Nor did I realize I would have to break down each point I’ve made into bite-sized pieces of logic for you to digest. I shared examples of situations I had been in and the point of view I developed because of them. You can choose not to believe what I’ve said, you can assume I have embellished – or as you’ve implied, that I have lied. You can choose to pluck some of my words from some of my sentences and form your own assessment of my meaning. You can call me intolerant and a perpetrator of such. That is your right and I have no desire to alter your perceptions of me because I know the effort to do so would be wasted. You will not see my position as it is intended, yet my position will remain, and I will leave our discussion knowing that I tried to share a point of view that, not surprisingly, was neither accepted, understood, nor tolerated.

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

She is both the victim of intolerance and the perpetrator of it. Unless your argument is that anti-religion ugliness and injustice is somehow superior to it's mirror image found in religion, several of you in this recent exchange would benefit from more self-awareness. You are intolerant.

[/QUOTE]

So you're basically saying she's not allowed to be "intolerant" of intolerance? Every viewpoint is equal, no matter how ignorant or informed?

If everyone thought like that, you wouldn't have been allowed to vote two years ago.

I do not like having religion crammed down my throat, but I fail to see what is wrong with the following sentiment:

Grant us each day the desire to do our best,
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically,
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers,
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others,
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,
Teach us the value of true friendship,
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.