DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> ?s about atheism but were afraid to ask
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 973, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/10/2011 12:11:11 PM · #1
Here we go. Cool new thread for the atheist homies on the site.

First question: Why so militant? Is DPC some odd mecca of this brand of atheism or is this the new status quo? For example, Judy posts a nice thread just sharing that she uses her photography to learn about God. She's not proselytizing, just sharing. Nobody is being asked to come to Jesus. It took 9 posts before someone *cough*Louis*cough* felt compelled to post an antithetical view. Two more posts until someone else *cough*Corey*cough* decides to do nothing else than +1 Louis. By post #24 someone *cough*Coreyagain*cough* decides Judy's sharing requires someone to point out that religion is "indoctrination".

Why the angst? Why the anger?

Message edited by author 2011-02-10 12:11:57.
02/10/2011 12:21:01 PM · #2
First Question:

Does the universe consist of only the material world that we can detect?
02/10/2011 12:30:09 PM · #3
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Here we go. Cool new thread for the atheist homies on the site.

First question: Why so militant? Is DPC some odd mecca of this brand of atheism or is this the new status quo? For example, Judy posts a nice thread just sharing that she uses her photography to learn about God. She's not proselytizing, just sharing. Nobody is being asked to come to Jesus. It took 9 posts before someone *cough*Louis*cough* felt compelled to post an antithetical view. Two more posts until someone else *cough*Corey*cough* decides to do nothing else than +1 Louis. By post #24 someone *cough*Coreyagain*cough* decides Judy's sharing requires someone to point out that religion is "indoctrination".

Why the angst? Why the anger?


No problem with Judi's post, and I don't consider myself an athiest at all. But, I do get angry and angsty anytime religious ideals are forced into public policy making, particularly in US conservative politics. I love robust political discussions and debates, but anytime religion enters into the conversation, it goes down hill quickly.
02/10/2011 12:43:12 PM · #4
One post and the answer is, "hey, look, a monkey!"? :P We're not talking about religious proselytes. We're talking atheist proselytes.

Louis seemed to answer your issue in the other post David...

Originally posted by Louis:

Inviting participation by posting something in a public forum will result in public participation, including views you may find uncomfortable. Until you start enforcing the equivalent of a "whites only" sign in your little discussions, expect that not everyone is going to play by your arbitrary rules. (Maybe there's a lesson there for you somewhere.)


Message edited by author 2011-02-10 13:00:01.
02/10/2011 01:23:36 PM · #5
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We're talking atheist proselytes.

Back to this stupidity again? Disbelief itself is not an attempt to convert someone to another belief or faith (and if atheism is a faith, then bald is a hair color). Interrupting Judi's thread may be bad manners, like pointing out the complete lack of evidence that prayers actually work when someone asks for them or explaining to a child that a red light spotted in the night sky probably wasn't Rudolph, but it's not proselytism. If someone claimed that he broke out in hives and had trouble breathing every time he ate peanuts due to gypsy curse, you certainly wouldn't consider yourself proselytizing if you expressed doubt. It's the same thing.
02/10/2011 01:24:21 PM · #6
Part of the fun of poking the faithful is to see what kind of response you'll get. since there's so much diversity in tenets, you don't really know what kind of Christian you're dealing with 'til you see how they go ballistic. Some of the rules & regulations, and all asked to be followed without questions, are so ridiculous that they make anyone with a modicum of common sense ask how an intelligent being could accept them without question.

The main differences that that make the atheist so problematic is that he/she wants some sort of proof, and the right to ask why. Does that seem unreasonable for an intelligent being?
02/10/2011 01:36:09 PM · #7
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Part of the fun of poking the faithful is to see what kind of response you'll get.


Haven't you admitted to basically going apeshit when you have people come to your door? I sorta feel you are being hypocritical here...

You guys can forget I used the word "proselyte" if it makes you feel better. I'm more interested in the anger and angst. Why are you so concerned with the state of things that people feel compelled to interrupt other people who are sharing from their worldview? Is this a personal quirk or some tenet of your lack of belief?

Message edited by author 2011-02-10 13:36:35.
02/10/2011 01:37:01 PM · #8
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

One post and the answer is, "hey, look, a monkey!"? :P We're not talking about religious proselytes. We're talking atheist proselytes.

Louis seemed to answer your issue in the other post David...

Originally posted by Louis:

Inviting participation by posting something in a public forum will result in public participation, including views you may find uncomfortable. Until you start enforcing the equivalent of a "whites only" sign in your little discussions, expect that not everyone is going to play by your arbitrary rules. (Maybe there's a lesson there for you somewhere.)


See, that's why these threads are so hard for us regular folk to participate in, I could have sworn your question was

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why the angst? Why the anger?


Obvioulsy I misread that.

My reply was about angst and anger. Sorry for the confusion.
02/10/2011 01:40:09 PM · #9
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Part of the fun of poking the faithful is to see what kind of response you'll get. since there's so much diversity in tenets, you don't really know what kind of Christian you're dealing with 'til you see how they go ballistic. Some of the rules & regulations, and all asked to be followed without questions, are so ridiculous that they make anyone with a modicum of common sense ask how an intelligent being could accept them without question.

That's what made the older Rants enjoyable. When people such as RonB used utter nonsense like dinosaurs living alongside people on the Ark or fossils being a hoax to rationalize away contradictions, it made for entertaining reading. But back then, there were also participants with a genuine interest in honest discussion who recognized the difference between reason and fallacy when exploring an issue. That doesn't really happen anymore as certain individuals blithely continue on with faulty logic and merely deny the fallacy or claim to be offended when called on it. I dropped out for a while after a forum participant from the olden days aptly pointed out in a PM that I was no longer debating with intellectuals, but arguing with more Rons.
02/10/2011 01:45:05 PM · #10
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

One post and the answer is, "hey, look, a monkey!"? :P We're not talking about religious proselytes. We're talking atheist proselytes.

Louis seemed to answer your issue in the other post David...

Originally posted by Louis:

Inviting participation by posting something in a public forum will result in public participation, including views you may find uncomfortable. Until you start enforcing the equivalent of a "whites only" sign in your little discussions, expect that not everyone is going to play by your arbitrary rules. (Maybe there's a lesson there for you somewhere.)


See, that's why these threads are so hard for us regular folk to participate in, I could have sworn your question was

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why the angst? Why the anger?


Obvioulsy I misread that.

My reply was about angst and anger. Sorry for the confusion.


I guess we were talking at cross purposes. The implication of my question was "why are DPC atheists so angry that they feel compelled to enter a conversation to disabuse people of their religious notions?" Your angst seems to be more directed at people who are entering your conversation and presenting their religious view? But we can go down that road.

Are you saying that it's fair to be a republican, or a democrat, or a libertarian, but it's not nice to be a religious republican, religious democrat, or religious libertarian? How do you propose people divorce their worldview from their political views?
02/10/2011 01:46:45 PM · #11
Originally posted by scalvert:

That's what made the older Rants enjoyable. When people such as RonB used utter nonsense like dinosaurs living alongside people on the Ark or fossils being a hoax to rationalize away contradictions, it made for entertaining reading.


Good times, good times. ;-)
02/10/2011 02:06:01 PM · #12
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...Why the angst? Why the anger?

It think what DrAchoo is asking is, why can't non-religious people just leave religious-themed posts here at DPC alone?

I think it's because those posts sound like proselytizing to "Atheists", even though they don't seem that way to religious people.

And silence is agreement.
02/10/2011 02:14:20 PM · #13
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...Why the angst? Why the anger?

It think what DrAchoo is asking is, why can't non-religious people just leave religious-themed posts here at DPC alone?

I think it's because those posts sound like proselytizing to "Atheists", even though they don't seem that way to religious people.

And silence is agreement.


Yeah I get it, just giving the good Doc a hard time. He gets let off the hook so often in these forums anyway! ;-)
02/10/2011 02:33:46 PM · #14
I think it's important that non-religious people speak up once in a while. We're probably a minority, I don't know the stats on that. But I do know that I neither want nor need to be praising something every time something I don't understand happens. It seems really barbaric to me.

If we don't speak up, we may be burned at the stake by the DrAchoo Inquisition someday.
02/10/2011 02:36:31 PM · #15
Originally posted by Strikeslip:


If we don't speak up, we may be burned at the stake by the DrAchoo Inquisition someday.


Anybody up for some slippyback ribs?
02/10/2011 02:50:43 PM · #16
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

First question: Why so militant?


unholy_trinity3-atheistcartoonsdotcom.jpg
02/10/2011 03:09:13 PM · #17
Hehe. That's cute SP. Is the last guy drinking a beer in Stalinist Russia?
02/10/2011 03:13:30 PM · #18
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hehe. That's cute SP. Is the last guy drinking a beer in Stalinist Russia?


My guess would have been Portland, but you know . . . six to one . . .
02/10/2011 03:19:18 PM · #19
nobody answered Nullix' question. I have another.

Why don't we honor our evolutionary roots more by being more upholding of the "survival of the fittest" concept? This doesn't really pervade our cultural mores. It was much more popular in the 30s and 40s when Science was going to take the human race to new heights, but not so much any more? What happened?
02/10/2011 03:22:29 PM · #20
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hehe. That's cute SP. Is the last guy drinking a beer in Stalinist Russia?

? Stalin was raised to be a Catholic priest and revived the Russian Orthodox Church once his power was established.
02/10/2011 03:25:14 PM · #21
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why don't we honor our evolutionary roots more by being more upholding of the "survival of the fittest" concept?

Evolution is not survival of the fittest. How the heck did you get through school in any remotely scientific field?
02/10/2011 03:31:22 PM · #22
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hehe. That's cute SP. Is the last guy drinking a beer in Stalinist Russia?

? Stalin was raised to be a Catholic priest and revived the Russian Orthodox Church once his power was established.


Gimme some of that good old revival! Stalin was in control from 1922-1953...

Stalin era
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.

The sixth sector of the OGPU, led by Yevgeny Tuchkov, began aggressively arresting and executing bishops, priests, and devout worshippers, such as Metropolitan Veniamin in Petrograd in 1922 for refusing to accede to the demand to hand in church valuables (including sacred relics). In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1935, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. Of these, 95,000 were put to death. Many thousands of victims of persecution became recognized in a special canon of saints known as the "new martyrs and confessors of Russia".

In January 1918 Patriarch Tikhon proclaimed anathema to the Bolsheviks (without explicitly naming them),[25] which further antagonized relations. When Tikhon died in 1925, the Soviet authorities forbade patriarchal elections to be held. Patriarchal locum tenens (acting Patriarch) Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky, 18871944), going against the opinion of a major part of the church's parishes, in 1927 issued a declaration accepting the Soviet authority over the church as legitimate, pledging the church's cooperation with the government and condemning political dissent within the church. By this declaration Sergius granted himself authority that he, being a deputy of imprisoned Metropolitan Peter and acting against his will, had no right to assume according to the XXXIV Apostolic canon, which led to a split with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia abroad and the Russian True Orthodox Church (Russian Catacomb Church) within the Soviet Union, as they allegedly remained faithful to the Canons of the Apostles, declaring the part of the church led by Metropolitan Sergius schism, sometimes coined Sergianism. Due to this canonical disagreement it is disputed which church has been the legitimate successor to the Russian Orthodox Church that had existed before 1925.[26][27][28][29]

In the 1929 elections, the Orthodox Church attempted to formulate itself as a full-scale opposition group to the Communist Party, and attempted to run candidates of its own against the Communist candidates. Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution officially allowed for freedom of religion within the Soviet Union, and along with initial statements of it being a multi-candidate election, the Church again attempted to run its own religious candidates in the 1937 elections. However the support of multicandidate elections was retracted several months before the elections were held and in neither 1929 nor 1937 were any candidates of the Orthodox Church elected.[30]

After Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church[31] to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. On September 4, 1943, Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolay had a meeting with Stalin and received a permission to convene a council on September 8, 1943, which elected Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. This is considered by some violation of the XXX Apostolic canon, as no church hierarch could be consecrated by secular authorities.[26] A new patriarch was elected, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. The Moscow Theological Academy Seminary, which had been closed since 1918, was re-opened.

Between 1945 and 1959 the official organization of the church was greatly expanded, although individual members of the clergy were occasionally arrested and exiled. The number of open churches reached 25,000. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active. But in 1959 Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985 fewer than 7,000 churches remained active. Members of the church hierarchy were jailed or forced out, their places taken by docile clergy, many of whom had ties with the KGB. This decline was evident from the dramatic decay of many of the abandoned churches and monasteries that were previously common in even the smallest villages from the pre-revolutionary period.

02/10/2011 03:34:31 PM · #23
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why don't we honor our evolutionary roots more by being more upholding of the "survival of the fittest" concept?

Evolution is not survival of the fittest. How the heck did you get through school in any remotely scientific field?


I didn't equate the two. One is part of the other (hence the use of the word "concept"). We are aware that natural selection is the engine that allows the species to survive. We seemed to take this to heart in the 30s and 40s, but we don't seem so keen on it now with regard to morality? Why not?

Look at it this way. Evolution "cares" about the species and not the individual. In fact the individual is nothing but a roll of the genetic dice to see if it comes up a winner (ie. has an advantage). If it isn't a winner, the object is to clear the board quickly while the next die is rolled. Why are we less concerned about the species and more concerned about the individual in our morality?

Message edited by author 2011-02-10 15:36:58.
02/10/2011 03:35:41 PM · #24
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Stalin was in control from 1922-1953...

For generations the entire populace of Russia had been taught that the head of state was supposed to be close to god. At the time in question, the head of the church in Russia was a tyrant. The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god. Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch. Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918.
So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution.
02/10/2011 03:36:27 PM · #25
Are you saying that an atheist can have no personal morals, and if they do they subconsciously believe in a God and are thus merely deluding themselves?
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 04/24/2018 04:43:22 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/24/2018 04:43:22 PM EDT.