Racist reforms, while religious groups may be taking advantage of victims

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
Just to point out, I personally distinguish between the religious groups helping, and the ones walking around with bibles trying to bring people to jesus.

HOUSTON, Sept 4 (Reuters) - In the last week, Joseph Brant lost his apartment, walked by scores of dead in the streets, traversed pools of toxic water and endured an arduous journey to escape the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in his hometown New Orleans.


On Sunday, he was praising the Lord, saying the ordeal was a test that ended up dispelling his lifelong distrust of white people and setting his life on a new course. He said he hitched a ride on Friday in a van driven by a group of white folks.



"Before this whole thing I had a complex about white people; this thing changed me forever," said Brant, 36, a truck driver who, like many of the refugees receiving public assistance in Houston, Texas, is black.



"It was a spiritual experience for me, man," he said of the aftermath of a catastrophe al Qaeda-linked Web sites called evidence of the "wrath of God" striking an arrogant America.



Brant was one of evacuees across Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi who gave thought to religion on Sunday, almost a week after the floods changed their lives, perhaps forever.



At the Astrodome in Houston, where 16,000 refugees received food and shelter, Rose McNeely took the floods as a sign from God to move away from New Orleans, where she said her two grown children had been killed in past years in gunfights.



"I lost everything I had in New Orleans," she said as she shared a cigarette with a friend. "He brought me here because he knows."



Gerald Greenwood, 55, collected a free Bible earlier in the morning, but sat watching a science fiction television program above the stands in an enclosed stadium once home to Houston's baseball and football teams. "This is the work of Satan right here," he said of the floods.



The Bible was one of the few books many of the refugees had among their possessions. On Friday, several Jehovah's Witnesses walked the floor of the Astrodome, where thousands of cots were set up, to offer their services.



THE WAGES OF SIN



On Sunday, the Salvation Army conducted an outside religious service that included songs such as "What a Friend We Have in Jesus."



"Natural disaster is caused by the sin in the world," said Maj. John Jones, area commander for the Salvation Army, who led the service. "The acts of God are what happens afterwards ... all the good that happens."



"God made all this happen for a reason. This city has been going to hell in a handbasket spiritually," Tim Washington, 42, said at New Orleans' Superdome on Saturday as he waited to be evacuated.



"If we can spend billions of dollars chasing after (Osama) bin Laden, can't we get guns and drugs off the street?", he asked. Washington said he stole a boat last Monday and he and a friend, using wooden fence posts as oars, delivered about 200 people to the shelter. "The sheriff's department stood across the street and did nothing," he added.



The Salvation Army's Jones was one of many trying to comfort victims in Sunday services across several states.



At St. Aloysius Catholic Church in Baton Rouge, several hundred local parishioners and storm survivors attended Sunday service. "I wish we could take your broken hearts and give you ours," Rev. Donald Blanchard told the gathering.



In addition to consoling storm victims, the church's lead pastor, Jerald Burns, said Katrina's tragedy needed to be a rallying cry for parishioners, church leaders and government leaders to help the needy.



"It's not what God is asking of us," Burns said. "It is what God is demanding of us.



Some people walked out of the church in tears in mid-service.



Churches in many states have taken in evacuees and organized aid for people who in many cases lost everything they had in the storm. But at least some bristled at the role of religion in helping the afflicted.



"We're getting reports of how some religion-based 'aid' groups are trying to fly evangelists into the stricken areas and how U.S. Army chaplains are carrying bibles -- not food or water -- to 'comfort' people," Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheist, said in a statement.



"People need material aid, medical care and economic support -- not prayers and preaching," she said. (Additional reporting by Jim Loney in Baton Rouge and Mark Egan in New Orleans)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N04307426.htm
 
That article evidenced nothing saying relgion was taking advantage of anyone or forcing them to do anything. They are simply conducting relgious services on the day when their relgion calls for them to have service and offering relgious counseling to those that want it. In fact, alot of aid and relief is pouring in via relgious organizations. The Salvation Army has been doing all they can for nearly a week now, but I guess that won't matter to some people if you have one relious service on the day your religion asks you to so (by the way I didn't see where you distinguished anything, publicly at least, all you did was post an article and vastly change the meaning of it's headline).
 
"Natural disaster is caused by the sin in the world," said Maj. John Jones, area commander for the Salvation Army, who led the service. "The acts of God are what happens afterwards ... all the good that happens."

I agree with Duo for the most part, but this line...WTF?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I agree with Duo for the most part, but this line...WTF?[/QUOTE]

Yeah that leans a bit on the edge of an over-literal interruptation of the bible, but still I don't see how that takes advantage of anyone. Besides it's the belief of lots of relgions for centuries upon centuries that God or gods have controled the weather and natural disasters and it's a particular belief of many christians that God works through the kindness of people. So looking at it from the perspective of religion or the christian religion it's not all that bizarre to say somehting like that (though I think most religous people and christians wouldn't have said that, at least not in those words).
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Yeah that leans a bit on the edge of an over-literal interruptation of the bible, but still I don't see how that takes advantage of anyone. Besides it's the belief of lots of relgions for centuries upon centuries that God or gods have controled the weather and natural disasters and it's a particular belief of many christians that God works through the kindness of people. So looking at it from the perspective of religion or the christian religion it's not all that bizarre to say somehting like that (though I think most religous people and christians wouldn't have said that, at least not in those words).[/QUOTE]

No I agree that nothing in the article indicates "taking advantage" of anyone. That assertion by the Salvation Army guy is pretty dumb, though, IMO.
 
I based that on the last part:

Churches in many states have taken in evacuees and organized aid for people who in many cases lost everything they had in the storm. But at least some bristled at the role of religion in helping the afflicted.



"We're getting reports of how some religion-based 'aid' groups are trying to fly evangelists into the stricken areas and how U.S. Army chaplains are carrying bibles -- not food or water -- to 'comfort' people," Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheist, said in a statement.



"People need material aid, medical care and economic support -- not prayers and preaching," she said. (Additional reporting by Jim Loney in Baton Rouge and Mark Egan in New Orleans)
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']That article evidenced nothing saying relgion was taking advantage of anyone or forcing them to do anything. They are simply conducting relgious services on the day when their relgion calls for them to have service and offering relgious counseling to those that want it. In fact, alot of aid and relief is pouring in via relgious organizations. The Salvation Army has been doing all they can for nearly a week now, but I guess that won't matter to some people if you have one relious service on the day your religion asks you to so (by the way I didn't see where you distinguished anything, publicly at least, all you did was post an article and vastly change the meaning of it's headline).[/QUOTE]

I meant I personally distinguish, so people wouldn't think I was attacking all religious aid.
 
Here's the perfect example of a bigoted response on this board that's supposed to be "enlightened liberalism".

An Army chaplain carrying a bible! OMG! The travesty! Priests offering comfort to those that lost their homes, loved ones, may have been sleeping next to a corpse for 3 days or been raped! SHOCKING! GET OUT! GET OUT! YOU'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THESE POOR PEOPLE!

Hey 'zo. Have a heaping helping of PAD brand STFU.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Here's the perfect example of a bigoted response on this board that's supposed to be "enlightened liberalism".

An Army chaplain carrying a bible! OMG! The travesty! Priests offering comfort to those that lost their homes, loved ones, may have been sleeping next to a corpse for 3 days or been raped! SHOCKING! GET OUT! GET OUT! YOU'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THESE POOR PEOPLE!

Hey 'zo. Have a heaping helping of PAD brand STFU.[/QUOTE]

Is that the same STFU you've been using sheepishly avoiding the most recent two threads you started, both in which you were completely made to look like a buffoon?

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65369

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65020

If so, beware 'zo. Based on PAD's silence, that stuff really works well.
 
WOW PAD you selectively ignored part of what Alonzo later quoted. WAY to go!

"PAD! Putting a refreshing SLANT against Liberalism every day!"
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I based that on the last part:[/QUOTE]

So you changed the meaning of the article based on the statements on one accusation (if you really call it that, last I checked but US Army Chaplins usually do walk around with bibles, prayers and things of those nature) from the leader of the one of the nation's largest athiest organizations? I doubt she'll offer an objective opinion on the subject of religion or even religious relief aid. The article gives no apparent evidence to your claim besides her statement which is no doubt quite bias, if factual.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Is that the same STFU you've been using sheepishly avoiding the most recent two threads you started, both in which you were completely made to look like a buffoon?

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65369

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65020

If so, beware 'zo. Based on PAD's silence, that stuff really works well.[/QUOTE]

Not that I really care about PAD, but this calling for PAD to respnd to things where he is wrong thread doesn't make you look too good either. Actually nobody on this forum (myself included no doubt) likes to or usually even does admit when they are wrong.

Even you myke, your Yahoo is Racist thread or whatever still stands as is after I posted two articles for evidence about why Yahoo are in fact not the racists, after all that is a thread you started...
 
IMO religious or spiritual comfort and mental counseling is second in the healing process to food, water, clothing, and medicine.

The "storm is the work of satan" or "punishment for an arrogant America" stuff aside, if someone finds psychological comfort in having their spiritual needs provided for during a crisis, then I personally have no problem with it.

In an emergency such as this, I would support federal funding for transportation and support of crowd management experts, religious leaders, and psychologists or counselors for the people who are secular or in non-mainstream faiths.

However if someone uses the opportunity to aggressively pursue conversions of "heathens and non-believers", I would also support the government marooning them and letting their own god get them back. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Is that the same STFU you've been using sheepishly avoiding the most recent two threads you started, both in which you were completely made to look like a buffoon?

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65369

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65020

If so, beware 'zo. Based on PAD's silence, that stuff really works well.[/QUOTE]

What's the point of responding to it when I've already made my points and responses would be nothing but repetitive?

I don't feel the need to say the same things twice depsite whatever whiticisms may follow my initial posts.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']So you changed the meaning of the article based on the statements on one accusation (if you really call it that, last I checked but US Army Chaplins usually do walk around with bibles, prayers and things of those nature) from the leader of the one of the nation's largest athiest organizations? I doubt she'll offer an objective opinion on the subject of religion or even religious relief aid. The article gives no apparent evidence to your claim besides her statement which is no doubt quite bias, if factual.[/QUOTE]

I didn't change anything, the meaning is as I took it.

Religion is important to people, but, here, it comes across as an attempt to also win souls. If that's not the case, then that part of my comment I'd take back. Though, while rereading makes me back off a bit, I'm not convinced whether that assumption is right or wrong.


What's the point of responding to it when I've already made my points and responses would be nothing but repetitive?

I don't feel the need to say the same things twice depsite whatever whiticisms may follow my initial posts.

Complete List of U.S. Friends and Allies Contributing Katrina Relief
...........


That is all.

What point would you repeat? You have the choice of retracting your point, or restating an out and out lie, since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and mounds of evidence to the contrary, to back up your post.
 
Look at the date of the initial post brainiac.

Why don't we make all those that published periodic tables in the 1920's retract, correct and restate their claims were erroneous and false. Obviously all the elements known in 1925 wasn't the correct and complete list.

Moron.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Look at the date of the initial post brainiac.

Why don't we make all those that published periodic tables in the 1920's retract, correct and restate their claims were erroneous and false. Obviously all the elements known in 1925 wasn't the correct and complete list.

Moron.[/QUOTE]

If you consider the lack of federal assistance at the time you made that post, then your argument still holds no water. Why should we expect foreign assistance when nothing was done until 9/1 by us?

Given your constant finger-pointing at Nagin, Blanco, Landrieu et al., your absence of a similar sense of abhorrence at what the feds have done is striking. You've managed to criticize everybody except for those who circumstantially happen to have (R) next to their names, including those people who you would expect to respond *after* our federal government (so much so that you started a whole thread about it).
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Look at the date of the initial post brainiac.

Why don't we make all those that published periodic tables in the 1920's retract, correct and restate their claims were erroneous and false. Obviously all the elements known in 1925 wasn't the correct and complete list.

Moron.[/QUOTE]

But within the day that comment was wrong. One of the articles posted was written hours before you had even posted your comment, so it was wrong even when you posted it. I'm sure I could find more, but finding articles from a specific date on google is difficult.

But that topic is still relatively active, and the statement it makes is blatantly wrong. Normally, on this board, the title would be expected to be altered, if the topic is still active.

But it still does not answer how any response you'd make there would be repetative.

edit: to avoid being a hypocrite, I have changed the title of the thread to reflect my current opinion.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I didn't change anything, the meaning is as I took it.

Religion is important to people, but, here, it comes across as an attempt to also win souls. If that's not the case, then that part of my comment I'd take back. Though, while rereading makes me back off a bit, I'm not convinced whether that assumption is right or wrong.[/QUOTE]

I guess the meaning only goes as far as the reader interprets, but your topic title (which is meant to some of the nature of the topic) is "Racist reforms, while religious groups take advantage of victims". The headline of the article (which traditionally sums up the nature of an article) is "Some evacuees see religious message in Katrina". There's little denying that those have vastly differnt meanings, I guess that's what I meant by changing things.

One could easily say that there's probably a 99% chance that both relgious and non-relgious people will take advantage of others during a crisis like this at some point. Look at all the scams that have been pulled off in the past for similar situations and unfortunately I have little doubt that someone won't attempt to take advantage of this disaster if they haven't already, sick as they may be.

So the assumption that some people, including some religous ones, are taking avantage of the situation could be (and probably is) correct. However nothing in the article you presented clearly indicates that, so I guess I was just curious what the point of posting it was? I suppose it seemed like a rather baseless attack (at least from what we know) on the groups mentioned in the article when you put it like you did was my point. I assume that's probably wrong because you typically don't do such things from what I've seen here and there, that's just the impression I got at first.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I guess the meaning only goes as far as the reader interprets, but your topic title (which is meant to some of the nature of the topic) is "Racist reforms, while religious groups take advantage of victims". The headline of the article (which traditionally sums up the nature of an article) is "Some evacuees see religious message in Katrina". There's little denying that those have vastly differnt meanings, I guess that's what I meant by changing things.

One could easily say that there's probably a 99% chance that both relgious and non-relgious people will take advantage of others during a crisis like this at some point. Look at all the scams that have been pulled off in the past for similar situations and unfortunately I have little doubt that someone won't attempt to take advantage of this disaster if they haven't already, sick as they may be.

So the assumption that some people, including some religous ones, are taking avantage of the situation could be (and probably is) correct. However nothing in the article you presented clearly indicates that, so I guess I was just curious what the point of posting it was? I suppose it seemed like a rather baseless attack (at least from what we know) on the groups mentioned in the article when you put it like you did was my point. I assume that's probably wrong because you typically don't do such things from what I've seen here and there, that's just the impression I got at first.[/QUOTE]

People often change the title to reflect their interpretation of what they read. No one commented on my "racist reforms" part, even though that was my interpretation of that section of the article. Everyone commented on my "taking advantage" part, even though that was my interpretation of another part of the article, and both interpretations were in line with what people being quoted thought. Though, the message board I found this on used it to argue that
Racism is bad when white people do it... ... But it's ok if you're black?...

When I read the article, I didn't see anything suggesting that, but someone else obviously did.

It was an allegation that was made within the article, accusations that are often directed at certain religious groups and have evidence in other instances, so suggesting that it was being done in this case is, to me, believable. Maybe I viewed the statements made, in this case, as more credible than I should have, but that's it in my mind.

Maybe it was an allegation that people don't like or don't agree with, but I don't see what I did that was so different than what everyone else does (or what I've done in the past) when they focus on a certain aspect of an article. When you take an article from cnn or another news site, the article rarely has the same agenda as the person on a message board does when using it.

But this is more notable than scams that I'm aware of, definately not as bad but more notable, because, if true, it means people directly working with victims are taking advantage for their own ideological goals. Again though, scamming people out of money or other goods is worse, but it becomes more notable when they're actually working with the victims and not their sympathisers.
 
I agree for the most part, though I saw the "racist reforms" part as much more factual. I mean the man clearly said he did not like people of a certain race (thus technicallty making him a racist) before now thinks differently of them, thus reforming his old way of thinking. I suppose that's difficult for me to see it any other way, but as you clearly show from the repsonse in another website it can be done.

And personally I think lots of times people in this forum in fact do take an article and lend their own interpretations to it too much. It happens alot really, why I picked this one I'm not exactly sure, but I didn't really mean to pick on you in particular alonzo and I apoligize for any offense I made.
 
I'd like to know what the group "American Atheist" (who I haven't even heard of until today) is doing to support people in this tragedy, or are they simply criticizing the "Faith-Based" organizations that are helping?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that religious people tend to be helpful and caring people, atheists tend to be cynics. I'd rather have a religious neighbor than an athiestic one.

Ah, I found it. http://www.atheists.org/ They're listing non-religious groups to donate to. Which means they aren't doing anything. They seem focused on helping non-religious groups to the exclusion of religious groups. Seems pretty petty.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I'd like to know what the group "American Atheist" (who I haven't even heard of until today) is doing to support people in this tragedy, or are they simply criticizing the "Faith-Based" organizations that are helping?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that religious people tend to be helpful and caring people, atheists tend to be cynics. I'd rather have a religious neighbor than an athiestic one.

Ah, I found it. http://www.atheists.org/ They're listing non-religious groups to donate to. Which means they aren't doing anything. They seem focused on helping non-religious groups to the exclusion of religious groups. Seems pretty petty.[/QUOTE]

So, in your mind, only donating to non religious groups isn't doing anything? So all those donations to the red cross, united way, oxfam etc. are pointless?

And how exactly is that petty? If the kkk was raising money for victims, wouldn't you prefer to donate to someone else? It's an extreme example, but only you could see an issue with directing money toward more ideologically acceptable groups. It's not like they're trying to stop people from helping, they're just directing them to groups that actually don't mind atheists. If you have 1 million dollars to donate, what difference is it going to make if you give it to a religious group or a non religious group? Give it to the one that you prefer and is run in a way that's more acceptable to you.

Though I've heard of them a decent amount of time, don't usually agree on their takes on organized religion though.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that religious people tend to be helpful and caring people, atheists tend to be cynics. I'd rather have a religious neighbor than an athiestic one.

As much as I attack atheists, you have to see the vicious cycle in that one.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Ah, I found it. http://www.atheists.org/ They're listing non-religious groups to donate to. Which means they aren't doing anything. They seem focused on helping non-religious groups to the exclusion of religious groups. Seems pretty petty.[/QUOTE]

It's no different then www.americancatholic.org asking it's members to donate to church based charities.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that religious people tend to be helpful and caring people, atheists tend to be cynics.

Yeah, Fred Phelps is a very helpful and caring person.

I'd rather have a religious neighbor than an athiestic one.

By that assumption you'd rather have a fundamentalist muslim extremist then a level headed atheist as your neighbor. Good luck with that. And trust me, the feeling's mutual.

I can understand US army chaplains carrying bibles, that makes sense to me. I understand most people take great comfort in their myths, especially in times of great tragedy. From my experience military chaplains tend not to preach to non-believers. I'm not too keen on the idea of flying in preachers though, engineers, police, and doctors might be more useful.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So, in your mind, only donating to non religious groups isn't doing anything? So all those donations to the red cross, united way, oxfam etc. are pointless?

And how exactly is that petty? If the kkk was raising money for victims, wouldn't you prefer to donate to someone else? It's an extreme example, but only you could see an issue with directing money toward more ideologically acceptable groups. It's not like they're trying to stop people from helping, they're just directing them to groups that actually don't mind atheists. If you have 1 million dollars to donate, what difference is it going to make if you give it to a religious group or a non religious group? Give it to the one that you prefer and is run in a way that's more acceptable to you.

Though I've heard of them a decent amount of time, don't usually agree on their takes on organized religion though.[/QUOTE]

No, I was stating that they are criticizing and not directly helping. The organization didn't donate time and money, they asked their members to. My problem wasn't that they didn't donate to christian organizations, it was that they we're marginalizing christian efforts. An organization can sometimes do more good with a hot meal and a Bible (or Koran) than with a hot meal alone. If for no other reason than the comfort it can provide.

[quote name='cheese']It's no different then www.americancatholic.org asking it's members to donate to church based charities.[/quote]
It's slightly different, because www.americancatholic.org isn't telling you to avoid secular organizations. They're simply listing religious ones.
[quote name='cheese']Yeah, Fred Phelps is a very helpful and caring person. [/quote]
By taking that logic, all Democrats are Bush-Lovers. Just ask Zell Miller.
[quote name='cheese']By that assumption you'd rather have a fundamentalist muslim extremist then a level headed atheist as your neighbor. Good luck with that. And trust me, the feeling's mutual.[/Quote]I'm assuming that is either sarcasm, or a crack that you wouldn't want me as a neighbor. I'll simply state that you should compare apples to apples. I would rather have someone living next door who follows the code of the Koran than someone who followed no code at all.
[quote name='cheese']I can understand US army chaplains carrying bibles, that makes sense to me. I understand most people take great comfort in their myths, especially in times of great tragedy. From my experience military chaplains tend not to preach to non-believers. I'm not too keen on the idea of flying in preachers though, engineers, police, and doctors might be more useful.[/quote]By calling it myth, you're being as intolerant as Fred Phelps (see above for helpful linky). They would be more helpful, no argument here, but I don't see any statement that they are beiong flown in to the exclusion of engineers, police, doctors. In fact, I don't see any statement that they're flying them in at all. Except for the obviously biased statement by American Atheist.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']As much as I attack atheists, you have to see the vicious cycle in that one.[/quote]
I don't. I'm not saying that Atheists are bad people, simply that I prefer people of faith. You generally know where they stand.
 
[quote name='Quillion']No, I was stating that they are criticizing and not directly helping. The organization didn't donate time and money, they asked their members to. My problem wasn't that they didn't donate to christian organizations, it was that they we're marginalizing christian efforts. An organization can sometimes do more good with a hot meal and a Bible (or Koran) than with a hot meal alone. If for no other reason than the comfort it can provide.


It's slightly different, because www.americancatholic.org isn't telling you to avoid secular organizations. They're simply listing religious ones.[/quote]

They have a lot less resources to work with, they do not have manpower to do anything on their own. And where did it tell people not to give to religious organizations helping the disaster?
AMERICAN ATHEISTS urges all fellow nonbelievers to contribute to the rescue and other humanitarian efforts in the devastating wake of Hurricane Katrina.

A number of secular, non-religious aid organizations are active in this relief campaign. They do not incorporate a religious message in their operations, nor do they proselytize to those in need.

It's giving people who do not like organizations like the salvation army a suitable alternative.

I'm assuming that is either sarcasm, or a crack that you wouldn't want me as a neighbor. I'll simply state that you should compare apples to apples. I would rather have someone living next door who follows the code of the Koran than someone who followed no code at all.

This is as ridiculous an assumption as to say christians are blind sheep who only do what the bible tells them. Just because someone doesn't rely on a religious book for guidance doesn't mean they don't have morals and things they believe are right and wrong.

By calling it myth, you're being as intolerant as Fred Phelps (see above for helpful linky). They would be more helpful, no argument here, but I don't see any statement that they are beiong flown in to the exclusion of engineers, police, doctors. In fact, I don't see any statement that they're flying them in at all. Except for the obviously biased statement by American Atheist.

No, to be as intolerant as fred phelps would require an atheist to start advocating the death penalty for christians and other people who believe in god. Though it's difficult to find info on a lot of things, but I'd just like to point out that when I checked pat robertsons site he doesn't even mention anything about the disaster on it http://www.patrobertson.com/. I just thought that was interesting.



I don't. I'm not saying that Atheists are bad people, simply that I prefer people of faith. You generally know where they stand.

That means your a bigot. I deal with people like you all the time. If I were to say I prefer that christians don't live near me, I would be a bigot. It works both ways.

And, this is also a ridiculous comment. My catholic school had political and moral opinions spanning the spectrum, yet the overwhelming majority were christian. Hell, one of the most socially and economically liberal person I knew was a devout evangelist. They believe in god, other than that only an idiot would claim to know where they stand without talking to them.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I'm assuming that is either sarcasm, or a crack that you wouldn't want me as a neighbor. I'll simply state that you should compare apples to apples. I would rather have someone living next door who follows the code of the Koran than someone who followed no code at all.[/QUOTE]

What, just because someone is an athiest they can't have a code of ethics.

And for the record, I don't care if my neighbors are religious or not, I'd just rather not live next to YOU.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They have a lot less resources to work with, they do not have manpower to do anything on their own. And where did it tell people not to give to religious organizations helping the disaster?[/quote]
[quote name='Atheists.org']If you have a suggestion for an established, reputable secular humanitarian group that is worth of (sic) our support[/quote](Emphasis added)
[quote name='Alonzo']It's giving people who do not like organizations like the salvation army a suitable alternative.[/quote]Granted, it's good to have alternatives. My issue is with the approach.
[quote name='alonzo']This is as ridiculous an assumption as to say christians are blind sheep who only do what the bible tells them. Just because someone doesn't rely on a religious book for guidance doesn't mean they don't have morals and things they believe are right and wrong.[/quote]But I don't know that they do have that set of morals or code of ethics. Or even what those would be, a person can pick and choose his/her moral values.
[quote name='alonzo']No, to be as intolerant as fred phelps would require an atheist to start advocating the death penalty for christians and other people who believe in god. Though it's difficult to find info on a lot of things, but I'd just like to point out that when I checked pat robertsons site he doesn't even mention anything about the disaster on it http://www.patrobertson.com/. I just thought that was interesting.[/quote]
Not at all. He was belittling an entire religion by insinuating that they're idiots who don't think for themselves. Maybe the comparison to Phelps is hyperbole, but he is a bigot. I used to have the same opinions about Christians, but I've grown considerably.

About good ole' Pat, he's worse than Phelps, in my view. He pretends to be a reasonable person. He could do so much good but he'd rather sell diet shakes. You bet your ass that if Jesus had a website, it would be urging support of those in need.
[quote name='alonzo']That means your (sic) a bigot. I deal with people like you all the time. If I were to say I prefer that christians don't live near me, I would be a bigot. It works both ways.[/quote]
Respectfully, Alonzo, you're dead wrong. There's a tremendous difference between tolerance and forced acceptance. I am tolerant. Tolerance doesn't mean I have to like, just have to accept other people's decisions. I do that.[quote name='alonzo']And, this is also a ridiculous comment. My catholic school had political and moral opinions spanning the spectrum, yet the overwhelming majority were catholic. Hell, one of the most socially and economically liberal person I knew was a devout evangelist. They believe in god, other than that only an idiot would claim to know where they stand without talking to them.[/QUOTE]
Point taken, and conceded. I wasn't referring to sides of the spectrum, however, I was referring to the underlying belief in a God.
[quote name='camoor']What, just because someone is an athiest they can't have a code of ethics.

And for the record, I don't care if my neighbors are religious or not, I'd just rather not live next to YOU.[/quote]An excellent example of (in my mind) the underlying case. Atheists are more intolerant than the typical Christian or Muslim. Rather than question my opinion, he assumed that I was automatically a bad person.

Most atheists take the worst examples of Christianity and use those as reasons to not be religious. They ignore the best. In defense of Atheism; however, the worst examples of Christianity are the most vocal. I suppose the reverse is also true.
 
[quote name='Quillion']An organization can sometimes do more good with a hot meal and a Bible (or Koran) than with a hot meal alone. If for no other reason than the comfort it can provide.[/quote]

That depends on who you're giving the meal to. Got a copy of THE SECRET WARS instead?

It's slightly different, because www.americancatholic.org isn't telling you to avoid secular organizations. They're simply listing religious ones.

And only religious ones. I'm not going to try and justify AA's commentary, they should've left well enough alone and linked to non religious place's to donate. AA has rarely been much help for your average atheist simply because in our current cultural climate it's better to say you're a ex-con then a Atheist.

By taking that logic, all Democrats are Bush-Lovers. Just ask Zell Miller.

The point I was trying to make is not all religious people are the warm and fuzzy people you'd like to make them out to be. Just like Zell proves not all democrats are godless, homoloving vegetarians.

I'm assuming that is either sarcasm, or a crack that you wouldn't want me as a neighbor. I'll simply state that you should compare apples to apples. I would rather have someone living next door who follows the code of the Koran than someone who followed no code at all.

It was a crack. That being said I wouldn't want to live next to Fred Phelps or any other 'in your face' religious type. BUt if you keep your religion out of my life, I couldn't care less if you worshipped Kali.

The problem with codes is they become outdated. Christianity has plenty of codes that have fallen by the wayside over the years, but they're still in the big book, people just choose to disregard them. Like selling your daughters hand in marriage to her rapist for $50. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

By calling it myth, you're being as intolerant as Fred Phelps (see above for helpful linky).

Not in the least. 2000 years ago people believed in the Roman Gods, before that the Greeks and they both KNEW they were right, now we call them myths. Today we have Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, etc. and the people who follow them KNOW they are right. In 2000 years who knows what humans will be worshiping, but they will KNOW they are right and they will call Christ a myth.

I don't. I'm not saying that Atheists are bad people, simply that I prefer people of faith. You generally know where they stand.

Because there has never been an axe murdering person of faith, or a child molesting church goer. You can only tell as much about a person from their faith as you can their skin color, meaning, you can't.
 
[quote name='Quillion']
An excellent example of (in my mind) the underlying case. Atheists are more intolerant than the typical Christian or Muslim. Rather than question my opinion, he assumed that I was automatically a bad person.

Most atheists take the worst examples of Christianity and use those as reasons to not be religious. They ignore the best. In defense of Atheism; however, the worst examples of Christianity are the most vocal. I suppose the reverse is also true.[/QUOTE]

Most Americans feel the same way you do, they'd trust someone from another religion before someone with no religion. In America we are inundated with the idea of a god on a daily basis and more recently it's begun creeping into places where it doesn't belong (ie Intelligent Design in public schools). The mere fact that atheists don't go bonkers every day is testament that they are as tolerant as the next guy. We are, by and large, one of the most maligned minorities in America and you, comparatively, rarely ever hear a peep from us. Think of it as if you were forced to move to Pakistan where Allah is everywhere and belief in Christ while not actually illegal, is publicly shunned. You'd feel pretty uncomfortable.

I don't need christianity to give me a reason to be an atheist. Logical reason provides me with all I need, besides, we've got all the scientific evidence on our side.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Stuff.[/QUOTE]

I think that you and I have very similar views on religion in a person's public life. And thus, I think we would definitely get along if we met.

My issue with some Atheists is the same issue I have with some Christians. They belittle and marginalize your beliefs, primarily because they are different than yours.

That's the only thing in your statement that I would like to respond to directly. To call a belief a myth because you don't agree doesn't help your cause. Myth denotates a false belief. It describes anyone who believes in it as truth naive and uneducated. At least, don't call it myth until you can prove that there is no Creator-God, that he doesn't love us, and whatever else it states. We can now prove that lightning is not forged in a volcano and hurled by a cloud-man, that the sun isn't a dude in a chariot with burning wheels, and that I don't get to the afterlife by digging.

EDIT: Responding...
[quote name='Cheese']feel pretty uncomfortable[/quote]
Assuming that I'm Christian. ;)
[quote name='cheese']All the scientific evidence...[/quote]
I don't have faith in spite of evidence, I have faith because of it.
 
[quote name='Quillion']
But I don't know that they do have that set of morals or code of ethics. Or even what those would be, a person can pick and choose his/her moral values.[/quote]

Again, you know a person believes in god, but you have no idea if they actual develop a code from that, if they understand their religion, or if they even care about the rules of their religion. It's a baseless assumption to assume that atheists are less likely to have morals than religious people. It's a popular assumption, common sense supports it, but in reality it's baseless. The many god believing people who do whatever the hell they want only add to that fact.



Not at all. He was belittling an entire religion by insinuating that they're idiots who don't think for themselves. Maybe the comparison to Phelps is hyperbole, but he is a bigot. I used to have the same opinions about Christians, but I've grown considerably.

He did no such thing, he called it a myth. You would call julius caesar or alexander the great a believer in a myth, but you'd never consider them idiots who don't think for themselves. Honestly, every religious thing someone does not believe in could be categorized as a myth in that persons mind.

Respectfully, Alonzo, you're dead wrong. There's a tremendous difference between tolerance and forced acceptance. I am tolerant. Tolerance doesn't mean I have to like, just have to accept other people's decisions. I do that.

Yes, but you can be a bigot. You can tolerate and work with black neighbors, doesn't mean you like the fact that they're there. Being a bigot (or posessing bigotted opinions) and practicing discrimination are very different things, and most bigots don't regularly discriminate in anything other than their mind or words (but not directed to people of that specific group).

Point taken, and conceded. I wasn't referring to sides of the spectrum, however, I was referring to the underlying belief in a God.
An excellent example of (in my mind) the underlying case. Atheists are more intolerant than the typical Christian or Muslim. Rather than question my opinion, he assumed that I was automatically a bad person.

That is not true. The majority of religious people I've dealt with don't like atheists in concept. That's true of groups like boy scouts, and that's true when polls are taken:
A well-publicized Gallop poll conducted in 1999 revealed some interesting, and overall favorable successes in the field of tolerance for diversity. In that poll 92% of Americans claimed that they would consider voting for a woman for president, up from 76% in 1978. 95% percent reported that they would vote for a black, up 22 points since 1978. 92% said they would vote for Jew, as opposed to 70% in 1978, and only 54% in 1937. Even gays have made noteworthy advances. 59% of Americans said in 1999 that they would vote for a homosexual for president, compared to only 26% in 1978. But despite all the emphasis on tolerance and diversity there is no saving atheists. Only 49% of Americans said they would consider voting for an atheist for president, up only 9% since 1978. Of the eight categories surveyed, atheists are the lowest on the list by far.
http://www.ethicalfocus.org/index.php?mpage=33/A_Marginalized_Minority.htm

Many vocal atheists are rebellious high school kids who have little idea of what they have rejected anyway, most of those idiots end up returning to whatever faith they left, at least in my experience. The maturity and tolerance of atheists greatly increases when you get into the 20+ age brackets. That's true for all groups, but it's just atheism is a rejection of what most were raised as, so it does get some of those kids. But, in defense, I've never seen an atheists who denounced anything more than fundamentalists and the idea of christianity, or other religions, itself, I've never seen atheists practice the discrimination towards christians that religious people will practice towards atheists. And I've never heard of an atheist assuming that believing in god makes you a bad person, I've heard that quite a lot coming from more religious people.

Most atheists take the worst examples of Christianity and use those as reasons to not be religious. They ignore the best. In defense of Atheism; however, the worst examples of Christianity are the most vocal. I suppose the reverse is also true.

This one is basically a wash. The only difference is that since atheists aren't vocal in the news or other public areas, people attacking atheists usually don't base it on individuals but just the assumption that morals come from religion, though sometimes they bring up stalin, mao and other communist rulers.
 
[quote name='Quillion']An excellent example of (in my mind) the underlying case. Atheists are more intolerant than the typical Christian or Muslim. Rather than question my opinion, he assumed that I was automatically a bad person.

Most atheists take the worst examples of Christianity and use those as reasons to not be religious. They ignore the best. In defense of Atheism; however, the worst examples of Christianity are the most vocal. I suppose the reverse is also true.[/QUOTE]

Quillion, you've been posting for a while. I didn't assume anything - you ARE an ignorant bigot.

I have many friends who are christians (including my best friend and an ex or two), I have voted for christians, and some of my family is christian. If I thought Jesus was a god, and I believed in his sacred texts, then I'd be christian too, I just don't. If you think that some redneck in white sheets or some crusader 400 years back influenced my opinion of the philosophy of that religion, you are wrong. Most of the stories and descriptions of the christian god in the christian bible show that he is a jealous, angry, and ultimately destructive god (this is the guy who is bringing on the apocalypse, remember?). If there is such a god as described in the christian bible, then I choose not to worship him or live by his laws.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Not in the least. 2000 years ago people believed in the Roman Gods, before that the Greeks and they both KNEW they were right, now we call them myths. Today we have Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, etc. and the people who follow them KNOW they are right. In 2000 years who knows what humans will be worshiping, but they will KNOW they are right and they will call Christ a myth.[/QUOTE]

Belief is different from knowledge.

There's a reason people call it faith - it's because they don't know things to be true, but they believe them to be so.

I don't think your use of the word "myth" was misguided, most mythology contains contradictions (yes, even everyone's favorite, the christian bible), it seems to be the nature of mythology. I would also argue that mythology is not meant to be taken literally, it is meant to teach lessons and greater spriritual truths. However, since a literal interpretation is the easiest to fathom and simplest to grasp, it is no surprise to me that most people read it as such and are done with it (even the segment of atheists who outright condemn it on the basis of being ridiculous on it's face value)

Mythology is a collection of stories that a culture believes in, on any one of a dozen layers. It should not be mistaken for straight-up science, fictional literature, or history.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Again, you know a person believes in god, but you have no idea if they actual develop a code from that, if they understand their religion, or if they even care about the rules of their religion. It's a baseless assumption to assume that atheists are less likely to have morals than religious people. It's a popular assumption, common sense supports it, but in reality it's baseless. The many god believing people who do whatever the hell they want only add to that fact.[/quote] I would argue that a "God believing person" who does whatever the hell he wants to, in reality, isn't. God believing, that is.

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bigot

I am not intolerant. There's a difference between intolerance and disagreement. You have a right to believe whatever you like, and a right to equal protection under the law. I have a right to disagree with you.
[quote name='Alonzo']Research[/QUOTE]

That's interesting research. I'm going to have to read the whole report. But, you're dead on. I've considered myself an atheist before, but I've considered myself lots of things. To find out what I believe, I had to get into a dialogue with myself. That was awkward. Introductions were a bitch.

But, about the election thing... Most of those minorities were simply people who were born different. Atheists select these beliefs, beliefs that directly contradict what most voters believe. Many people would find that threatening. Besides, would you vote for someone who disagreed diametrically with you on an issue as close to one's heart as religion?
 
[quote name='Quillion']I would argue that a "God believing person" who does whatever the hell he wants to, in reality, isn't. God believing, that is.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily true. Just because you believe in something, it does not mean you will act on that belief.

Criminals often believe they will be caught, yet they still commit the crime.

In fact, most religions have a ritual for wiping the slate clean.
 
[quote name='camoor']Quillion, you've been posting for a while. I didn't assume anything - you ARE an ignorant bigot.[/QUOTE]

You and I have never had a serious discussion on this topic. Thus, you've written off my opinion without even considering it. For you to write off my opinion like you have, demonstrates that you sir, are the bigot.

I've taken controversial stances and argued them as if I actually believed them, jumped at people I thought were reading the latest rhetoric verbatim or maligned views they disagreed with, attempted to inject logic, reason and dialogue into most discussions on here, and called bullshit multiple times when I felt it was necessary. Don't pretend to actually understand my views based on my debate topics on a message board.
 
[quote name='Quillion']You and I have never had a serious discussion on this topic. Thus, you've written off my opinion without even considering it. For you to write off my opinion like you have, demonstrates that you sir, are the bigot.

I've taken controversial stances and argued them as if I actually believed them, jumped at people I thought were reading the latest rhetoric verbatim or maligned views they disagreed with, attempted to inject logic, reason and dialogue into most discussions on here, and called bullshit multiple times when I felt it was necessary. Don't pretend to actually understand my views based on my debate topics on a message board.[/QUOTE]

You just stated that all athiest people are less principled and less eager to help others in relation to all religious people.

How do you know this - did you astrally project into everyone in the USA's head and find out that athiests only care for their own godless heathen interests?

I judge people on their actions and words (I just judged you on your words Quillion, I have nothing else to go by) - and not their religion, skin color, age, or whatever other yardstick pop culture loves holding up to.

You are bigoted against athiests, just as you would be bigoted against blacks if you said that they had less morality then whites and you didn't want to live next to one.
 
[quote name='camoor']You just stated that all athiest people are less principled and less eager to help others in relation to all religious people.

How do you know this - did you astrally project into everyone in the USA's head and find out that athiests only care for their own godless heathen interests?

I judge people on their actions and words (I just judged you on your words Quillion, I have nothing else to go by) - and not their religion, skin color, age, or whatever other yardstick pop culture loves holding up to.

You are bigoted against athiests, just as you would be bigoted against blacks if you said that they had less morality then whites and you didn't want to live next to one.[/QUOTE]
I've also said that it's possible that my experiences with atheists have been colored by meeting the wrong ones. The word I used is cynical. You're adding your own spin, reading into my words. And I never used any reference to principles.

My analysis was focused on the fact that www.atheists.org mentioned secular before humanitarian. They're putting politics before charity. Bush does that too, and I despise it. Also, I never said I wouldn't want an Atheistic neighbor, only that I would prefer a religious one.

If all you have to go by is words, don't judge. I think Christ said something about that.
 
I'm just curious on how the Masonic Society made the secular, non-religious donation list. Granted I don't know much about Masonry, but I had always figured that they weren't a secular organization (they belive different things, but there's a belief in God) and I sort of remebering atheists not even being allowed to become Masons. Perhaps I'm wrong but it just seems interesting.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I'm just curious on how the Masonic Society made the secular, non-religious donation list. Granted I don't know much about Masonry, but I had always figured that they weren't a secular organization (they belive different things, but there's a belief in God) and I sort of remebering atheists not even being allowed to become Masons. Perhaps I'm wrong but it just seems interesting.[/QUOTE]

That's true, one of the prerequisites for Masonic membership is belief in a supreme being. I thought that was odd as well, I don't think the writers of that list did their research.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I'm just curious on how the Masonic Society made the secular, non-religious donation list. Granted I don't know much about Masonry, but I had always figured that they weren't a secular organization (they belive different things, but there's a belief in God) and I sort of remebering atheists not even being allowed to become Masons. Perhaps I'm wrong but it just seems interesting.[/QUOTE]

It's all part of a plot hatched by the Illuminati
 
[quote name='Quillion']I've also said that it's possible that my experiences with atheists have been colored by meeting the wrong ones. The word I used is cynical. You're adding your own spin, reading into my words. And I never used any reference to principles.

My analysis was focused on the fact that www.atheists.org mentioned secular before humanitarian. They're putting politics before charity. Bush does that too, and I despise it. Also, I never said I wouldn't want an Atheistic neighbor, only that I would prefer a religious one.

If all you have to go by is words, don't judge. I think Christ said something about that.[/QUOTE]

Your distinction is meaningless.

It's like the white bigot in my analogy saying "I never said I wouldn't want a black neighbor, only that I would prefer a white one."

What the heck do you mean by saying that you shouldn't judge someone based on their words? What do you think our system of law is based upon? If you're going to try and wiggle out of this, please at least come up with something that sounds half-intelligent.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's all part of a plot hatched by the Illuminati[/QUOTE]

Damn Illuminati, with their secret societies and make-out parties...
 
[quote name='camoor']Your distinction is meaningless.

It's like the white bigot in my analogy saying "I never said I wouldn't want a black neighbor, only that I would prefer a white one."

What the heck do you mean by saying that you shouldn't judge someone based on their words? What do you think our system of law is based upon? If you're going to try and wiggle out of this, please at least come up with something that sounds half-intelligent.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to help you understand. You seem determined to place me into the bigoted box. How does prefering one person's company over another make me a bigot?

Say I had a huge basketball fan living next door who completely rejected football, he and I would have nothing to talk about. I would prefer someone who enjoyed football. A religious choice is only barely different. A Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan, Pagan, whatever, would share one definitive thing, the belief in something higher. An Athiest wouldn't just not share that belief, he would reject it completely.

If that still doesn't make it clear, then let's agree to disagree. I don't think any less of Atheists anyway, I just diagree with them. Just like I don't think any less of any groups or people I disagree with.

EDIT:You're way off on the system of law comment. Our system of law is based on two things actus reus and mens rea. That's guilty act and guilty mind action and intent. You don't judge someone by their words, but by the evidence against them.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I'm trying to help you understand. You seem determined to place me into the bigoted box. How does prefering one person's company over another make me a bigot?

Say I had a huge basketball fan living next door who completely rejected football, he and I would have nothing to talk about. I would prefer someone who enjoyed football. A religious choice is only barely different. A Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan, Pagan, whatever, would share one definitive thing, the belief in something higher. An Athiest wouldn't just not share that belief, he would reject it completely.

If that still doesn't make it clear, then let's agree to disagree. I don't think any less of Atheists anyway, I just diagree with them. Just like I don't think any less of any groups or people I disagree with.

EDIT:You're way off on the system of law comment. Our system of law is based on two things actus reus and mens rea. That's guilty act and guilty mind action and intent. You don't judge someone by their words, but by the evidence against them.[/QUOTE]

What you are socially has absolutely nothing to do with law. The inclusion of legal rules into this is ridiculous. And, you might as well lump buddhists into atheists if that's your criteria, since the majority do no believe in a supreme being.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I'm trying to help you understand. You seem determined to place me into the bigoted box. How does prefering one person's company over another make me a bigot?

Say I had a huge basketball fan living next door who completely rejected football, he and I would have nothing to talk about. I would prefer someone who enjoyed football. A religious choice is only barely different. A Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan, Pagan, whatever, would share one definitive thing, the belief in something higher. An Athiest wouldn't just not share that belief, he would reject it completely.

If that still doesn't make it clear, then let's agree to disagree. I don't think any less of Atheists anyway, I just diagree with them. Just like I don't think any less of any groups or people I disagree with.

EDIT:You're way off on the system of law comment. Our system of law is based on two things actus reus and mens rea. That's guilty act and guilty mind action and intent. You don't judge someone by their words, but by the evidence against them.[/QUOTE]

Bigotry exists when you take something that exists outside the world of rational or reasonable and make an ultimate decision for everyone.

For example: this is not bigoted: I think Jesus Christ is my savior.

However, this is bigoted: Jesus Christ is your savior, and by the way, if you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you are going to hell.

Something like the great beyond, which cannot rationally be argued (in this case using faith as a basis for argument) has no place in the public light. You can't have it both ways.

You can't say: "I'm not bigoted" and then make judgements deeming people less or more than you on the aforementioned grounds.

That's the whole point of this country - that's a big reason why people came here. Now it's true that the first religious pilgrims were not seriously tolerant within their own complexes, but as a contractarian system was formed (ya know, that constitution thing) it was made pretty clear that tolerance (a ground for equity in the public light) was very important and necessary.

With that said - the public realm is the realm of discourse and idea exchange - to be in that realm and look at other rational and reasonable moral codes (I'm not talking about rapists and murders, I'm talking about unitarians :D) and NOT feel they are equal WITHIN the public realm is bigoted.

Plain and simple.

If you think less of people based on things that cannot be proven to be true for EVERYONE then you are bigoted.

EXAMPLE:
You say non-religious people aren't as morally sound (I'm assuming and paraphrasing)? well I say most religious people aren't morally sound based on their exclusion and condemnation of non-religious people.

you say potato... i say...
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']What you are socially has absolutely nothing to do with law. The inclusion of legal rules into this is ridiculous. And, you might as well lump buddhists into atheists if that's your criteria, since the majority do no believe in a supreme being.[/QUOTE]

please also add Zen, Shinto, Daoism, Confucisim, Tibetin Buddhism, teachings of Menicus, and the Teachings of Epicerus to the list of "atheists" who Quillion automatically disagrees with, not having read probably 1/2 of the moral codes listed.


cheers
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']What you are socially has absolutely nothing to do with law. The inclusion of legal rules into this is ridiculous. And, you might as well lump buddhists into atheists if that's your criteria, since the majority do no believe in a supreme being.[/QUOTE]

He brought up the system of law. As an aside, I repsonded.

I wasn't using that as a criteria to evaluate Atheism. But, Buddists do believe in something higher:
[quote name='wikipedia']While Buddism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (indeed, many are discussed in Buddist Scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation, or judgement to them.[/quote]If not only that, there's striving for Nivana, and an end to suffering. I would consider Nivana "something higher"

[quote name='Sleepykyng']Stuff[/quote]I've already stated that my moral discussion of Atheists was potentially inaccurate due to being colored by my experience. I've reiterated that I do not judge them. I fail to see how that post disagrees with my stance at all.

[quote name='Sleepykyng']List of religions[/quote]I've responded to the Buddism criticism above. I'm not going to research the rest of those. I'm not, after all, a religious scholar.

I don't think I need to reiterate my statement that I don't think any less of Atheists, I just don't have anything to talk about with them.

In summation:

I think the primary problem we're having is a communication one. I do understand your points of view, but I don't think I'm being understood. I can't do anything more to rectify that. I'll leave this topic alone, and not post unless I see a sign that I've been understood.
 
bread's done
Back
Top