Gripes with your own...

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

As for that incident of sending out the daughter to be raped, there is no consent from God, or no support from God indicated in the text. Interesting your leave out that. The Bible teaches us about the sins of others (e.g King David and adultery, Lot and incest etc) so as to discourage us from doing them.

Ok, but simply change the tale to the pages of Deuteronomy and Leviticus and you have every paragraph starting with 'God said...' followed by some contemptible rule or command.

What say you of this? Or is this some guy named God and not the actual deity?

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I won't get drawn into how subjective interpretation is, no matter what you are judging. I just find it interesting that not one of you can think of a single criticism of that book.

Not one.

I personally have always found it interesting to read what Jews say about how the Old Testament events are supposed to be fulfilled with the New Testament events.

By the sounds of it a number of these are based on what Jews would consider faulty interpretation of Old Testament stories, as if a bunch of modern day Christians who didn't really understand the New Testament started expanding on it using dodgy interpretations of certain stories (Jesus brings a sword, for example).

I wonder how many Christians came to Christianity after years of study of the Old Testament alone, before they came to the New Testament? A minority I would imagine.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

As for that incident of sending out the daughter to be raped, there is no consent from God, or no support from God indicated in the text. Interesting your leave out that. The Bible teaches us about the sins of others (e.g King David and adultery, Lot and incest etc) so as to discourage us from doing them.

But if God had said go do that you wouldn't care, since by virtue of God saying it you rationalise that it must have been a good thing. So that objection becomes rather null and void. There is plenty of rape and killing in the Old Testament that God did consent to that you justify as being ok because God consented to it.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

I personally have always found it interesting to read what Jews say about how the Old Testament events are supposed to be fulfilled with the New Testament events.

By the sounds of it a number of these are based on what Jews would consider faulty interpretation of Old Testament stories, as if a bunch of modern day Christians who didn't really understand the New Testament started expanding on it using dodgy interpretations of certain stories (Jesus brings a sword, for example).

I wonder how many Christians came to Christianity after years of study of the Old Testament alone, before they came to the New Testament? A minority I would imagine.

Here's Lewis black's take on that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

philologos

This thread wasn't intended for discussion of the Torah. If Dades or robindch feel it appropriate it would probably be good to split the thread and move the remainer that deviates from the intention of the thread to the Christianity forum?

Flamed Diving

The matter of the total absence of 'gripes' with the bible is entirely relevant to this discussion, I'm sure you will agree.

philologos

Flamed Diving: it would be better to deal with our actual gripes here. My suggestion remains.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Flamed Diving: it would be better to deal with our actual gripes here. My suggestion remains.

Well, let's leave my question there. Just in case there is a Christian out there who is willing to consider it.

It is entirely relevant to the discussion, and thus should not be removed.

lostexpectation

dear catholic forum

please list the things wrong with Catholicism and Catholics.

conciliatory yours

le

philologos

lostexpectation wrote: »

dear catholic forum

It doesn't exist, there is no such thing as a Catholic forum.

lostexpectation wrote: »

please list the things wrong with Catholicism and Catholics.

How about you list your gripes with atheism first?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

How about you list your gripes with atheism first?

1) There aren't enough god/s to deny.

Sam Vimes

It's hard to give gripes with atheism because it's not an ethos or a way of life the way a religion is, the only thing we all have in common is we don't believe in somebody else's ethos

I suppose if I was pushed I'd say some of them can show arrogance but I don't actually think that's indicative of atheism. People argue over everything but people are so sensitive about their religion that they see anyone who points out the flaws in it as arrogant. You don't see someone branding all Fine Gael supporters as arrogant just because they point out Fianna Fail's faults

philologos

I'm not asking you to criticise atheism specifically if you want to that's fine, but I mean what gripes do you have with the way it is presented or how people act in its name.

I'm really surprised that not as many feel that the "new atheists" such as Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens misrepresent atheism. I've heard this one from quite a few before (off boards that is). It seems that people are far more supportive of them on here.

Handsome Bob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's hard to give gripes with atheism because it's not an ethos or a way of life the way a religion is, the only thing we all have in common is we don't believe in somebody else's ethos

I suppose if I was pushed I'd say some of them can show arrogance but I don't actually think that's indicative of atheism. People argue over everything but people are so sensitive about their religion that they see anyone who points out the flaws in it as arrogant. You don't see someone branding all Fine Gael supporters as arrogant just because they point out Fianna Fail's faults

You're missing the point I think. For religious people, their belief is something that is directly interwined with the life they live. If you ridicule someone because of their religious beliefs, you are ridiculing every aspect of that religion. Including the idea of the afterlife. For those of us who are religious, their belief in heaven is central to giving them strength to live their life. When people suffer from bereavement, religion can give them comfort in the idea that they'll see their loved ones again, and be eternally reunited. It gives them strength to keep going in life. Now, if an "arrogant" atheist ridicules someone's religion, they are basically ridiculing the idea that gives religious people most comfort; that they'll see their dead loved ones again. You are basically calling them an idiot of extremely low intelligence for daring to believe in the idea of heaven. Thus, it will hit a raw nerve and for anyone to remain blissfully ignorant as to why it hits a nerve they are kidding themselves.

Politics in comparison is just a day job, you're ridiculing the faults of someone's ideology in running the country. It's hardly something that's going to cut you to the bone because politicians at the end of the day know it's just business and nothing personal when they take shots at each other.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not asking you to criticise atheism specifically if you want to that's fine, but I mean what gripes do you have with the way it is presented or how people act in its name.

I'm really surprised that not as many feel that the "new atheists" such as Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens misrepresent atheism. I've heard this one from quite a few before (off boards that is). It seems that people are far more supportive of them on here.

I suppose one could criticize the above and others of misrepresenting Atheism by being too aggressive or being pro-active at all, seeing as Atheism is meant to be a disbelief in god/s and nothing more. However, one could equally argue that atheists are not represented in a society which is dominated by people who believe that they will burn in hell and people who try to enforce laws which coincide with their bronze-age personal beliefs, many of which are abhorrent to most atheists.

So therefore it is probably just as well that atheists are now rising up as a social group, if for nothing else, as an opposing force to this wave of paranoid ignorance.

Sam Vimes

LZ5by5 wrote: »

You're missing the point I think. For religious people, their belief is something that is directly interwined with the life they live. If you ridicule someone because of their religious beliefs, you are ridiculing every aspect of that religion. Including the idea of the afterlife. For those of us who are religious, their belief in heaven is central to giving them strength to live their life. When people suffer from bereavement, religion can give them comfort in the idea that they'll see their loved ones again, and be eternally reunited. It gives them strength to keep going in life. Now, if an "arrogant" atheist ridicules someone's religion, they are basically ridiculing the idea that gives religious people most comfort; that they'll see their dead loved ones again. You are basically calling them an idiot of extremely low intelligence for daring to believe in the idea of heaven. Thus, it will hit a raw nerve and for anyone to remain blissfully ignorant as to why it hits a nerve they are kidding themselves.

Politics in comparison is just a day job, you're ridiculing the faults of someone's ideology in running the country. It's hardly something that's going to cut you to the bone because politicians at the end of the day know it's just business and nothing personal when they take shots at each other.

I'm not missing the point, that was exactly my point :P

People ridicule everything but you don't hear about "arrogant Fine Gael supporters", "arrogant nationalists", or even "arrogant christians" because they often talk about the beliefs of other religions the way we talk about theirs. You only hear about "arrogant atheists" because the thing we're ridiculing is especially important to people. But that difference exists only in other people's heads. I behave the same way for everything I find ridiculous and you don't hear people calling me arrogant for telling someone that they were in fact not abducted by aliens

Also, another reason why I think that atheists are branded arrogant is because things like political beliefs can be very easily defended. You can write out a big list of very good reasons for why you would vote for Fianna Fail but religion is pretty much based on a 2000 year old unverifiable book and wishful thinking so it's much easier to brand the people who point this out as arrogant than to actually try to disagree with them

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not asking you to criticise atheism specifically if you want to that's fine, but I mean what gripes do you have with the way it is presented or how people act in its name.

I'm really surprised that not as many feel that the "new atheists" such as Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens misrepresent atheism. I've heard this one from quite a few before (off boards that is). It seems that people are far more supportive of them on here.

Well those guys don't really present atheism. They present a very convincing case against religion. Hitchens is a bit off putting, Harris and Dawkins are fine but Dennett is probably the one I would pick as the most diplomatic in his case against religion. Again I would see these guys as critics of religion (not all of them anti-theist) whereas Dinesh D'Souza* would be a promoter of religion specifically Catholicism.

*For the record he is one annoying man.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm really surprised that not as many feel that the "new atheists" such as Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens misrepresent atheism. I've heard this one from quite a few before (off boards that is). It seems that people are far more supportive of them on here.

I've heard an awful lot of bad stuff about Dawkins etc from a variety of sources such as they're just like religious fundamentalists and if I based my opinion of them on such reports I'd say they didn't represent me too. Instead I listened to what they had to say and found that it made a lot of sense. Dawkins for example explains exactly the difference between himself and a fundamentalist in his book because it's an accusation that's often thrown at him.

I do have some issue with Hitchens though because of a debate I saw with himself, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. He said that he doesn't want religion gone basically because he'd have no one to argue with and that's not really the point

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not asking you to criticise atheism specifically if you want to that's fine, but I mean what gripes do you have with the way it is presented or how people act in its name.

People have replied insofar as they can - given that atheism is just a lack of belief.

Is there a particular gripe you are waiting to hear, or where is all this going?

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...You can write out a big list of very good reasons for why you would vote for Fianna Fail...

Really? A "big" list? Of "good" reasons?
Surely those two words are mutually exclusive in this context?!

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

Really? A "big" list? Of "good" reasons?
Surely those two words are mutually exclusive in this context?!

Well maybe I spoke a bit too hastily there :P

philologos

Dades wrote: »

People have replied insofar as they can - given that atheism is just a lack of belief.

Is there a particular gripe you are waiting to hear, or where is all this going?

I'm just royally disappointed at the lack of critical thinking. It seems this thread is going on the road to nowhere currently

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just royally disappointed at the lack of critical thinking.

Says the person who could not think of a single criticism of The Bible.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just royally disappointed at the lack of critical thinking. It seems this thread is going on the road to nowhere currently

It is some what because the question is flawed -

gripes about how your own ideology is executed or the others that are sharing your belief

Atheism isn't an ideology, so right there is your problem, as a plumber might say.

People certain have grips about well known atheists who put forward their own ideologies, for example Richard Dawkins seems to annoy as many atheists as theists.

But you can't really misrepresent atheism, in the same way you can't misrepresent vegetarianism, beyond something really silly like I'm an atheist and I believe in God, or I'm a vegetarian and I eat meat. It is an atomic description of someone. You either do eat meat or you don't eat meat (or at least you do try to not eat meat) Why you are a veggy can vary wildly between persons and no one reason is the ideology of vegetarianism.

Dawkins is as much an atheists as anyone else, so any criticism of him will merely be personal. Someone might say that he is too aggressive, but there is nothing about atheism that says you should or should not be aggressive.

Someone might say he makes it sound like atheism is intellectually elitist. But there is nothing about being an atheist that says you shouldn't make atheism sound elitist.

None of these are misrepresentations of atheism or atheists. He can do all these things and it doesn't reflect on other atheists because there is nothing to misrepresent. And then you are just into the realm of What annoys you about other people

That is wildly different from say Christianity, where a Christian probably would be at pains to stress that someone like Fred Phelps does not represent Christianity because there is something about Christianity that says you shouldn't act like Fred Phelps.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just royally disappointed at the lack of critical thinking. It seems this thread is going on the road to nowhere currently

By all means enlighten us as to what gripes, other than personal gripes with people who are atheists, one could possibly have with a lack of belief.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Someone might say he makes it sound like atheism is intellectually elitist

He's actually specifically against that. He says that the idea that we're all too smart to need religion but the "ordinary people, hoi polloi.....semi morons etc" need religion is condescending

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Says the person who could not think of a single criticism of The Bible.

Yet who came up with 12 criticisms of modern Christianity? Let's be reasonable here, my OP was pretty fair.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He's actually specifically against that. He says that the idea that we're all too smart to need religion but the "ordinary people, hoi polloi.....semi morons etc" need religion is condescending

Just an example off the top of my head, wasn't saying that is what I think

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Yet who came up with 12 criticisms of modern Christianity? Let's be reasonable here, my OP was pretty fair.

Irrelavant. That's not a problem with your belief system. Thats a problem with the believers of a belief system.

It seems when it comes to viewing The Bible, all critical faculties miracuously (pun intended) vanish.

philologos

I never said that was what the thread had to be about. I don't have any issue with the Scriptures at all. However, I don't even hear one possible issue with how atheists actually conduct themselves or represent their position?

This was my attempt to get a somewhat interesting discussion going and I thought it had a lot of potential. Apparently not

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said that was what the thread had to be about. I don't have any issue with the Scriptures at all. However, I don't even hear one possible issue with how atheists actually conduct themselves or represent their position?

This was my attempt to get a somewhat interesting discussion going and I thought it had a lot of potential. Apparently not

Ok. Let's take the High-King of Atheism, Richard Dawkins.

Do I have a problem with his approach? Yes. I find him to be too aggressive, condescending and probably does a better job of turning people away from rational/scientific thinking than reasoned persuasion.

Does this have anything to do with him not believing in god/s? No.

So, I really don't see what this has to do with Atheism.

fatmammycat

As has been stated previously here, not believeing in gods is not an ideology. I'm not sure what you expect to hear Jakkass. Why would any one have a problem with the conduct of another individual who also happens not to believe in gods? Dawkins et all don't represent me, they are not the heads of any 'church of atheism' nor I a member. They are outspoken atheists, but individuals.

sink

It might be more constructive to turn the question to atheistic belief systems like Humanism. Do I have a problem with the way Humanism is portrayed by fellow Humanists? Not really, although we could do with raising our profile slightly, we tend to be ignored. Things are slowly moving in that direction with the UK now including Humanists in faith consultation groups, Ireland should follow suit. Sometimes I suppose Humanism comes across as bit idealistic and airy fairy, but that tends to be grounded by Humanists tendency to put evidence and empirical based approach first leading to overall pragmatism. But tbh there is not much I can think to criticize, besides criticisms of individual personalities.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

However, I don't even hear one possible issue with how atheists actually conduct themselves or represent their position?

Feel free to ignore these again.

dvpower wrote: »

I must admit, some of the language Dawkins uses goes way too far e.g. comparing religion to child abuse. Even the title of 'The God Delusion' seems harsh.

dvpower wrote: »

Absolute atheism also annoys me a bit. I don't think I could ever say 100% that there is no God (I use the term God loosely here); we can only say that there is insufficient evidence for God.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

On topic, I have beefs with arrogant atheists who think that it's their right to patronise and to talk down to people. I also have beefs with the way many atheists seem to equate atheism to being automatically superior in intelligence to every religious person in the world.

MatthewVII wrote: »

To be honest, what annoys me most about atheists is the silence. Atheists (passive and non-judgemental as we are) tend to just go along with life and not get too worried about things.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

And one last beef that I have and it's with atheists who think that their aggressive and arrogant form of argument can actually help them persuade people over to their way of thinking. I mean for **** sake do you really think people are going to be open to your line of thinking when you're basically calling them retards?

sink wrote: »

My gripes are with the wider community not just atheists. I have a gripe with the way some people (atheists included) think atheism is a dirty word.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

...This being said, the only gripe I have with Atheists, and it's one I have with nationalists also is those that think we have some ideology to live by. Those who think we should be converting theists by biting our tongue or watching how we might be perceived as arrogant or pompous so as not to scare off a ripe convert. Those who think it is our duty to show ourselves as equally or more so moral than theists.

I don't care if the Irish language dies out and I don't care if Theists won't give up the goat because they listened to Hitchens and found him arrogant. Nothing gets under my skin more than when I read something like "You're Irish/Atheist and you should be..."

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I suppose one could criticize the above and others of misrepresenting Atheism by being too aggressive or being pro-active at all, seeing as Atheism is meant to be a disbelief in god/s and nothing more. However, one could equally argue that atheists are not represented in a society which is dominated by people who believe that they will burn in hell and people who try to enforce laws which coincide with their bronze-age personal beliefs, many of which are abhorrent to most atheists.