.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

.

I think you will find that there are a number of people on OLO who deride others. The practice is not specifically limited to “belief in God” or “openly admitting to being part of a religion” as you suggest. Derision takes many forms, is more or less vehement, more or less systematic and applies to just about any subject you like to name here on OLO.

The triggers are multiple and varied. In addition to the two you cited, there are also atheism, creationism, abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, women, leftists, avant-gardists, conservatives, rightists, and many others, including even my good friend “one under god” who has great difficulty expressing himself – to the extent that somebody started a thread on OLO, a few years back, in order to protest to his presence here and have him evicted - fortunately, without success.

You wrote:

« …the qualities of forgiveness and tolerance are not exclusive to the theists. Surely atheists also have the ability to show compassion, fairness, Love and understanding »

Happily, the qualities you mention are not just limited to theists and atheists. I doubt that there are many here who would spontaneously define themselves in such terms anyway.

Nor do I see expressing derision, mockery, scorn, laughing at, humiliating, or ridiculing others as the norm. Perhaps it is more prevalent on OLO than in society at large. I see it as something of the order of a personality disorder. Perhaps it expresses fear or horror of the difference. Or, conversely, fear or horror, triggered by the recognition in others of something we detest, and are ashamed to admit, in ourselves.

Whatever it is, it seems to be some sort of defence, when faced with what is interpreted as some sort of aggression, triggered by a feeling of insecurity in the person who expresses the derision.

Also, please allow me to remark that I doubt that future generations of so-called “atheists” would see much point in defining themselves by reference to something they consider does not exist. The others will probably do the labelling.

.

Just to remind you May May. From the Great Burka debate.

MM: you have to realise that Jayb is still digesting Andrew Bolt from the weekend,

I read the Courier Mail & the Sunday mail. I couldn't tell you who wrote what article. I never look at who wrote it. I just read the article, if I agree with it all well & good, if I don't, Same Same, but different. Sometimes I'll agree with parts & disagree with other parts. I couldn't tell left from right based on what they say. Oh I like Francis Whiting who writes a funny page in the Lift out in the Sunday Mail. She about the only author I could put a name of an article too.

I don't listen to the Radio either, too much talking. I haven't got time for that. I put the Reel to Reel on down in the shed & sing along all day.

By the way. You never answered the question on what type of Nun your sister was, Good Samaritan, Mercy, ??

“Paul Tillich maintained that the main dividing line runs, not between those who regard themselves as believers and those who regard themselves as nonbelievers, but between those whom God leaves indifferent - whether “indifferent atheists” or conventional Christians - and those who are existentially concerned by the “question of God” - whether they be passionate seekers after God (such as mystics), people “wrestling with God” (like Nietzsche), or people who thirst after faith but are unable to find a place in any form of religion they have so far encountered.
---
It would be a reprehensible neglect if Christianity failed to use for its own benefit the fact that, during the modern era, it was subject, more than any other religion, to the purgative flames of atheist criticism; it would be just as unfortunate to lack the courage to enter that smelting furnace as to renounce, in the midst of the flames, the faith and hope that are intended to be tested and refined."

(Tomas Halik, Patience with God, Doubleday 2009; the author is a sociologist, psychotherapist and Catholic priest who grew up us an atheist in Communist Czechoslovakia)

Banjo Paterson,

Theism and atheism are logical absolutes; you’re either one or you’re the other. Most of time when a non-believer says they’re not an atheist, they actually mean they’re not an antitheist.

Here are some links I provided earlier regarding this:
http://tinyurl.com/mtu4jg2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

<<Also, please allow me to remark that I doubt that future generations of so-called “atheists” would see much point in defining themselves by reference to something they consider does not exist.>>

I don’t think many would *define* themselves “by reference to something they consider does not exist” even now. It’s simply a label that describes whether or not one believes in a god or gods. It can’t say anything about who an individual is, or their political views, etc. This is what people fail to realise when they try to tie atheism to communism: there is nothing within atheism to support what the communists did.

This hesitation the use the word ‘atheist’ is interesting. We would have no hesitation in someone saying that we’re a-fairyist, a-unicornist or a-Loch-Ness-monsterist, but as soon as a-theist is mentioned, the reason often cited for the rejection of the term is the fact that one should not have to have a label because others choose to believe absurd things. While I can sympathise with that, it’s a little disingenuous because if the above made-up terms of mine actually existed, it’s unlikely that anyone would vigorously avoid them. There’s usually another reason, other than the one being stated, as to why the label is being rejected.

Following from my last paragraph to Suseonline, people need to understand that shunning the term feeds the prejudice against it - which affects those who shun it too.

Certainly not referring to you here when I say this, BP, but as an aside, I’ve always found it bizarre that often the most militant in this debate are those who call themselves “agnostics” (unaware that agnosticism addresses a different question). They’re just so-o-o-o passionate about the idea that there might be a god and, strangely enough, only attack those who don’t believe there is. They’re very confused.

You're right about agnostics AJ. On occasion agnostics, with all their "variations" of what might or might not be, can be even more confused than the Christians, Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews etc --- well "almost". Some agnostics, a minority, are radically anti atheist.

The religions we are
familiar with have been biased by ethnocentric
Judeo-Christian ideas about religion. These ideas
are based on a number of central beliefs: that
there exists one supreme being or God; that God
created the universe and all life, and takes a
continuing interest in the creation; that there is
a life hereafter; and that our moral behaviour in this
life influences our fate in the next.

In cross-cultural terms, however, this particular
combination of beliefs is unusual. Many religions do not
recognise a supreme being, and a number do not believe in
gods at all. Several religions ignore questions about
the origins of the universe and life, leaving these problems
to be dealt with instead by nonreligious myth,

Many religions assume that the gods take little interest in
human affairs. Some have almost nothing to say about life
after death, and many - perhaps most- do not link our
earthly morality with our fate beyond the grave.

Obviosuly, religion cannot be defined in terms of the
Western religious tradition alone.

The religious convictions that anyone holds (or not) are
influenced by the historical and social context in which
that person happens to live. There are a large number of
religions, many of whose members are convinced that
theirs is the one true-faith and that all others are
misguided, superstitions, even wicked.

However most of us are not qualified and don't
have the knowledge of expertise to be
concerned with the truth or falsity
of any religion. Sociological research is directed at
the social rather than the theological aspects of religion.
Regardless of whether or not a supernatural power exists,
relgiion, like any other institution, has social
characteristics that can be studied by the methods of
social science.

Mr Thwackum, a character in Henry Fielding's novel, "Tom Jones,"
declares:

"When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion;
and not only the Chrisitan religion, but the Protestant
relgion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the
Church of England."

Most people are like Mr Thwackum when they mention religion,
they have their own in mind.