Tête-à-Tête-Tête

Unfortunately atheists do all kinds of dumb shit to other people. Quite often fundamentalist atheists do dumb shit that is all but indistinguishable from the dumb shit done by fundamentalist religionists. . .

Come on, R.E. - Buck is neither Atheist nor Unitarian. You don’t have to pick on him. He’s just enjoying a joke.

I’m the boogyman you seek.

What’s an atheist?

I think it just left one part out. I submit: don’t do the dumb shit that religious people do to each other; but DO do the charitable things that many people of faith do for each other.

I wasn’t picking on Buck. I was just making a point. In any case, your average run-of-the-mill atheist is not the boogyman I seek. I take issue with the intolerant and abusive atheists which is why I use the term fundamentalist atheist in order to distinguish them from the rest. Are you claiming to be such a fundamentalist atheist?

I’m not claiming that, R.E. If you see me that way, I’d be glad to hear why you feel that way. I’ve just noticed that in a lot of threads here where religion comes up I can expect to find a comment about “fundamentalist atheists” or unitarians. The first time I googled a little bit to try to figure out what had you so fired up. After reading for quite a while about a disagreement with a congregation somewhere in Canada or somewhere over a particular holiday that you wanted to see observed based on a religious experience you had, I still couldn’t figure out where anyone had mistreated anyone. So, I just kind of gave up on it & figured you had your reasons to be upset and you were entitled to feel that way. It just seems that whatever has offended you has given you a chip on your shoulder toward atheist unitarians or some subset thereof. I just wanted to let you know that Buck is probably not a party to the disagreement that has you so upset.

smijer, what exactly is a unitarian? I know I can google, but I could also google “conservative” and get a different answer should I arrive at rnc.com or the huffingtonpost. Not a trick question, just please inform this ignoramous.

What’s an atheist?

The person who is almost as obnoxious as the Linux user when it comes to a penchant for telling the world how stupid they are for not agreeing with their preferred choice. Almost.

RW, I’ll have to think about the best way to answer that. I call myself that because Unitarian Universalist is the name of the church I am associated with. One distinguishing figure of the Unitarian Universalist church is that it is non-creedal. You needn’t believe any particular thing to belong there. The theology is optional, and everyone is welcome to brown-bag their own. The important things are the community itself and the seven principles.

The name is mainly a historical artifact. We are an outgrowth of congregational alliances that were Unitarian (meaning denying the trinity) and/or Universalist (believing in the ultimate redemption of all humankind) in theology. We do still have Christians among us, but those Christians are not necessarily Unitarian or Universalist in their theology. And, I think it’s safe to say that both of those theological perspectives are echoed in the modern character of the church. Unitarianism insofar as it is a departure from orthodoxy based on a strict rationalism (3 != 1)… there are elements within the church (myself for instance) who are very rationalistic, though we have some folks who are so non-rational in their thinking that they make the snake-handler types look normal. Universalism is reflected in our modern principle of inclusiveness - we make a conscious effort to view no one as “beyond redemption”, even if we aren’t talking about the afterlife when.

I just wanted to let you know that Buck is probably not a party to the disagreement that has you so upset.

You misunderestimate me Smijer. I googled Robin the first time he ever commented here and did read his story. Getting mad at the church or having the church get mad at you is pretty common. Comes a time when it is in your best interest to let bygones be bygones and just put it down. I am not a party to the disagreement but I have seen this kind of thing at different times and in different places.

but DO do the charitable things that many people of faith do for each other.

Point well taken Joe. I try my best to not differentiate between believers and non-believers no matter what it is that they believe or don’t believe.

I believe that there is a common thread that runs through every man.

But I can still enjoy your company even if you tell me that I am full of shit.

I guess you could call me a godless woman (though that wasn’t always the case). I think there could be a better Golden Rule than that for atheists, though. And … why doesn’t the actual Golden Rule work?

The person who is almost as obnoxious as the Linux user when it comes to a penchant for telling the world how stupid they are for not agreeing with their preferred choice. Almost.

Hey - we can’t torture the infidels (fidels?) for eternity, so give us a break & let us have our fun with them now. At least we aren’t as bad as Linux users.

Dude…I am the walrus!

You needn’t believe any particular thing to belong there. The theology is optional, and everyone is welcome to brown-bag their own.

Wow! What if the world worked that way?…I cannot even imagine.

why doesn’t the actual Golden Rule work?

1st guess from an idiot?? Because no one has yet been in power to try and implement it.

What theism is implied in “Do to others what you would like them to do to you?” The Golden Rule is already completely atheistic. It’s a pretty brilliant ethical principle, although I think it was Bertrand Russell who pointed out it’s not flawless. Think for instance of the guys who commit “murder by cop.” They would realy like someone else to kill them and so (following the golden rule) go out on a shooting spree.

I’m not claiming that, R.E. If you see me that way, I’d be glad to hear why you feel that way.

Actually. So far. . . I have not seen much evidence of intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheism on this blog.

:I’ve just noticed that in a lot of threads here where religion comes up I can expect to find a comment about “fundamentalist atheists” or unitarians. The first time I googled a little bit to try to figure out what had you so fired up. After reading for quite a while about a disagreement with a congregation somewhere in Canada or somewhere over a particular holiday that you wanted to see observed based on a religious experience you had, I still couldn’t figure out where anyone had mistreated anyone.

You can’t figure out just how harmful and damaging it is for a U*U minister to label someone as “psychotic” and falsely and maliciously label their religious activities as a “cult” smijer?

:So, I just kind of gave up on it & figured you had your reasons to be upset and you were entitled to feel that way.

Indeed I do have very good reasons to be upset and I am definitely entitled to feel that Unitarian*Universalists condone the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of the funadamentalist atheist “Humanists” in their midst.

:It just seems that whatever has offended you has given you a chip on your shoulder toward atheist unitarians or some subset thereof.

Yes, some subset thereof. . . I have very good reason to have a chip on my shoulder towards intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist “Humanist” U*Us, to say nothing of all those U*Us who effectively condone the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that they quite regularly engage in.

:I just wanted to let you know that Buck is probably not a party to the disagreement that has you so upset.

I understood that, but my point still stands.

As far as putting it down goes I will not put it down until such a time as the very real injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am protesting against are acknowledged by the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA and the greater U*U religious community. If U*Us want peace they had better get around to providing justice to me and other victims of U*U injustices and abuses.

Thx, smijer. That was akin to what I was thinking, but I wanted to get the skinny from a legit source.

What theism is implied in “Do to others what you would like them to do to you?”

“Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Getting mad at the church or having the church get mad at you is pretty common.

As in “every baptist church that has been in existence in the earth’s history. We are, after all, humans….who sin. And, for some reason, who are far too prone to act based on emotion rather than logic. Case in point: hurt feelings.

Such emotions are not conducive to a constructive livelihood as time spent reflecting on said emotions are time spent not doing something constructive.

The Golden Rule is already completely atheistic.

Brilliant observation. The rule is not “do unto theists as you would have theists do unto you” The word “others” is pretty much all inclusive.

Wow! What if the world worked that way?…

My world already does.

I am the walrus!

Koo koo ka choo!

RW said: Case in point: hurt feelings. Such emotions are not conducive to a constructive livelihood as time spent reflecting on said emotions are time spent not doing something constructive.

Unfortunately there is a lot more than “hurt feelings” involved when a person is falsely and maliciously accused of being “psychotic” and involved in or trying to start a “cult”. Such allegations go beyond just being insulting and are defamatory and damaging. People who know me well know that I am a very emotionally tough person and my feelings don’t get hurt all that easily. AFAIAC exposing and denouncing U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy, and not just those that directly effect me. . . is doing something constructive or at least trying to.

I am not “reflecting” on emotions. I am dealing with very real injustices and abuses that have been perpetrated by intolerant and abusive U*Us and have subsequently been aggravated, escalated and perpetuated by DIM Thinking U*Us who condone these U*U injustices and abuses. In fact U*Us are far more guilty of making bad decisions based on emotions than I am. I suggest that you might want to Google - Rev. Diane Rollert and fear - to see a fine example of that. . .

For the record I think that both of you guys have been pretty good sports. I don’t recall you ever “memory holing” any of my critical comments about U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy and I genuinely appreciate that.

“fundamentalist atheists”

Now, that’s what I call an oxymoron. Thanks for the laugh, Robin Edgar.

Hey I am always good for a few laughs libhomo. . . The public always get a good chuckle out of my UNSAFE SECT? picket sign slogan and their are plenty of laughs to be found on The Emerson Avenger blog. The fact of the matter however is that there are some atheists who are so dogmatic and rigid in their atheistic beliefs that they can be properly described as fundamentalist atheists as a result of their “strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles”. . . N’est-ce pas?

In fact in rereading this blog entry I just noticed that RW paints atheists with too broad a brush when, in response to the question, “What’s an atheist?” he responds -

The person who is almost as obnoxious as the Linux user when it comes to a penchant for telling the world how stupid they are for not agreeing with their preferred choice. Almost.

The kind of atheist that RW is speaking about here better fits my “fundamentalist atheist” sub-category of atheists than atheists in general. I might add that the type of atheist that RW is referring to here may be quite justifiably described as an “evangelical atheist“. . . If you believe that this two-word zinger is an oxymoron I would suggest that you take a closer look at how fundamentalist atheist like Richard Dawkins et al evangelize atheism. . .

Robin,
Lighten up. It was humor.

Life is too short to go ’round pissed off all the time.

Be assured that I am by no means “pissed off all the time” RW.

Heck, I even inject a fair bit of humour into the proceedings when I have good reason to be pissed off a bit. . .