The term "atheistic jihadis" is in itself a contradiction of terms, because truly when has atheism ever become the sole motivating factor to physically attack?

Atheism itself, from what I see, has been the motivating factor of opposition. This "atheistic opposition" has become alot more vocal over the last few years. Primarily because in the past religion has somewhat ruled the platform in regards to the way we have been governed and religiosity has been the deciding factor of who's opinion is worthy of public extolment.

Atheists in the past may have kept quite as to their beliefs or as to how things should change. Atheists have become alot more vocal and have stressed that religion should not be the axiomatic song and verse that dictates the norm from the abnorm. The reason for the up-swing in decible levels for the atheists' point of view is because religiosity sometimes thickens or obstructs paths of communication........for we must yell to be heard.

The reason that the "atheistic opposition" has been met with such aversion from the religious is simple.......Religiosity for most adherents is a very personal and emotional mindset that these people have built their lives apon and have spawned generations that have kept the same mindset. As atheists we are telling these people that the foundation from which they have risen is wrong............this is why we are met with such contempt this is why some may refer to our revolution as "jihadis" in nature.



This is what really gets my blood going. Why does the term "God" primarily the christian God have to be the sole source or descritption of things that we deem transcendential of the material plane?......... This the laconic explaination of things beyond this realm that originated religion to begin with.

You just want to argue from the "good" side of religion. I was going to break up your post and respond but it's going in circles.

The fact of the matter is that religion has done all those things over the ages. You cannot deny it and you cannot cover it up. It's simply there.

It's not my fault that religion done all those things that I'm pointing out. I'm saying religion in it's self is awful and those who follow it may not have done those things but the religion they follow is tainted.

If people want to follow such horrible things, what kind of people does it make them?

Good points! But once again Jihad doesn't mean blood letting. It means fighting to preserve their right to religion. So in this sense I would call some atheists jihadists. They are coming out with a preemptive strike against the perceived threat often based on alleged threats....ex "the crusades." From a purely religious standpoint there is no "threat" against atheists. Just as there is no "threat" against Muslims. People are just living their lives and some fanatics are going crazy. But for the most part there really isn't a threat against atheists other than in their own minds.

Not true. Take a look at my reply on the thread about religious tolerance to see how "good" I think religion is.

People ignore the horrible things. Do you really think that the little old lady going to church is creaming her pants with excitement thinking about the Crusades?

They don't deal with that part of their religion. They deal with the personal relationship with Jesus and all that.


Let me ask you a better question. A person in my opinion who relies on God theories is someone who can't accept reality. So why would I expect them to deal with the reality of their religion? Ignoring reality is what got them to their religion in the first place.

I'm sure though she may not be doing that. Though the influences of the religion like the anti-gay stance, anti-abortion, anti-evoltuion and more things that are rubbing up against society today are there.

Tolerance? Perhaps the same tolerance should be shown to believers as they have shown nonbelievers over the ages? Rape, slaughter, torture, imprisonment and oppression all for the nonbelievers!

Tolerance for a religion that wants to send me to the pits of hell so I may be punished for my wicked ways.

Oh yes, such lovely tolerance.



Reality of their religion is supporting awful deeds. Even look at they god they believe in. He's a truely horrible being who has comminted genocide, commaned wars that happened along with pillaging, mass rape, slavery and oppression of entire peoples. Yet people want to follow a monster.

That's not how most people follow their religion. Its nothing more than a personal attack. It seems to me that you have been far too easily insulted by the preachings.


This is what I mean about your arguments. You say they want to send you to hell and you seem actually upset by this idea. Like I said before, you say you don't believe but then argue as if you do believe?

But there's no such thing as hell....so why does it even bother you? If someone said "I believe in Zorg and you don't and so the giant big squishy foot shall come down from the sky and trample you into a big hummus mess! HA" would you even care?

Why does it bother you so much?

It bothers me very little actually but it's a good corner to discuss which makes a lot of sense.

Your right in the sense that there is no threat against the atheist on a personal level, as apposed to the religious where as opposing their beliefs is certainaly an attack on them as an individual.

So what is the threat that atheists are counteracting?

I would say that the threat is to progression, the threat is to living in peace free from religious confinement.

Propagation of a nationwide belief system based on deification is definetly a threat to the human race advancing further their understanding of the universe in which we live. Having leaders of this world basing laws and forming public opinion that is steeped in religious fervor is definately a threat.

As I stated above the avering of a point of view that reflects a world without the affliction of christian mindset is met with hostiliy by the adherents of this ideology. This would not be a tooth and claw type duel if there didn't lie a deep seeded almost congenital type of manacle binding the religious to cry words of attack when it comes to those that want to make the other side of the coin visible to the masses.

Well it makes no sense to me. Seriously.

The acts you describe in the religion are in the past and the religion has changed. That's why it is so shocking when we see people acting this way.


Btw.

What did the Amish ever do to anyone? Yet when their children were massacred by a man angry at "god" and the way his life was happening to him, they responded with forgiveness and love.

This is what most Christians I know aspire to. They might not always succeed because they are human. But they don't approach with hate.

I notice that stories like this are left out of your assessment of the religious.

So in your sense of logic these people are reviled for the history of the Crusades?


There is a parable in the bible about logs and splinters which ironically seems to suit your perspective.

Funny how you don't seem to bothered about the Columbine shootings where two atheists targeted people for believing in God and blew their brains out. I mean lets look at it all shall we?

I think this is the key in a sense. If people would get over having to be right and just keep the personal aspects out of it, then it would be a much easier transition. Its like the old story of the wind and the sun.

http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/north.html

Still the same god that supposely did all those things. Even today religion is causing problems.



Nothing. They've given me nothing but kindess but a cold shoulder everytime I've spoken to them.

Though, I do disagree with their teachings and I find them morally wrong. Speaking out against wrong is a good thing, surely?



I am bothered by it though. I don't see a need for senseless violence or killing. Their wrong doing compared to what those two kids did will never match up.

Though... Atheism isn't a religion. It's merely the disbelief in religion.

So the Amish are morally wrong but the Columbine shooters aren't religious so there's no reason to speak out against them.

Hmm don't you see that this is a perfect example regarding your bias towards religion and further proof that your attitude is one of personal attack?

Wow.

I spoke against them both because they are both wrong. You're putting words in my mouth after I clearly disagreed with the columbine shooters. Pathetic.

You didn't speak out against them. You simply dismissed them as irrelevant. Yet your position is that you need to "speak out against wrong doing" and your topic that you speak out against is "the crusades" which ended in 1291? So say the 1300's. Its this you need to speak out against. Oh and also the "slave trade" encouraged by the bible. These things you feel obligated as a moral person to speak out against.

But the shooting of school students means nothing to you, oh wait except that the Amish gave you the cold shoulder as well. So you're miffed with them as well.


Why don't you just admit you're biased instead of trying to present your attacks as a direct impulse of morality.


Btw I think its cute that you said "pathetic" because you are back to name calling again. I thought you wanted a debate?

I'm over hear laughing my ass off at the transparency of your argument. Riiiiight. Its all about speaking about the injustice.

I am sure the people who lost loved ones in the crusades are very appreciative of your diligence.

"I am bothered by it though. I don't see a need for senseless violence or killing. Their wrong doing compared to what those two kids did will never match up."

Hmm... That would seem to clearly say I don't agree and find the shooters wrong.

I did dismiss your other part of that post though which is now what you're trying to connect with me trying to say I support school terrorism.

I never said you support terrorism. I said that you keep insisting that your blatant attacks on believers are because its "good to speak out against things that are wrong" but when I mentioned Columbine and Darfur you don't seem so bothered about them that you feel you MUST speak out about them. So obviously you are just using this as an excuse to bash on religious people.

I find it absurd that to you the crusades are more pressing an issue for you to speak out about than Darfur?

Wait a sec, I didn't know the Columbine kids killed people cause they were atheists!! I thought they were bullied and picked on alot and were just outcasts who got tired of it and shot up their school!? Is that really what happened? Sorry for being off topic like that!

Um, I'm also wondering, that since Atheists believe that there is no God, doesn't that technically make them "believers" instead of "non-believers", cause they DO believe in something? Or is just cause they DON'T believe in God?

Personally, I just think everyone should mellow out a little bit. It doesn't matter what religion you belong to or if you even belong to any religion at all. Militant Atheists are just as bad as Militant Christians. Militant ANYTHING is bad.

One part of the Columbine shootings had them going up to people and asking them if they believed in God and when they said yes they blew their head off.

Obviously these people are not representative of Atheists but it shows that extreme nut jobs don't define the group and that it is unfair to measure a group by its worst example.


Lest I be accused of falling for the Cassie Bernall Urban Legend it was another girl. But witnesses stated that Cassie was singled out because the killers heard her praying under the table.

Oh I see, I had heard about them asking that girl if she believed in God, but I just thought they were like, torturing her and were gonna kill her anyway, even if she said no. Did they kill everyone that way? Sorry again for going off topic.

I have spoken against them. I also speak against religion. Wow... Isn't that amazing... I can speak out on more then one issue.

I'd speak out about Darfur's genocide. It's a centuries old civil war conflict between tribal factions,much like those philosophies at war in Iraq. On one hand you have the northern theist Arab muslims that control the industrial or capitalist end of the Sudan in Khartoum. They're warring against the other theist faction to the south, which are the African-christians and animists, which are excluded from policy making and natural resource benefits , affected by the ruling tribes of the south. article

As for the Columbine terrorists, I think it does no service to the victims and survivors of this sick rampage, to imply the shooters committed their evil and were Atheists! Urban legends about killing children in the midst of prayer, is propaganda that detracts from the real issue in this case. These boys went on a bloody rampage to kill those teachers and members of the student body, that they hated! They killed athletes, teachers and others. To imply their faith is relevant to their psychosis, is just as deplorable as if someone claimed it to be relevant to the fact that one Monday in 1979 Brenda Spencer, a christian, thought taking a rifle and killing elementary school kids across the street from her house, was the thing to do because she hated Mondays! Or that 14 year old Barry Loukaitis was an agnostic, when he shot his teacher in the back as he was writing on the blackboard. I don't know the personal faith of these two people. But I don't have to to know it's not relevant to the actions they chose to take, to destroy lives. There's a major difference between the relevance of someone's personal philosophies on faith, and their acting out in an offensive manner against others , compared to those that affectively undertake a offensive campaign in the name of militant politics. Be it religion or secular motivations. Throwing Darfur and Columbine into this is a red herring. That's unfortunate to those who have died in the Sudan in the time it took to write this, as well as to those that are still grieved for their loss to senseless school violence.

School Killers Read the history and I dare say faith, isn't the issue in these cases.

This thread has become very heated and is in danger of becoming nothing more than a flame war. It is also wandering off topic. I suggest that both sides take time to calm down before any more posting and hopefully we can avoid the need to close the thread.

The Columbine shooters were absolutely atheists and definitely did kill at least two students in the school because they believed in God.

The shooter in the Amish school shooting had rejected God and was angry with him and took it out on shooting innocent children.

Now its very funny to me to suddenly hear the "but that's not the whole story argument" when that line of thinking is absolutely dismissed when the people under the magnifying glass are Christians.


The point is that these kinds of acts are individual choices. And holding those who share the same beliefs responsible for the actions of the individual or group of individuals is unfair and discriminatory.

Indeed, because atheists aren't all connected together because they're not a religion.

Aha

I see what you are saying. But many people who call themselves Christians for example would be similar to atheists in the way that the practice the religion independant of a CHURCH in the past the church was a unifying part of religion. But nowadays a Christian can have beliefs the same way an atheist individually shares a belief.

So that would change the fact that the christian god is a terrorist who's commanded war, rape, pillaging, slavery and more horrors against humanity?

Just in case some people don't know, that's from the holy books.

No the Christian god doesn't really exist. Oh my GOD this is so annoying. LOL How can you hold a god that doesn't exist accountable for anything?

It's not what I believe, it's what others believe and follow. Forgetting again this is a Spirituality vs Skepticism forum?

No they don't. That's the point you don't get.

Its driving me batty! LOL

I have never heard a Christian say "God is an advocate of rape and slaughter and mass murders! SIGN ME UP!" I've rarely heard a Christian say something similar to that. I have a few times though so it does occur but most Christians beliefs are based on love and grace and salvation.

What you are doing is assessing their God as a non believer and then saying your non believer interpretation is what the believers see. But they don't see that. You see it and I see it as non believers. We see the "reality" of the effect of their religion.

You did the same thing with Islam. You interpret the text as a non believer and then argue that this is how believers interpret their God?

True, the bible in no way emulates a loving, peaceful ideal, even the few references that do allude to uncondiotnal love are seen through the eyes of fear, i say this as one who was raised relgious as was kratos i belive i have read he was.... Its based on conditions, fear, that is not love.... unconditional love leads to tolerance and love of all, there is no seperation, noone saying this is the only true way, the only path, one seeks to be all inclusive to see oneness in all of life....naturally.....Its a dogma that encourages low self worth and intolerance by its teachings, now i agree with you True this is interpreted as love and salvation but no matter how you look at it its not uncondional love and its not getting humanity to love each other it has actaully doen the opposite.... ..i have read christans say that the idea of unconditonal love is to "pie in the sky for them'...its a system that has requirenments, conditions..I truly don't think one knows that any other way exists outside of relgion, to make an informed decison... some do, but many never look at what they beleive....There are alot of good people despite their religon, but the facts are the religon isn't about love and rainbows not even close....I think that is what kratos in his own kratos way is trying to say.....

There is a difference between faith and religion.

how so???

Still doesn't change the fact that their god is a terrorist who has reaked havoc against humanity. If they want to believe in such a being as being good... That seems a bit off to me.

Faith is purely personal and its a surrender of self to a higher power.


Religion is the organization of that faith into a system of practice.


Some people focus on the religion and the doctrines and rules. Ex they feel they MUST attend church every Sunday and they must follow the rules.


Faith is the release of "figuring it out" and really just going with the flow.

Some people's faith is the strongest thing in their life and they don't focus so much on the religion but rather on the faith.

It sounds to me like you guys had some weird up bringing. I was raised in religion and never felt it was done in fear but in love.

I just evolved to think it was rubbish. But I don't know anyone who follows out of "fear"

Trust goes with the flow and one who trusts needs no directions....Surrender to a higher power infers, less than, there are no less thens in oneness... only equality , we are all the same, all integral to the whole, , no one is more special than another, very boring, very unappealing because religion has a great investment in being gods warrior...a most dangerous idea as history has repeatedly showed us........True there is no 'god' remember??? So its man making htis up to jsutify his own ego....his own power hunger....
Its a fear construct, how else would it be followed???? Many many think fear is love... In unconditional love their are no requirements no conditions, that is what I am inferring, i do not use a reward punishment system to parent, which is a relgious idea on love, its fear basically, anything that has conditons on it or requirenments is fear..Love has no requirements its complete unto itself ...Love is grossly misunderstood, is my point, love is about if i do for you you must do for me, this is expectation and need not love and this is the foundation on the dogmas... Faith allows for religion to thrive, there would be no other reason one would beleive such absurditys IMO...Faith allows for us to look for a pot of gold at the end of rainbow, to beleive that the moon is made of cheese and that the sandman sprinkles dust in our eyes at bedtime and that peter pan can fly, and there is a time for fairy tales and a purpose but everyone eventually outgrows the idea of the tooth fairy and Imaginary freinds and gets to the buisness of living....

Now you are debating faith but I was just differentiating between the two.

I believe in neither faith nor religion. But I think that faith can be lived in a beautiful way whereas religion can not.

As I said i agree with you faith has its place in the magic of childhood to help a child discern that which is real from that which is pretend....
by using storys to convey wisdoms to help understand life , but its become a crutch and dependency and keeps people from seeing what is so and doing what works...We have a whole society built on such myths...sort of reminds me of perpetual peter pans.....
Possibly Faith is much more profound than is currently understood by humanity, as are most ideas.....but as a whole i do not see this beautiful expresion of faith in religion, .... i know of those deeply in tune with life and are jsut beautiful spirits for lack of a better word, because its who they are for no other reason no training wheels, no rewrds, no pay backs... just because....you know when you ask your kid why did you give your friend your jacket and they say 'just because," no reason just because its them.....how does one who sees himself as a sinner ever get to this??I doubt they do..IMO....True I'm not really debating more going with the flow what ever comes to mind i post...thinking out loud basically...lol

This is one theory I have on athiast attack on religious and faith beliefs. Its not a attack on athiasts. Its just a point that was given to me from another athiast.

"What I dont understand is why Athiasts think they have to trample religion. My opinion is their scared to death of it. Your scared because many of the non-faith athiast type were raised in a religious upbringing. You were scared cause granny caught you in the closet with your pants down and told you "Your going to Hell for doing that!" Take away the belief and there is nothing to be scared of right. Take away love thy neighbor and it's okay to be selfish right. Take away God and nobody knows what you were doing in the closet except for maybe granny right. You dont have to feal guilty for what you do if there is no God to judge you in the end.

Why trample on something that does not affect you personally? Why trample something that is just a bunch of hooky made up by a bunch of hooky believing idiots? Why believe their God is threatening if hes just make believe in a make believe book written by hooky believing idiots? Why fear men's imaginary friend/God? The Bible is just written by man why be so insulted by fiction of their theories? Then again why believe in another man's writings? Do you believe in it just because it relates to what you believe? What if its just a bunch of hooky too ment brainwash you to follow his theories just like the Bible? Why You fear the religions so much including Christianity is because of the What If factor of beliefs. Your scared because what if their is a God and a Hell and your going there? What if the Revelation prophesy is true? What if what it says will happen to the Athiasts happens?

Most Athiasts convert to an athiast belief from the age of fourteen to twenty five. Another point to put out is that from Forty to near death most convert back to a religious faith. So I guess I'll see you in church in a few decades."

In real life I don't discuss religion or politics unless friends or I host an event where that's on the menu. Chat cans, is what we call it. At this forum it's optional to participate in any thread, on virtually any topic. And that's what compells the discussion between Atheists and theists. Theists are curious as to why someone doesn't believe. Atheists are curious as to why people do. It's a different lifestyle, personality, world view, that attends each member of both communities and that's what engenders the debates. It's personal and that means it's emotional. Every one has a vested interest in being right. And that's where they come from when they share what they believe enough to give their life to it. The histories of Atheists and Theists don't make us, as individuals, who we are today. We do that. And really, what's it matter to any one else, how you choose to be yourself!? Well, there are certainly enough answers for that one. But what's that matter really!? I keep my steps light in this life. I discriminate as to who or what I allow to carry with me, after we've met. Whether it's someone's anger, frustration or joy. It's their stuff, not mine after my involvement in it, stopped in that moment. Regret and carrying words that are long over, is weight I don't need. I take what I learned, that I did regret as it occurred, and find those little key markers, that let me know when I might ever stumble into that pattern again. Then the regret of that moment serves, rather than withers my spirit and that makes me stronger.

I think that's why we're all here. We choose to enter this forum, we share what we think or some of us are faking it just to get a rise. And still that serves it's purpose, because we're all learning here. Maybe not the truth of who each one is in real life, off line but at the very least who we are, that we would allow to appear in print and generate that impression, to countless strangers all over the world. I'm an Atheist. I didn't convert, I was raised. I've never experienced what it's like to give faith to something outside my own awareness and conscious understanding. I read the histories of how people expect to communicate that state of mind, and there's just no way I could leave this me, to believe. I'm not frightened of theists, I think the history of working to spread, by any means necessary, a one world view about something that is said to inspire each unique heart of the believer, speaks enough fear for itself and in the reverberation of centuries old conflict that still wars today. Now in the moment, in this place, we each have the chance to say what we believe means to us. And if we repeat history, so it goes. But that teaches us something to, because that's born from inside ourself that thinks that's what it means to be _____________. (theist, atheist) So we can argue history, and semantics. But it's us that we each read and that, speaks for that one that represents the whole, of the faith they accept as their own.

Wonder why there's still world religious conflict?! Read this forum. The small picture of the larger world communication. Why are we surprised when we enter these forums that, despite who we are, we'll change what is at large, after we log off!?

Great thoughts on the subjects at hand. I respect your ideas on the matter. All who wish to discuss with others of different beliefs should discuss with an open mind and without offensive attitude towards anyone who doesn't have the same beliefs or ideals. If this is not how the discussions go it turns to arguement and bashing which is not discussion at all.

I don't have a vested interest in being "right." That's the reason there are wars not petty discussions on a message board but this feeling of "having to be right" when at the end of the day no one knows.


When a person slams religious believers for their beliefs they are contributing to the problem in their "Vested interest to be right" You aren't right. You don't really know. You simply believe which in and of itself is an act of faith. The irony of slamming another person for their beliefs while substituting your own is usually lost on the people that do it. They think they are enlightened and superior. At the heart of it is the ego that is desperate to be right and when this is pointed out to them they flip out and start in with the hostile attacking and threatening approach. That in a nut shell is like baby steps of world anger. Dawkins in my opinion is a prime example of this.

I hope that eventually we can get to the point where people can live and let live and grow up and stop needing to be "right" about something we will never no the answer to in this lifetime. If someone wants to believe in something its no sweat off my back as long as its not part of the social contract.

And yet, all those things you just observed , including the part about not needing to be "right", are things you've done yourself in these forums. That's why it's always a personal opinion when someone discusses spirituality. That need to be right, in the context of one's personal opinion, is what is meant by being right. It's not the same as being dictatorial and expecting everyone to accept it's truth and believe that way. As for the superior attitude issue, I note that phrase quite a lot, in threads like these. I think believing faith is a coping mechanism of the weak, then puts the phrase into perspective .

This thread is a good example of why you don't talk about religion at the dinner table.

Goddess wow you've played that phrase out of context ad nauseum. I stated what I meant in and of the thread itself and this isn't about "ME" so get over it. Still caught up an needing to prove ME wrong and yourself right?

Ok I'm wrong Goddess do you feel better? Now could you please stop cyber stalking me! LOL


The difference that I see in regard to a superior attitude is not so much in telling people that someone is right (And we are talking about Dawkins here honey not you! ) is that he thinks he is is RIGHT and they are WRONG. And so he treats them with a superior attitude. Frankly many critics of him have made this observation so I am not alone in this opinion.

But there is a huge difference between saying "This is what I believe" and "this is right"

I can believe that there is no God and believe than in my opinion God theories are the coping mechanisms of the weak. All people are weak in this degree its purely from a 'human animal" perspective.

I can believe this but not think I am right. And there is a big difference in this. Its a subtlety that is the difference between war and peace. Wars are not made from religion but from the need to be right.

I believe that there is no God and that faith in any kind of spirituality is a coping mechanism of the weakness in mankind when faced with his own mortality. However I don't know this. I don't think I am RIGHT and I don't have a VESTED INTEREST in being RIGHT.

This is simple what I believe. I want to be respected for my choice to believe this and I respect others for their choices of what to believe as well.

Perfect.

To believe in any worldview implies that the person thinks it is the right view. Makes no sense to believe in something you don't accept as correct. With that said, I think the mentality we are talking about is more like "my view is superior, and since you don't beleive as I do you are inferior. what is inferior needs to obliterated." Kinda like the Daleks. Their answer to every situation is "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!"

What I'm curious about True is this "social contract" you keep mentioning. Are you saying that humans should not display their beliefs? Please explain this concept to me.

Beautifully said!

I totally disagree with the bolded part. I think this kind of thinking is a barbaric mentality and the root of all the wars in this world. You can personally believe what you want but deciding that it is the "right" view is in essence pushing your views on others. Your view is probably the right view....to you. But I would expect enlightened people to recognize that it is not necessarily the right view to all.

The social contract is basically an agreement of how we should all figure out how to live together. Personal beliefs have no place in this configuration. Rather personal beliefs should always be held as private and spiritual beliefs or lack thereof should be kept entirely out of the equation.

An example is homosexual right to marriage. Your personal view (if it is this) that it is "immoral" or "wrong" doesn't make it so. Certainly it is not wrong to the homosexual. If this view is factored into the social contract and if we allow democracy to decide what is right and wrong we wind up with the Tyranny of the Masses.

Obviously there is a fine line between determining what is going to be part of the social contract and so it is important to keep an open mind about other people's points of view. Rousseau is someone who touched on giving up one's "natural rights" for the sake of a workable social contract. In my view, one of the things important to give up is one's assertion that ones own personal view is the "right" view.

So for example. I think abortion is murder. But I would never argue to make abortion illegal because I recognize that this view is not necessarily shared by all. I would debate it to the ends but at the end I would accept than not all people are going to agree with me. I am not right. This is just my view. When people think they are "right" they justify doing things like blowing up abortion clinics and harassing women for having an abortion. Perhaps there is an overinflated sense of self importance in this kind of thinking.

You can look into the works of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau for more on this.

True, Rev is trying to say your beleifs define you, are you....

By and large one finds little oppurtunity to take up with these type discussions in everyday life. These forums offer that oppurtunity.

While in the daily mix of things the topic of religion rarely comes up. Sometimes a small peak into someone's religious beliefs are gleened from comments such as "Well it's in god's hands now" or "God put that person in my life". In the context of the "daily mix" these comments need not be debated or scrutinized for it then becomes an attack or as one poster put it "trampling" their religion.

But, the second one's beliefs are spelled out in this venue then those beliefs come up for audit. If someone doesn't want their beliefs to be put on the slab and biopsied, then they best keep them in their hearts and minds.

I find that within the spirituality threads that once a person reads a difference of opinion they feel the automatic knee-jerk to DEFEND. Often the reaction is swiftly concocted and hurridly posted with the lightning speed of drawing a sword in battle. These posts often lack professionalism and tact.

Back to everyday life.........It seems to me that in general when someone asserts their belief in god in any public venue that it is accepted and never verbally twined with an opposing view. It is almost an un-written rule of ettiquette not to disagree with a religious person, for more often than not it breeds a state of emotional defense.

The atheistic point of view is, by un-written rules of ettiquette, not allowed to be voiced in everyday life. This double standard seems like an act of pampering to me. That the religious may announce their devoutness or slip their ideologies into any discussion and this is deemed proper, yet to voice an atheistic view is deemed an attack.

Yet as someone who does not belief in God my views are kept from being voiced in order to protect the religious from emotional scrutiny. This double standard I see alot.