Does this mentality piss you off?

[Alcon]

Out of curiosity, can you give an example of religious hatefulness from a "great intellectual"?  Moreover, a popularized, widespread example?  This isn't a loaded question; if it seems like one, that might make you wonder.

P.S. Opebo does not count. 

[Alcon]

You pass off your comments as intellectual criticism.

I intellectually criticize Christianity.  Yeah.  I intellectually criticize individual agnostics, but not agnosticism as a whole, because it lacks dogma.  That does tend to make agnosticism sort of difficult to criticize beyond nit-picks.  I intellectually criticize sorts of atheism, although honestly I think my disagreements with most atheists usually relate to burden-of-proof.

I don't get your point though.  I don't criticize only things I hate.  I don't hate Christianity; I don't even think it's bad on the whole.  So, what are you talking about?

[Alcon]

Alcon, after reading countless comments of your's regarding Christianity, you're kidding yourself if you think that you don't have a problem with Christianity.

You've effectively decided that non-religiousness is:

1. Contrary to universal goodness.
2. Against the perpetuation of the Catholic Church, the one true Church.
3. Generally devoid of several moral values that you hold dear.

So, on a whole, you probably think that non-religion is bad?  Do you have a "problem" with non-religion, then?  And if so, who cares?  I don't think Christianity is necessarily bad, in net.  I'm not looking to destroy Christianity.  I am respectful of Christians, and like/love many of them.  I don't do it conditionally or "in spite" of their Christianity.  I don't judge people much based on being Christians.  I'm aware that my (non-)beliefs constitute <10% of the population.  If that is still having "a problem with Christianity," I guess I do; why that matters, or why that amounts to hate, I don't know.  You'll have to explain that to me.

[Alcon]

I've never said that or led anyone to serious believe that. My problem is that people like yourself attack what I believe in such an arrogant, condescending manner.

I try not to.  I might poke fun at it sometimes, but I do that with everything.  If I'm being arrogant, please point it out to me in specific instances.  But you never have, so I really can't change my behavior/explain my attitude.

We have a situation where either I don't realize I'm being arrogant, you think I'm being arrogant when I'm not, or a little of both.  It's not going to be resolved until we identify the places where you see arrogance.  I can't promise about the other nontheists, but I'm sure the nice ones will willingly comply.  You give me instances -- either on-the-fly or in the past -- and I'll work from there to the best of my mortal abilities.

Side note:  Sometimes I get frustrated with religion.  Right now, I am in particular frustrated with Catholicism over a specific issue affecting a friend.  I try not to bring that into the conversation, but sometimes I might let that slip.  It's not out of hatred of Catholicism; it's just out of fear for my friend.  I'm human too.

Side side note: I know that this is not just about me, but I'm the only one I can control.

[Alcon]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you made this clear to me in another discussion. I think it was about gay marriage.

Actually, I think I made that clear when I was explaining that gay rights is the only issue where I think Christianity is doing mostly harm.

So, if you think "Christianity does mostly harm on gay rights matters," "I'm very skeptical of Christianity's veracity and don't believe in it," and "outside of some frustrations I think Christianity probably does good" equals up to "I hate Christianity"...

Well, it doesn't.  So, I'm sorry, you're off-base.

[Alcon]

That's what I'm saying. That's where your problem lies with the Church.

I'm not saying that that's why you hate Christianity but I do think that you're off base in thinking that my faith does harm to people on gay rights. I have my own disagreements with my Church on gay civil unions and such but I don't think my Church aims to harm. I know plenty of instances when those who are gay were loved and helped just as much as anyone else by Church members/officials. So, with all due respect, I don't need to hear from someone who is simply a Church skeptic that my religion mostly does harm.

First, I still don't see how you're turning "have a problem with the Church's position on an issue" into "hate the Church."

I didn't say that the Church aims to harm.  I don't think they do.  I think they're mostly good-hearted.  It sucks, and I don't like it, but sometimes you have to tell good-hearted people and institutions that your values say they're doing ill.  That doesn't mean you hate them.  How am I supposed to hate someone with a good heart?  That's really, really difficult, even if I wanted to.  Human emotions just get in the way, as does the fact that there are plenty of heartless things to hate as it is.  My capacity for hate just isn't that vast.

And I didn't say your religion mostly does harm.  I said the opposite.  Three times.

[Alcon]

Again, this isn't about your problem with a Church position. It's about your constant arrogant criticism (see the thread related to this one).

What the heck about that was arrogant?  Irreverent, maybe.  It's an academic subject for me, and I like to approach those with levity.  That doesn't mean I hate the Church (that's a stretch).  Some people use sarcasm or ironic tones to mask contempt, true.  I (and tonloads of other people) use it to make writing about dry topics less painful.  I think that's especially important in a subject with a lot of tensions -- not taking it so freaking seriously.

So, when I say "the Big Fiery" for Hell, I'm not making fun of Christians for believing in Hell.  I was not implying any contempt.  It's a little arrogant of you for assuming that I was.

On gay related issues, you said that my Church does "mostly harm."

And it makes up for it other places, in my opinion.  I'd prefer it didn't do any harm, and maintained its positive impact elsewhere.  But that doesn't mean it does harm overall.  Everyone does some sort of harm greater than the good they do.

[Alcon]

I'm with Alcon on this - I think you're imagining a lot of this perceived hatred of religion. Yeah, there are some who do but I don't think most of the secular folks here go so far as to hate it.

And there's contestant number two finally chiming in.

Right.

If you're not going to respond to my offer for examples to correct behavior, and just play victim, that's your choice.  But I'm not going to spend more time defending myself if you're not willing to make the effort.

You papist bastard.

[Alcon]

It's been your attitude in any religion thread really.

And you think there's no chance that you're mistaking levity for derision?  You're sure?  Even though I've already outlined my opinion of your religion here, and it doesn't really sound like something I'd have hatred for, you're sure I do anyway?

[Alcon]

You're right. I'm wrong because I'm saying one thing but you said something else.

No, but you're essentially accusing me of a conspiracy to hide ideological hatred of Christianity.  Apparently, describing religious teachings less-than-100%-reverently is a great indication of my beliefs; my actually describing my beliefs is not.

Which is tantamount to calling me a deceitful zealot, who claims to not hate Christianity but actually does.  You're not offering me any opportunity to prove that I'm not.  So, you must be really sure, or kind of a jerk.  But you also seem unwilling to shed light on your certainty.  So evidently you're really sure that I'm a deceitful zealot, and you're really sure that I'm hopeless.

In short, ouch.

[Alcon]

Here's what I think you are, Alcon, in a short, simplified description: You're a good guy who has a problem with religion (namely with Christianity/Catholicism). You  constantly criticize with your usually unnecessary showing off of your extensive vocabulary and, therefore, "win" an argument.

So bravo to you.

That's a totally fair criticism.  It's also a lot different from calling my jokey, but friendly, rephrasings of doctrine, subdued hatred.

But the only big words I used in the other topic are "benevolence" (a common word in religion that's hard to substitute a shorter word for) and "aversion" (point granted there).  So I still don't get it.  I'm willing to drop it if you like, though.  As long as you don't go along thinking I have some big chip on my shoulder about Christianity, I'm cool.

[Alcon]

I'm sorry but how am I suggesting the inferiority of others? I'm saying that the religion haters are doing that with their often condescending commentary.

I'm sorry about these Religion Haters.  I look forward to striking them down when they pop up, if they engage in actual debate.  While I haven't seen them yet much, I will remain vigilant.  Hopefully, by working together, we can get rid of the bastards.

[Alcon]

You have to understand, Alcon. Us dumb folk like to fight for our Lord. We don't have much else going our way. It's almost as if we cling to this God of our's.

Yes, I really resent that.  It's all I can think about when I'm sipping my double-shot latte, and discussing how delightfully diverse the new Velasquez-Song family in the next condominium over is.  It tears at me, your belief that really affects me in no way whatsoever.  All I can think about.

In all seriousness, I've never seen you actually "fight" in a religious discussion (or discuss, even) not relating to how victimized you're being.  You seem to be doing a lot more sulking for the Lord than fighting.

[Alcon]

I haven't had to defend my beliefs before? I simply sulk? I'm pretty sure I went at it with you on a number of things regarding my Church but whatever you say. 

Have we had a discussion about that before, or a fight even?  I'll take your word for it.  Maybe a passing message or two, but I don't remember anything sustained.

So, what would you like to discuss?  This topic obviously isn't going anywhere.  Which belief of mine do you find objectionable or wrongheaded?  Present your case, I'll respond.  I'm cool with that.  Maybe it will give you another chance to demonize me by acting as if I've ever implied that you're not intelligent.  Won't that be fun.

[Alcon]

We didn't debate gay marriage and the Catholic Church? I'm pretty sure you haven't forgotten that one...

Actually, I have.  It having happened seems familiar, but I remember nothing about the debate.  That doesn't mean it wasn't interesting.  It probably just means it was supplanted by my building entry code, or phone number, or something.

I don't care what your beliefs are. Contrary to popular belief, I don't have a problem with non believers or people that believe something else.

Beyond their not perpetuating values you believe to be universal and just, right?  You'd prefer they be Christian, I assume, because you think Christianity is a righteous life and you like seeing that thrive.  Cool.  I feel the same way about my moral beliefs.  I want people to conform to what I see as ethical values, because for us secular folks, morality is really all we have.  There is no certainty of eternal punishment/reward.  There is just living in the here and now.  Maybe that makes, for some of us, the minor injustices of religion a little more tough.  But it does not, hopefully, instill hate.

I've only "demonized" you because you act like a know it all and have a very condescending take on religion.

Nothing in my opinion of religion is condescending.  I don't think you're stupid.  I don't think you're an inferior person.  I don't think I'm enlightened, or that I see things that you can't.

You, however, seem to have a consuming belief that you're right about me looking down on the religious.  Whatever.  I don't, and I don't know how more I can prove that to you than I have.

[Alcon]

I don't prefer that they be anything other than what they are. I like people that are different than me, Alcon. Now you're trying to be funny, twisting what I truly believe to make your point.

You don't wish your system of morality were more accepted, and resent when immoral things are done?  I don't object to belief, but sometimes immorality I see defended by belief.  Not to sound, um, preachy, but again morality is kind of the ultimate ends to some of us secularists.  I don't hate the immorality, but I certainly don't like it or want to be totally passive to it.

I don't think that's an entirely irrational, or even condescending, attitude.  Do you?

[Alcon]

I didn't say that. Just because one isn't a Christian doesn't mean he or she acts immorally. Of course I'd rather immoral things be avoided but that doesn't mean someone has to be a Christian.

No, just like how I don't think someone has to be a non-Christian to be moral.  I just think that the typical Christian position on some issues is immoral, much like you probably think the typical secular position on some issues is (and oftentimes I'd agree with that).  We have the same attitude.

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess to fan the flames a bit, I would like to know what the "typical Christian positions" are that are problematical, assuming there is such a thing as a "typical Christian position" on matters affecting human behavior.

I said this earlier, but the only position that comes to the top of my mind where I think mainstream Christianity is immoral is on gay rights.  So, yeah, that's the extent of my "hate."  That versus thousands of soup kitchens and compassion.  It's kind of hard for me to defend the idea that Christianity is bad on a whole, that considered.

Maybe faith is behaviorally, but that's a different matter to me.  The Christian dogma itself is pretty inoffensive to my beliefs, especially as religions go.

[Alcon]

Mainstream Christianity is immoral is on gay rights sex. Fixed it. At least the Catholics don't mind gay attractions much; they are just "disordered." And the problem with gay sex, is not gay sex qua gay sex, but sex outside of marriage, and yes gays can't be married, so one ends up effectively in the same place. It is a bit odd, since few place much emphasis on sex outside of marriage; it seems almost a dead letter. So in that sense, I am not sure Catholics care that much about gay sex, now many others, for the same reason (it is less theological, and more an emotional repulsion to the physical act). In any event, as you know, some mainline denominations are works in progress on this issue.

Well, right, but it nonetheless influences policy in the end.  I don't really care about their opinion of gay sex.  I'm not especially fond of it myself.  It's just the policies that I'm concerned about.  And this is the one case I can think of where Christianity directly leads to a policy/social attitude that I think is wrong.  And the social attitude part is important, so I suppose "rights" was an unnecessary word inclusion.  Christianity can't simultaneously maintain that gay marriage is wrong because sex is central to a relationship, and claim that they're not against homosexuality because they're only against sex.  It's not hypocritical, but it is ridiculous.