Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to IS ANYONE A LOSER FOR OPENLY EXPRESSING THEIR BELIEFS?
kooka_lives - in your last comment, you are being far too kind
One need only scroll back through a few pages of the man's posts to see how atheist bashing dominates the topics of his blog. He has also come right out and said that he does so to reciprocate the offence he takes at what he reads in posts such as you and I write. Now he wants us to believe that he meant no offence by playing his little baiting game? Puullleease.
posted by
gomedome
on May 31, 2008 at 12:05 PM
| link to this | reply
gapcohen
I am not really sure what is going on with Gepruitt in this. I get the feeling he is not trying to be insulting or offensive with his views here, but he just does not seem to get the bigger picture. The two of us have often gotten along just fine in the past and I have never gotten the feeling he is a fundamentalist or zealot. Basically it seems he has made some rather poor assumptions about atheists and instead of really trying to work through them and get a better understanding, he is trying to justify he offensive views.
I am not trying to paint him as being as closed minded as many others I have seen here with their views on atheist, but he does seem to be caught up somewhere when it comes to trying to understand the group.
My main problem with this whole thing has been that he has not been willing to see how what he said is offensive. It does offend me greatly to be called a loser in a very generalized statement, just because I am open and honest about my beliefs.
posted by
kooka_lives
on May 31, 2008 at 11:47 AM
| link to this | reply
what I said to Gepruitt -- instead of "Losers", let;s call it "disadvantage
Mainly because of bias.
However, this can be the case only if the surrounding society has a problem with atheists.
If the surrounding society is tolerant, then an announced atheist is on a par with those who believe in a deity.
What I read is that Gepruitt's point is that Christian bias would work against someone openly avowing atheism in that employers, others, would treat the atheist differently, would sicriminate against such a person.
Just as Nero's Rome discriminated (...) against Christians. In order to get along, you hide your true beliefs. If you don't you experience the discrimination.
Society is becoming increasingly tolerant, however, of those whose views differ from the established religion of the majority in the U.S..
Although Texas demonstrates a bias toward those outside the mainstream.
Latter Day Saints have a problem being tolerated in general.
You could ascribe to Secular Humanism. At least it is not the anathema, it seems, that Atheism is. But then again there have been Christian attacks against that belief system.
Fundamentalists would like to take over the world, it seems.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 30, 2008 at 10:44 PM
| link to this | reply
gapcohen - finally, an intelligent response to what has been in my opinion
a not so intelligent dialogue.
To say more would be stoking of the flames to an argument that needs to be given a rest.
posted by
gomedome
on May 30, 2008 at 8:29 PM
| link to this | reply
I seem to have stumbled upon a pretty personal battle, but it has me confused. I'd love to know why Gepruitt finds atheists so distasteful. Is he a fundamentalist out to "save" humanity with "the word" or a religious zealot convinced that his way is the "true" way? If you left your comfort zone and traveled, say, to the Middle East, your Christian beliefs would be in the minority - and believe me, those fundamentalists on the other side of the globe also believe that their way is the "true way." Who's to say? Have you had some kind of "revelation?" Well, so have 99% of other ultra-religious folks from across the religious spectrum. What makes your revelation any more real than theirs? That is my problem with those who feel that their own belief system is the only one that counts, when there are billions of humans on this earth who will beg to differ. If someone chooses not to believe in a diety - if there is no compelling reason why they feel they should - and they discuss and talk about it, why, in your eyes, is that person a "looser." Kooka - I agree with you on your posts (and I happen to be a semi-religious Jew with an open mind). You are not hurting me at all by espousing your views. There is room for everyone and really, in the final analysis, no one knows "for sure." My own religion frames the way I conduct my life, but I don't think its' for everyone.
posted by
gapcohen
on May 30, 2008 at 6:55 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - I could not care less if you agree with my comment here
The point is that you made an ignorant statement without any form of qualification in which you denegrated an entire group with a sweeping generalization. Your claims in the following post that you were saying something completely different and speaking to another group are nothing more than bullshit (and you know it). You were playing games with words and attempting to be clever when in the end all you've done is expose yourself as a bigot.
posted by
gomedome
on May 30, 2008 at 5:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: kooka_lives - against my better judgement, I read that post and exchange
Gomedome,
I don't know whether it is considered "proper" or not to comment on a comment in some other's post, but I will. If I am "out of order," I am sure someone will inform me.
I neither lke, dislike, nor agree with your comment. I do, however, accept it as a freely stated opinion. (You might want to read my latest comment to Kooka in my current post. Then, again, you might not! At any rate, it is there.
posted by
GEPRUITT
on May 29, 2008 at 11:18 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - against my better judgement, I read that post and exchange
Despite claims to the contrary, it was nothing more than a childish "baiting", playing on words to pretend that what was implied, was not intended. If in fact the point was to illustrate that publicly admitting to being an atheist subjects the individual to loss, why was the full sentiment abbreviated to a sentence that was clearly incomplete as being representative of the idea? Then posted one day, with the conclusion suggesting something entirely different posted the next day?
In the ridiculous way the point was made, which was really just to allow an extremely biased person to make an ignorant statement without qualification, there is however some truth. It is not easy for a non believer in some areas of this planet to live free from the religious perspectives, prejudices and the manufactured disdain of a believing majority. I often wonder if persons capable of making such an indefensible blanket generalization have any idea how socially irresponsible they are, or if they realize the irony? That of course being the realities of how non believers are treated in some parts of the world is a problem that they are not only a part of, it is a social inequity they themselves are proliferating by their obtuse and bigoted perspectives. It was baiting plain and simple, from a man old enough to know better and if he doesn't like my brutal honesty in this comment, hey, it's just my opinion and this is an OPINION forum.
posted by
gomedome
on May 29, 2008 at 9:24 PM
| link to this | reply