NationStates Jolt Archive

Now as many of you know I am a Liberal-Catholic-Lutheran, this is because one side of my family comes from Jewish-German Missionaries spreading the Lutheran Faith to Africa and the other half from a Welsh noble family who was staunchly Catholic. But none of that is really relivant.

I am really getting sick of over zealous Atheists who jump on my beliefs every chance they get. What I mean is demands to justify my beliefs for no reason. I don't see why I should, what I believe in does not effect them in the slightest. Of course my political and social veiws are an extension of my religious beliefs, just as my religous beleifs are an extension of my other beleifs. What I don't see is why I should justify it simply because you donot believe in them.

The thing that annoys me most is Atheists who become enraged at anyone with religous leanings. No offence but that kind of behaviour is ignorant and stupid. I was physically assualted by the other day by some Atheist nut*. I mean is their belief system so fragile that my simply not believing it cause their entire world to crumble?

I applaud anyone who has the courage of their convictions, iregardless of what they may be. But I have none for those who cannot accept the veiws of others.

Well that's the single most disorganised, fragmented arguement I have ever made. But it did make sense in my head.


*Not implying Atheists are nuts, just he was a nut who happened to be Atheist.

What I don't see is why I should justify it simply because you donot believe in them.

I mostly agree. Atheism is a belief system (in non-belief) just like any other and should be respected as well as most other belief systems. However, I also believe that you should only hold beliefs (or non-beliefs in this case) if you can defend the idea in your own mind. I find many atheists and theists can't even defend their own belief system for themselves - instead, they use they "I don't know, that's just what I believe" argument. As long as you have thought about it, then you should be able to defend and hold that belief, no matter what it is.

What I don't see is why I should justify it simply because you donot believe in them.

I mostly agree. Atheism is a belief system (in non-belief) just like any other and should be respected as well as most other belief systems. However, I also believe that you should only hold beliefs (or non-beliefs in this case) if you can defend the idea in your own mind. I find many atheists and theists can't even defend their own belief system for themselves - instead, they use they "I don't know, that's just what I believe" argument. As long as you have thought about it, then you should be able to defend and hold that belief, no matter what it is.I have to disagree, a person should be able to hold a beliefe simple by choice. It cannot be said that one shal not believe soemthing because they cannot or will not defend it. However, that said I person should be prepared to defend those ideals should they voice them, as right of reply in reasonable.

Catholic-Lutheran?

I thought they hated each other ... :shock:

Catholic-Lutheran?

I thought they hated each other ... :shock:lol, they do. However I'm a luck exception.

*Not implying Atheists are nuts, just he was a nut who happened to be Atheist.

Which is why, perhaps, this topic title may cause some people to respond harshly.

Your argument should be about intolerant a-holes in general - not just one particular subset of the group. After all, it's not like a lot of us who don';t believe don't get the screaming "you're going to hell you imoral so-and-so" rants from many on your side of the fence too.....

The history of the world is frought with instances of violence by those trying to ram their beliefs down the throats of others. This is just another instance of that, although you could state that it is somebody trying to ram their lack of beliefs down your throat.

Everybody runs into instances of it in their lives, no matter what their beliefs (or lack therof) happen to be. This weekend just happened to be your turn.


-Z-

I am Atheist (Thats what catholic school does to ya :lol:) , but I never attack anyone's religious beliefs. Though I'll admit that overzealous religious people can really annoy me at times.

*acts stupid and innocent and asks, "What's an aethist?"*

j/k

If I'm anything, I'm a Deist...

I'm an Atheist, who is secure in his convictions so doesn't need to preach. But it seems you feel the same way evangelical ateists as I feel about fundementalists. I fine with other beliefs but I am not fine with people telling me I'm wrong because [insert name of holy book], or believe that it is the role of the state to legislate morality (even though I live in a country with no formal seperation of church and state).

now now, i don't think there's too much wrong with me! o_0

meh, there are annoying people in every philosophical or religious group. the same thing is wrong with those atheists that is wrong with the religious people who can't stand that other people don't give a hoot about Jesus or whatever. if you don't want to talk to them then don't.

There are athiest bigots just like there are religious bigots. I have little tolerance for either, which I suppose makes me an anti-bigot bigot. A mess of contradictions. So be it.

There are athiest bigots just like there are religious bigots. I have little tolerance for either, which I suppose makes me an anti-bigot bigot. A mess of contradictions. So be it.

you're just a walking contradiction aren't you? :P

i am an atheïst and i don't preach, but i do 'attack' religion when it's the topic of a conversation/debate. When someone is religious and shows me he has been spending time thinking himself, i usually respect that, but the more intelligent i think they are, the more i will 'challenge' them (in an intellectual way of course). There have been exceptions of course, but that only happens when someone pisses me of with his or her religion, like religion teachers and priests.

One time at school my religion teacher was telling what faith, god, jesus and all of it meant to her, and as we didn't like eachother, i showed her that her beliefs were inconsistent with the idea that god exists. She had to save herself by stating that god is a metaphore for all the good in people, a pretty lousy thing to spend 2 hours a week for in class i say.

i am an atheïst and i don't preach, but i do 'attack' religion when it's the topic of a conversation/debate. When someone is religious and shows me he has been spending time thinking himself, i usually respect that, but the more intelligent i think they are, the more i will 'challenge' them (in an intellectual way of course). There have been exceptions of course, but that only happens when someone pisses me of with his or her religion, like religion teachers and priests.

One time at school my religion teacher was telling what faith, god, jesus and all of it meant to her, and as we didn't like eachother, i showed her that her beliefs were inconsistent with the idea that god exists. She had to save herself by stating that god is a metaphore for all the good in people, a pretty lousy thing to spend 2 hours a week for in class i say.

yeah, that's the other problem i have with the people who bitch about atheists...about 50% of the time, when someone religious complains that atheists were "bashing" them it turns out that the atheists were just trying to have an intelligent debate and the religious chap didn't like being expected to have supports for his argument. in my religion class this semester i was discussing the nature of the Good in an open class debate and one of the students got upset and asked the teacher to stop me from "bashing" Christianity. fortunately the teacher was sane enough to recognize that i was simply pointing out flaws in their argument, and wasn't bashing anything or anyone.

atheists do the same thing, particularly when agnostics point out that believing there is no God is just as unfounded as believing there is. the only non-faith system is the belief that there is no conclusive evidence for either, since that's the only system supported entirely by fact.

a pretty lousy thing to spend 2 hours a week for in class i say.

:lol:

Athiesm, or athiest has roots in the Greek language. It's composed of two parts. A meaning no amd thos meanong no god. So, the word literally means no god. Now, the term itself when it is used is used to mean that the people do not believe god exists in any way shape or form. This includes heaven and hell. There are different degrees of atheism just as there are with any religion.

Agnostics are considered to me the very moderate of the group, the scpetics who don't deny that god exist, but at the same time question whether ot not he is real. Then there is the other extreme, militant athiests, the more insecure type who are ready to jump down your throat rather than have an intellectual conversation.

Secularists in many ways fall into this area because they believe that religion blocks the mental process, making those who following religion, to some degree or another ignorant because they are essentially wearing blinders that affect how they think and view the world around them.

I'm an athiest, and yes, I will argue with someone who is religious for arguments sakes. Many of my comrades do because it is in our nature...

What I don't see is why I should justify it simply because you donot believe in them.

I mostly agree. Atheism is a belief system (in non-belief) just like any other and should be respected as well as most other belief systems. However, I also believe that you should only hold beliefs (or non-beliefs in this case) if you can defend the idea in your own mind. I find many atheists and theists can't even defend their own belief system for themselves - instead, they use they "I don't know, that's just what I believe" argument. As long as you have thought about it, then you should be able to defend and hold that belief, no matter what it is.At last, somebody says it! Let's hear it again!
Atheism is a belief system (in non-belief) just like any other and should be respected as well as most other belief systems. Again!Atheism is a belief system (in non-belief) just like any other and should be respected as well as most other belief systems. If Atheism is a belief system just like any other, wouldn't the government be picking sides with a religious (non-religious) organization by removing "Under God" from the pledge, or following any other anti-religious agenda? The gov't is going to have to pick a side sooner or later. With religion, you can't not have a side, because not having a side is having a side: athiesm.Atheism is a belief system (in non-belief) just like any other and should be respected as well as most other belief systems.

[quote=Rotovia]If Atheism is a belief system just like any other, wouldn't the government be picking sides with a religious (non-religious) organization by removing "Under God" from the pledge, or following any other anti-religious agenda? The gov't is going to have to pick a side sooner or later. With religion, you can't not have a side, because not having a side is having a side: athiesm.This argument is from the wrong perspective. From the founders writings, the idea was not that no religion can be referred to, but that no SPECIFIC religion (ie, State Religion) should be supported. Separation of Church and State is not the same as abstinence of religion from politics.

the only non-faith system is the belief that there is no conclusive evidence for either, since that's the only system supported entirely by fact.Depends on whose "facts" you use. Depending on your point of view, both systems have more than enough facts to support their viewpoint. :wink:

the only non-faith system is the belief that there is no conclusive evidence for either, since that's the only system supported entirely by fact.Depends on whose "facts" you use. Depending on your point of view, both systems have more than enough facts to support their viewpoint. :wink:

the opperative word should have been "objective," as in there are no objective facts supporting one over the other. any of the "facts" we see can be used to support either one.

Of course my political and social veiws are an extension of my religious beliefs, just as my religous beleifs are an extension of my other beleifs.
...
The thing that annoys me most is Atheists who become enraged at anyone with religous leanings.
...
I mean is their belief system so fragile that my simply not believing it cause their entire world to crumble?

I have to ask- are you sure that they're insulting you for your beliefs, which DON'T effect them, or were they upset about your political views, which DO affect them?
For example, if your religion causes you to believe homosexuality is wrong, which leads you to vote for people who will vote for legislation banning homosexuality- it's understandable that people will disagree with your view, not only such that they don't hold this idea, but also that they think it's wrong for you to hold these ideas as well. (errr...me not speak good) Naturally, someone who is homosexual will feel as though it's dangerous for you to hold these beliefs.
I know lots of times athiests (and agnostics and all religious folk) say stupid things and insult people just because they have different views, but I know many people on this thread do try to argue from a logical perspective and not just by calling you stupid.

...What I mean is demands to justify my beliefs for no reason. I don't see why I should, what I believe in does not effect them in the slightest. ...What I don't see is why I should justify it simply because you donot believe in them.


I'm a radical agnostic*, which likewise has little to do with the rest of my opinions. I'd be happy to debate the points or merits of any system of theology I know anything about, simply for the fun of intelligent conversation. Demands are just rude, but attempting to justify ones' beliefs (preferably in a non-hostile forum, but I'll take what I can get) can leave one more certain about what they are in the first place.

And, what you believe can at times affect others, so I hope you're not holding a public office at the moment (at least, if you're in the US).


* The basic idea of which is that not only can I not determine the existence or nonexistance of a deity, you can't either. And really, why does it matter? Shouldn't you try and be a good person anyway, however you define 'good'?

---

With religion, you can't not have a side, because not having a side is having a side: athiesm.

Not having a side is agnosticism. Attempting to remove the sides is atheism.

You have stated that your ancerstors included missionaries.
Good for you, and for them.
Atheists rarely employ missionaries.

Rotovia, I have not read any of this thread, but in answer to the original question I would say the thing that is wrong with some Atheist is the same thing that is wrong with the fundementalist Christians. They both try to push their opinions on to others. They cannot be satisfied with just stating their belief, they have to make it a point to tell others that they have to believe exactly the same thing.

Just in case you haven't noticed any of my previous post, I will let you know that I am a very opinionated Christian. You will not see me telling anyone else what to believe. That is their choice.