NationStates Jolt Archive

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.

I think it results from a frustration of being in the minority...I'm agnostic, not atheistic, but I understand what most of us feel. Christianity is everywhere in this country, and if you aren't part of it, you are an outcast. That said, I know a lot of atheists/agnostics, and many of them are extremely cool, nice, moral people. In fact, one of my coolest friends is atheistic, and he's pretty much the nicest kid ever.

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.



I'm rather angry at religious maniacs for these reasons:

They oppress women.
They oppose science and reason.
They try to coerce others into adopting their world view.
By virtue of being maniacs, they are dangerous both to society and to individuals.

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.
and why are christians so angry everyone isnt bowing to jesus and worshipping god in school?

STOP OPPRESSING ME, OKAY? :mad:

I'm rather angry at religious maniacs for these reasons:

They oppress women.
They oppose science and reason.
They try to coerce others into adopting their world view.
By virtue of being maniacs, they are dangerous both to society and to individuals.


Damn you Dalai Lama :mad:

Seriously, that is a massive over generalization.

Some religious people are assholes, as are some atheists.

I'm an extremely happy atheist. Religion doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me, but I don't care what other people wish to believe. I only get upset with those who try to use their religion as a mandate to dictate how people should or should not live their lives.. such as the whole "family values" type. Or the people who try and impose their beliefs into politics as if to say what I believe should be law. Law should be based on common sense, not religion. That's my only beef with it.

perhaps if christians would stop calling them all terrible people, they wouldn't get angry at them.

did you notice the "stop bashing religion" thread by any chance? a christian went on a rant about how non-believers are terrible people and christians are all wonderful. then had the nerve to ask why people gave christianity a bum rap.

later on in the thread, some people appeared claiming that the atheists started the attack when they were defending themselves from the slanderous christian who started the thread.

now personally i'm an agnostic. if you want to discuss religion, fine. i enjoy such discussions. just don't attack people's personalities because of it or sentence them to hell (or claim that they're sentencing themselves to hell) or for that matter, offering to pray for them (it's rather condescending)

Damn you Dalai Lama :mad:

Seriously, that is a massive over generalization.

Some religious people are assholes, as are some atheists.



Nothing could be father from the point.

The point is that it is religion and religious mania that is the principal force behind these things in the world today.

Damn you Dalai Lama :mad:

Seriously, that is a massive over generalization.

Some religious people are assholes, as are some atheists.
the dalai lama is hardly a religious maniac.

maniac is the last thing i'd call the dalai lama... the guy's cool as a cucumber.

i wouldn't consider myself angry at religious people...some of my best friends are devout Catholics and such. my issue comes up when people start shit with me because "i'm going to hell", and lecture me about my "evil ways." please...get off your freaking high horse and worry about yourself before you start persecuting me.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.

Not religion. Just christianity. It's irredeemably annoying.

Nothing could be father from the point.

The point is that it is religion and religious mania that is the principal force behind these things in the world today.

And thirty years ago it was communism that was the major force behind those things. You are angry a small minority of maniacs, why blame religion.

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.

I think you are judging a whole group of people by the acts of a minority. Most atheists, such as myself could care less about religion, and don't bother religous people at all. We just like to see it that no religoin is forced on anyone, so everyone will be treated fairly.
Sure there are atheists who fall into the "angsteist" stereotype, but no more than there are right wing religous zealots out there

the dalai lama is hardly a religious maniac.

maniac is the last thing i'd call the dalai lama... the guy's cool as a cucumber.

But he is pro-life and against gay marriage though.

But he is pro-life and against gay marriage though.


....And I believe every thing tastes' better with butter, but I don't think just because I believe that I should have a right to make every one eat butter I think is the point. :)

lol i think i'm an atheist and i don't really act that happy. we are just like you in fact i don't consider myself a minority in anyway. i like me woo hoo and yeah i like to eat cheese just like the rest of u. if you tickle us do we not bleed.

I personally think part of the reason athiests become angry in debates and arguments concerning religon, is that they can't seem to drive their point home to the religious types. Athiests say science and the relgious people say faith. Athiests are probably going to come up with figures, numbers, facts, and logic, while the relgious combat it with faith.

That's the way I see it. I'm an athiest I guess and I put up with religious people. I don't hate them at all except when they get all high and mighty about things.

And thirty years ago it was communism that was the major force behind those things. You are angry a small minority of maniacs, why blame religion.


They call it a "long term view of historical patterns."

my only beef with atheists is the ones at the front are pushing THEIR agenda just like they claim the christian right red-neck bigots are doing.
I only dislike them because they are hypocrits.

And thirty years ago it was communism that was the major force behind those things. You are angry a small minority of maniacs, why blame religion.

The point is, he doesn't. He blames the manaiacs.

My only problem with religion is that it doesn't make any god damn sence. Just seems like a bunch of weird fairy tales to me :rolleyes: :confused:. Anything else is with religious people.

Not religion. Just christianity. It's irredeemably annoying.
Exactly, it's the only religion that's annoying because it's the only religion that's true.

And to the other fellow who says he has no problem with religion, just with those who run their lives by it, you might try and take a look at that ridiculous statement. A person who does not live by their religion does not believe their religion.

I dont really care about atheist nor do i care about the religios zealots or whatever. What bothers me is that most atheists cant see things as they should. Atheist try to make the state's religion atheism. Atheism is still a system a beliefs and it is a religion just as other nonorganized beliefs are. They need to realize that the separation of church(meaning every religion) and state also means that a separtaion of atheism and the govenment.

But he is pro-life and against gay marriage though.
he's against gay marriage?

in buddhism sex is fine so long as you love the person you have sex with... i don't see how being gay is a conflict there.

oh, and not to mention that buddhism doesn't really have shit all to do with marriage. monks were brought into it by people who wanted to be married by a religious official.

But he is pro-life and against gay marriage though.

I dont remember the last time the dalai lama urged people to work towards the criminalization of abortion and the banning of gay marriage.

I dont remember the last time the dalai lama urged the coercion of anyone, aside perhaps of the world coercing the chinese government into treating its citizens better. I dont know if he's actually ever called for that though, just a guess.

If i'm wrong on the guess, well, well then my point's just stronger ;p

Speaking as an atheist, let me assure the originator of this thread that I have seen the light with regard to their characterization of me.

Henceforth, I shall refrain from my previous hobby of going door to door pestering people to ensure that they have had every opportunity to reject the word of God..... because far too many of us are out there doing that!


:rolleyes:


You know, few atheists I've ever met bring up religion as a discussion point. I have never started a conversation with: "shall we NOT pray?", or "so - you don't believe in God either right?" Invariably when I have pissed off a religious person it has been when THEY brought it up as a subject and I have disappointed them by failing to immediately be convinced as to the error of my ways. I give full credit to their efforts on my behalf, but enough already. The previous 20 people didn;t convince me either. Neither will you.

Sorry, but life is just to damn short for me to keep going over WHY I don't believe in God. I don't. TAke that answer as final, and move on to the next subject. If people would just accept that answer and not feel the need to save me, it would save us both the aggravation.

my only beef with atheists is the ones at the front are pushing THEIR agenda just like they claim the christian right red-neck bigots are doing.
I only dislike them because they are hypocrits.

But an atheist's agenda would simply be freedom.. so, it begs the question, what does religion have against freedom? An atheist never says all people must do x,y or z. An atheist simply asks that the same is returned to them. In other words, religion has no place in law or politics, most of the free world knows this. That's why we are free. Free to choose religion for ourselves personally if we wish, but not free to impose it on others. So, believe any thing you like. You just can't expect to live in a "free" country and have your religious views imposed on all of any given population. That is what freedom is, after all.

....And I believe every thing tastes' better with butter, but I don't think just because I believe that I should have a right to make every one eat butter I think is the point. :)


Then why does he go out on tours and publicly speak, if not to promote his viewpoint?

People criticize the pope for doing much the same thing, and some people would have no problem labeling him as a "religious maniac." So where is the difference. (And before you say it the pope doesn’t want to force everyone to be a Christian).

I personally think part of the reason athiests become angry in debates and arguments concerning religon, is that they can't seem to drive their point home to the religious types. Athiests say science and the relgious people say faith. Athiests are probably going to come up with figures, numbers, facts, and logic, while the relgious combat it with faith.

That's the way I see it. I'm an athiest I guess and I put up with religious people. I don't hate them at all except when they get all high and mighty about things.

Well, actually Christians have no problem with science. In fact, most of the founding fathers of science were Christians or deists of some sort. Christians have a problem with fairy tales being promoted as science and being shoved down our throats every day on TV and in our schools, and then if we object to that which should be objected to, we are categorized as snaggletoothed, ignorant inbreds.

my only beef with atheists is the ones at the front are pushing THEIR agenda just like they claim the christian right red-neck bigots are doing.
I only dislike them because they are hypocrits.

This is some what true some, but not me. Everything on my political plate is for equal rights for everyone, I could care less if "Under God" is in the pledge. I kind of like it, as its there to show that there is a higher power than government.

Speaking as an atheist, let me assure the originator of this thread that I have seen the light with regard to their characterization of me.

Henceforth, I shall refrain from my previous hobby of going door to door pestering people to ensure that they have had every opportunity to reject the word of God..... because far too many of us are out there doing that!


:rolleyes:


You know, few atheists I've ever met bring up religion as a discussion point. I have never started a conversation with: "shall we NOT pray?", or "so - you don't believe in God either right?" Invariably when I have pissed off a religious person it has been when THEY brought it up as a subject and I have disappointed them by failing to immediately be convinced as to the error of my ways. I give full credit to their efforts on my behalf, but enough already. The previous 20 people didn;t convince me either. Neither will you.

Sorry, but life is just to damn short for me to keep going over WHY I don't believe in God. I don't. TAke that answer as final, and move on to the next subject. If people would just accept that answer and not feel the need to save me, it would save us both the aggravation.


I don't really feel obligated to save you...since you're a communist. :sniper:

no what i hate are the religious people who think anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is an idiot. to you people i just say shouldn't we be free to choose what's best for us maybe what religion is best for you is not the right choice for another.

he's against gay marriage?


Yep. When he was speaking in seattle he talked about the "nature" of sex or something and how it was "natural" for the male to be with a female, but not for the same sex to be together.

...And to the other fellow who says he has no problem with religion, just with those who run their lives by it, you might try and take a look at that ridiculous statement. A person who does not live by their religion does not believe their religion.

That would be me. I don't have problems with people who run their lives with it, its when they try and run other peoples lives with it that it bothers me.

Christians have a problem with fairy tales being promoted as science and being shoved down our throats every day on TV and in our schools, and then if we object to that which should be objected to, we are categorized as snaggletoothed, ignorant inbreds.
as a science student i must ask you:

what fairy tales being promoted as science?

I never had this view until just a while ago, but I say screw religion. We are nothing more than just another animal with a fascinating trait. Also known as our ability to think on a higher level. We have no claws, we're weak, our hearing, smell, and sight isn't that great, our bodies are clumsy and useless. The only flaw with having SUPERCOOLMEGATHINKPOWER is that we'll turn on each other over stupid differences that any animal wouldn't even think once about, let alone twice. Hell, animals are just like us up to the point where they are superior in anything but thought and aren't capable of malicious hate and destroying the wet hunk of dirt and rock we live on. And besides, who wants to believe in a religion with most information based in a set of books we have no idea are true or not, or whether what was true was skewed, and even then, a clear meaning of everything.

I don't really feel obligated to save you...since you're a communist. :sniper:

Obviously your logic is flawless here. LOL :D

I assure you my husband is not a communist... haha

They call it a "long term view of historical patterns."


What, that some people are idiots and will always find an excuse to put others down.

Well that's true, but hardly illuminating.

Yep. When he was speaking in seattle he talked about the "nature" of sex or something and how it was "natural" for the male to be with a female, but not for the same sex to be together.
source?

I dont really care about atheist nor do i care about the religios zealots or whatever. What bothers me is that most atheists cant see things as they should. Atheist try to make the state's religion atheism. Atheism is still a system a beliefs and it is a religion just as other nonorganized beliefs are. They need to realize that the separation of church(meaning every religion) and state also means that a separtaion of atheism and the govenment.

Atheism isnt a religion, it is lack of a religion.
Religion is a word that refers PARTICULARLY to belief IN a god.

Not every "system of beliefs" is a religion, only "systems of belief IN god."

(note, rant -
when the word religion is used to mean "with zeal or devotion," it is being used in a metaphorical or allusive sense to describe something that is similar to the way people believe in a god. It does not equate with the belief in a god in any way.

The same is true of saying "Jane's figure looks feline in that dress" the connotation is not that jane is actually a cat, but that she has certain attributes similar to those of cats, in this case, slenderness and sleek gracefulness, not fur or whiskers or a meow or paws.)

The word you mean is "secular."

Atheists try to make government secular.

So however, do many muslims, jews, christians and hindus.

well my reason that i'm atheist is mainly because of what I see that is happening around the world; most religions (not all i presume) tend to force their beliefs upon other people of a different religion. as far as i'm concerned people should be allowed to choose their own religion without other religions criticizing the person(s) of their choice. this is clearly not happening in the middle east where there are many different religions all at each other's throats.

Then why does he go out on tours and publicly speak, if not to promote his viewpoint?

People criticize the pope for doing much the same thing, and some people would have no problem labeling him as a "religious maniac." So where is the difference. (And before you say it the pope doesn’t want to force everyone to be a Christian).
Actually the pope DOES want to force everyone to become a Roman Catholic. His predecessors did and if he had the power, he would use it. Wolf in sheeps clothing.

that had communist written all over it.

The communist line is getting old.

Stop Trolling..

Consider yourself warned.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I never had this view until just a while ago, but I say screw religion. We are nothing more than just another animal with a fascinating trait. Also known as our ability to think on a higher level. We have no claws, we're weak, our hearing, smell, and sight isn't that great, our bodies are clumsy and useless. The only flaw with having SUPERCOOLMEGATHINKPOWER is that we'll turn on each other over stupid differences that any animal wouldn't even think once about, let alone twice. Hell, animals are just like us up to the point where they are superior in anything but thought and aren't capable of malicious hate and destroying the wet hunk of dirt and rock we live on. And besides, who wants to believe in a religion with most information based in a set of books we have no idea are true or not, or whether what was true was skewered, and even then, a clear meaning of everything.

that had communist written all over it.

What, that some people are idiots and will always find an excuse to put others down.

Well that's true, but hardly illuminating.


if you had to rank the top five social forces in history that have:

opressed women
opposed science and reason
coerced others into accepting their world view

what would those five forces be?

it isnt unfair to state plain facts and make predictions based upon a mass of evidence.

Especially since the most powerful force in the world *today* for those things is the same as it was before.

source?

I don't have one. It was like ten years ago. He said it though. Why is it so hard to believe?

It doesnt matter because hes not right. There are gay animals. Its a fact.


Precisely, the Dalai lama isnt the arbiter of reality.

He isnt the arbiter of my morality either.

Obviously your logic is flawless here. LOL :D

I assure you my husband is not a communist... haha


I hate commies more, so I'll cut him some slack..socialism though..you can't really hate..unless you're living in it I guess

as a science student i must ask you:

what fairy tales being promoted as science?
Oh please, must you ask? The THEORY of evolution is no more science than is the creation story, but the difference is, Christians do not claim that creation IS science, although everything written concerning the creation shows that since then, everything flows logically from it -- every creature after its own kind.

We do not deny that animals adapt to their environment. We deny (and science denies) that a creature changes into another creature, and eventually into the image of God himself, mankind. Science denies any such ridiculousness.

If you are an Atheist, this is it, life, then nothing. If you want to remain a figure in history/ be worthy of remembrance, family is not enough. Your memory fades. So, if you want immortality, you have to accomplish something great.

Accomplishments of that nature are few and far between. So, if you are an athies that fits into the aforementioned categories, unless you have made that great accomplishment, your life is pretty depressing.

However, if you are an athiest that believes a person lives on through future generations, then supplying for your family brings you self worth and happiness.

If you are religious, then do your best here, as you have time imemorium; since, after death you get to be with God and those you love.

If an agnostic. Strive for immortality, provide for your family materially and emotionally, and follow the philosphical aspects of religion when applicable.

If you succeed in all three, then kudos to you.

That would be me. I don't have problems with people who run their lives with it, its when they try and run other peoples lives with it that it bothers me.
Tell me, how do Christians try to "run your life"?

If you are an Atheist, this is it, life, then nothing. If you want to remain a figure in history/ be worthy of remembrance, family is not enough. Your memory fades. So, if you want immortality, you have to accomplish something great.

Accomplishments of that nature are few and far between. So, if you are an athies that fits into the aforementioned categories, unless you have made that great accomplishment, your life is pretty depressing.

However, if you are an athiest that believes a person lives on through future generations, then supplying for your family brings you self worth and happiness.

If you are religious, then do your best here, as you have time imemorium; since, after death you get to be with God and those you love.

If an agnostic. Strive for immortality, provide for your family materially and emotionally, and follow the philosphical aspects of religion when applicable.

If you succeed in all three, then kudos to you.
Are you calling Jesus a liar? Bigot.

that had communist written all over it.
how so?

Oh please, must you ask? The THEORY of evolution is no more science than is the creation story, but the difference is, Christians do not claim that creation IS science, although everything written concerning the creation shows that since then, everything flows logically from it -- every creature after its own kind.

We do not deny that animals adapt to their environment. We deny (and science denies) that a creature changes into another creature, and eventually into the image of God himself, mankind. Science denies any such ridiculousness.

I thought the theory was creatures change over several thousands of years or more to adapt to their enviroment. I could be wrong. What about viruses and such that can mutate and change overnight. anyways that's my two bits

Oh please, must you ask? The THEORY of evolution is no more science than is the creation story, but the difference is, Christians do not claim that creation IS science, although everything written concerning the creation shows that since then, everything flows logically from it -- every creature after its own kind.

We do not deny that animals adapt to their environment. We deny (and science denies) that a creature changes into another creature, and eventually into the image of God himself, mankind. Science denies any such ridiculousness.

Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

that had communist written all over it.
You can't take a hint, can you.

Are you calling Jesus a liar? Bigot.


:rolleyes:

I thought the theory was creatures change over several thousands of years or more to adapt to their enviroment. I could be wrong. What about viruses and such that can mutate and change overnight. anyways that's my two bits
Once again, no one is denying that creatures adapt to their environments. But even the viruses you mention REMAIN viruses, they don't turn into sponges!

if you had to rank the top five social forces in history that have:

opressed women
opposed science and reason
coerced others into accepting their world view

what would those five forces be?

it isnt unfair to state plain facts and make predictions based upon a mass of evidence.

Especially since the most powerful force in the world *today* for those things is the same as it was before.

It goes either way. For a long time religion was the basis and support for secular learning and civil rights.

Religion is just used as an excuse for people to do the above, it's not the cause per se. Exactly the same kind of moron that is running round prosletyzing religion and trying to get everyone to do exactly what they say would be just as happy as a bolshevik or a nazi. And if you look at the history of the last century I wouldn't rank religion as the number one cause of oppression, killing or suffering.

Tell me, how do Christians try to "run your life"?

Gay marriage ban.

how so?


just being a little silly..mostly the why should we have to read these books and believe in anything stuff. I don't wanna elaborate since then someone will have to come after me with a barrage of figure,polls statistics and what he/she said this or that..so yeah..just being goofy

Oh please, must you ask? The THEORY of evolution is no more science than is the creation story, but the difference is, Christians do not claim that creation IS science, although everything written concerning the creation shows that since then, everything flows logically from it -- every creature after its own kind.

We do not deny that animals adapt to their environment. We deny (and science denies) that a creature changes into another creature, and eventually into the image of God himself, mankind. Science denies any such ridiculousness.


Who told you that part of evolutionary biology is the idea that organisms mutate into the "image of god himself." That is ludicrous.

You may wish to direct your attention to one of the several evolutionary biology v. creationism threads that is floating around.

Article on the Dalai Lama here (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/028916.htm)

In reality, Tibetan Buddhism is not a values-free system oriented around smiles and a warm heart. It is a religion with tough ethical underpinnings that sometimes get lost in translation. For example, he condemns homosexuality, and all oral and anal sex. His stand is close to that of Pope John Paul II, something his Western followers prefer to ignore. His US publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against homosexuality from his book, Ethics for the New Millennium, for fear they would offend US readers, and the Dalai Lama acquiesced.

When speaking to his people, the Dalai Lama is very different from the genial figure we see in the West. I remember a talk he gave in Dharamsala in northern India in 1990, after conflict between Tibetans and Indians there. He spoke in Tibetan, and his delivery was stern and admonitory, like a forbidding, old-fashioned father reprimanding his children. The crowd listened respectfully, and went away chastened.

I'm rather angry at religious maniacs for these reasons:

They oppress women.
They oppose science and reason.
They try to coerce others into adopting their world view.
By virtue of being maniacs, they are dangerous both to society and to individuals.

All generalizations are false. :)

1. Oppression of women: To the best of my knowledge, Christianity was first the religion/culture to actually accept women as anywhere near equal to men.
2a. Oppose science: Most major scientific improvments from 1500 to c. 1800 or so were made by professing Christians.
2b. Oppose reason: Decartes' "cogito, ergo sum" was the first step in an attempt to prove God's existence, not man's.
3. Trying to coerce others: Some do, some don't. Persuasion should be the preferred method. I can't force someone to believe something they don't want to believe. The closest I could get is to make them agree with me out loud, while their mind is still free to believe what they want. (Galileo and the Spanish Inquisition)
4. Maniacs: You have convieniently forgotten to define "maniac". Not everyone who is religious is a maniac, and not everyone who is a maniac is religious.

I welcome criticism of my point of view as long as it doesn't turn into personal ripping of my character (since none of you know about it).

It goes either way. For a long time religion was the basis and support for secular learning and civil rights.

Religion is just used as an excuse for people to do the above, it's not the cause per se. Exactly the same kind of moron that is running round prosletyzing religion and trying to get everyone to do exactly what they say would be just as happy as a bolshevik or a nazi. And if you look at the history of the last century I wouldn't rank religion as the number one cause of oppression, killing or suffering.


I would like a citation on where religion (by which i mean christian/muslim specifically) was the "basis and support for secular learning and civil rights"

1. Oppression of women: To the best of my knowledge, Christianity was first the religion/culture to actually accept women as anywhere near equal to men.


Look into ancient Celts stretching all the way from Gaul(spain) to Ireland with their matriarchial (sp?) society not to mention their various Goddess figures.
so.. now i've given you a lead on some better knowledge =)

i wouldn't consider myself angry at religious people...some of my best friends are devout Catholics and such. my issue comes up when people start shit with me because "i'm going to hell", and lecture me about my "evil ways." please...get off your freaking high horse and worry about yourself before you start persecuting me.

then why do you even care that they say "you're going to hell" if you dont believe in it?

I'm rather angry at religious maniacs for these reasons:

They oppress women.
They oppose science and reason.
They try to coerce others into adopting their world view.
By virtue of being maniacs, they are dangerous both to society and to individuals.

I agree that in the past this has been so, at least for that religion known as Christianity. One has only to look at history to see that all statements are supported in historical fact. The branding of Mary Magdolin as a whore by the church. Seizing many alchamaic texts throughout he dark and middle ages. And of course sending missionaries to every "heathen" peoples on the planet (The Aztecs serve as a good example, once their great civilisation was ravaged by the Spannish conquisitors, the monks moved in to remove the people's own beliefs).

While I am not an athesit myself (i belevie in something i just can't be bothered explaining it) I can see how anyone in the US can feel excluded and ostracised because they don't beleive Christianity is the correct faith (and frankly I agree, at least not in the form it is now).

So before you go asking atheists why they are "angry" maybe you should look back and see if you have done anything to releive some of this "anger".

And no trying to convert them is not, it would be very counter-productive.

I would like a citation on where religion (by which i mean christian/muslim specifically) was the "basis and support for secular learning and civil rights"

You have heard of the following universities haven't you.

Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, Yale, Columbia, Harvard &ct.

All founded as religious institutions.

Not so long ago, all major centers of higher learning in the western europe/US had strong religous ties - indeed most of them were founded by the churches.

You do also know that it was religious people who led the crusade against slavery, and not agnositcs or atheists, don't you?

I'm not saying that everything that religion - or more accurately what has been done in the name of religion - is a good thing. But to cite religion as the major source of the worlds woes is a gross over generalization/mischaracterization.

Hitler and Stalin managed quite well without it.

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.

Please explain to me why you assume all atheists are angry people.

All generalizations are false. :)

2a. Oppose science: Most major scientific improvments from 1500 to c. 1800 or so were made by professing Christians.

3. Trying to coerce others: Some do, some don't. Persuasion should be the preferred method. I can't force someone to believe something they don't want to believe. The closest I could get is to make them agree with me out loud, while their mind is still free to believe what they want. (Galileo and the Spanish Inquisition)


2a. The fact that the first scientists were also Christians doesn't mean that Christianity wasn't anti-science. See Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, and the Scopes Trial.

3. You forgot trying to coerce others by killing them or torturing them. (See the bloody, brutal part of the Spanish Inquisition and other religious purges)

You have heard of the following universities haven't you.

Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, Yale, Columbia, Harvard &ct.

All founded as religious institutions.

Not so long ago, all major centers of higher learning in the western europe/US had strong religous ties - indeed most of them were founded by the churches.

You do also know that it was religious people who led the crusade against slavery, and not agnositcs or atheists, don't you?

I'm not saying that everything that religion - or more accurately what has been done in the name of religion - is a good thing. But to cite religion as the major source of the worlds woes is a gross over generalization/mischaracterization.

Hitler and Stalin managed quite well without it.


Against the founding of those universities I place the crusades, the inquisition, &c. [I too love the ampersand et cetera!! :) !! ]

And in any case, what is important to me most of all is what is occuring right now in the world, that affects real people today.

In today's world, in the world of reality that matters, religious maniacs from the christian and islamic faiths are responsible for opposition to science and reason, for the oppression of women and for attempting to co opt the government into imposing censorship and allocating funds based upon their religious beliefs.

Once again, no one is denying that creatures adapt to their environments. But even the viruses you mention REMAIN viruses, they don't turn into sponges!

Ah once again limited understanding and Christian dogma have done its work.
Another mind closed!

I think it results from a frustration of being in the minority
Yes, frustration because not everyone thinks like they do. Ironically, the same reason they hate religion.

I'm agnostic, not atheistic, but I understand what most of us feel. Christianity is everywhere in this country, and if you aren't part of it, you are an outcast. That said, I know a lot of atheists/agnostics, and many of them are extremely cool, nice, moral people. In fact, one of my coolest friends is atheistic, and he's pretty much the nicest kid ever.
I'm kind of agnostic, too(believe in God, not religious though), and I don't know where the hell you live, but I don't feel at all like an outcast because I'm not Christian. Christians aren't everywhere. I've had more atheists try to push me to be one side than Christians. Atheists here also like to push you to believe something. Christians try to offer it. You don't like it, they stop. They're nice about it, too. Atheists, on the other hand, don't give up and always seem to be badgering and looking for trouble.

I'm rather angry at religious maniacs for these reasons:
They oppress women.
They oppose science and reason.
They try to coerce others into adopting their world view.
By virtue of being maniacs, they are dangerous both to society and to individuals.
I'm rather angry at the maniacs, too, and the same goes for the anti-religious, 100% "take anything but religion" people.
1. The only religious people these days that oppresses women are Muslims. There are a lot of people(mostly atheists..religious people these days actually have a conscience, and their religion teaches them to be honest and helpful) that belittle women, too, just because they don't care and it doesn't matter in their view of the long term.
2. The maniacs do, sure. It's good to have some stuff questioned rabidly, though. It prevents a bunch of theories from being thrown out and picked up by whoever and pushed as truth until people use it as truth.
3. Who doesn't? Religious people have never tried to convince me or force me to believe them. They've asked me to listen to them. When I say no, they leave me alone. Don't tell me that even mild atheists don't try to sway people's beliefs. I would think, since atheists have no morals or any deterrent or sometimes, conscience in this regard, it wouldn't matter to them what had to be done to sway people to their views. So what if you have to kill 10 million people so the country agrees? It doesn't matter in the long run.

yup. chrisitanity was among the last cultures to let women do crap, that i can think of. in many First Nation (that's the people who lived in the Americas before they got wiped out by self-appointed Christian Soldiers and Holy Warriors from europe) cultures, men and women were seen as having exactly equal dominion. among the Zuni, the aphorism was "women are in charge of the world, men are in charge of the universe" i.e. women took care of crops, houses, government, politics, clothing production, etc. men took care of hunting and spiritual matters. not to mention that if a child showed a propensity for one or the other of these sets of activities, THAT was what determined their gender, not what they had between their legs.

so at best, christianity jumped on the gender-equity bandwagon. it wasn't the feminist vanguard.


and let's talk about this "anger" bullshit. how do you know if someone's angry?
seems to me, you know if they rant and rave and lash out at people, and show total intolerance for differing opinions
then the degree to which they rant and rave, and the extremity with which they lash out, and the scope of intolerance they show, can be a gauge of their anger.

so. christians started the crusades. christians burned witches at the stake. christians colonized most of the world in extremely violent fashion, because they thought god, and maybe their "anglo-saxon/aryan" heritage, told them to. right now, god is getting used by two sets of religious fanatics, one to justify invading whoever the fuck we feel like and killing massive numbers of civilians, the other to declare holy war on american civilians.

do the atheists have badguys? yeah. we got the soviet union. but they're all gone. and i think the sum total of folks killed by that single atheist regime (although personally i think they just changed the name of God to "Lenin, Stalin, and Marx) and that other one (again i think they just changed the name of god to "Mao" - a cult of personality is still a religion) pales in comparison to all the murders, wars, persecutions, pogroms, and whatever by the religious fanatics.

so why are the atheists so angry?
because from where i stand, i see a bible-thumper who wants my queer tranny anarchist ass to be stoned to death frothing at the mouth, waving a bible in my face, and asking me why i'm so angry.

2b. Oppose reason: Decartes' "cogito, ergo sum" was the first step in an attempt to prove God's existence, not man's.

"Cogito Ergo Sum" was the first step in an attempt to prove anything. Descartes "proved" the existence of God as he went, but that was not his intention - he merely wanted to start over from scratch to make sure he didn't have any false assumptions.

so why are the atheists so angry?
because from where i stand, i see a bible-thumper who wants my queer tranny anarchist ass to be stoned to death frothing at the mouth, waving a bible in my face, and asking me why i'm so angry.

Hello fellow tranny.

All generalizations are false. :)

1. Oppression of women: To the best of my knowledge, Christianity was first the religion/culture to actually accept women as anywhere near equal to men.
2a. Oppose science: Most major scientific improvments from 1500 to c. 1800 or so were made by professing Christians.
2b. Oppose reason: Decartes' "cogito, ergo sum" was the first step in an attempt to prove God's existence, not man's.
3. Trying to coerce others: Some do, some don't. Persuasion should be the preferred method. I can't force someone to believe something they don't want to believe. The closest I could get is to make them agree with me out loud, while their mind is still free to believe what they want. (Galileo and the Spanish Inquisition)
4. Maniacs: You have convieniently forgotten to define "maniac". Not everyone who is religious is a maniac, and not everyone who is a maniac is religious.

I welcome criticism of my point of view as long as it doesn't turn into personal ripping of my character (since none of you know about it).

As for the treatment of women in christian society, one need look no further than "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Also the witch trials across europe and N america, &c. &c.

If those 'professing christians' mentioned as inventors had professed anything but christianity, they would have been killed.

By a religious maniac I mean somone who is a 'true believer' and would die for their religion if need be. Also anyone willing to strip others of their rights because of religious reasons.
Anyone who thinks that religion should be the basis for law or that people should be compelled to refrain from activities because of religious motivations is a religious maniac.

The difference lies in the compulsion of others.

"Cogito Ergo Sum" was the first step in an attempt to prove anything. Descartes "proved" the existence of God as he went, but that was not his intention - he merely wanted to start over from scratch to make sure he didn't have any false assumptions.


Epistemology.

Profound only in the ammount of time it wastes.

Against the founding of those universities I place the crusades, the inquisition, &c. [I too love the ampersand et cetera!! :) !! ]

And in any case, what is important to me most of all is what is occuring right now in the world, that affects real people today.

In today's world, in the world of reality that matters, religious maniacs from the christian and islamic faiths are responsible for opposition to science and reason, for the oppression of women and for attempting to co opt the government into imposing censorship and allocating funds based upon their religious beliefs.

As I said, religion can be used as a justification for bad things too. I am just answering your point that as a historical force is the worst thing that has happened to mankind.

I would actually say that xenophobia and nationalism were worse. Yes, the crusades were bad, but Mao and Stalin were worse. (Plus many people would argue that religion really had very little to do with the crusades, it was more internal european politics if anything.)

My larger point is, that it is not religion that is the cause, it is just a convienent justification. The type of people who engage in all kinds of anti-social behavior, from knocking on your door to tell you to change your ways to genocide, would do it anyway but with a different excuse - probably something to do with a workers utopia or racial purity.

True story, I lived in the north east of england for a few years, and while I never once had religious people knock on my door to convert, the socialists workers stopped by about twice a year to tell me how I should change my views on the west &ct ( :) ). I'm sure if those chaps had found the Curch of mormon they'd just have as gladly told me about Brigham Young.

I agree that at this moment religious fundamentalists are a troubling element, but I think they would act that way without religion, they'd just find another reason. (Probably some whacky political ideology).

People even pervert buddhism to strange lengths. (Like the Sinhala-Buddhist of Sri-lanka, they can be violent). I'm sure that those folks are not really that way because of Buddhism, but because they are assholes.

then why do you even care that they say "you're going to hell" if you dont believe in it?

Do you get insulted when someone calls you a bastard even if you dont think you are one?


I am something between an athiest and agnostic. The more "pagan" religions appeal to me, I think the Bible is about as fictional as Cinderella (Basis in fact, horribly distorted, very little truth left, true orgin unknown), but I have yet to classify my self as any one religion.

The things that get me are when the athiests, agnostics, and whatevers fight for freedoms, and the Christian Right opposes it. "Under God" in the pledge states that there is a god, or at least a higher power. I think Christians wouldnt be so happy if it said "There is no God", the closest parrallel I can come up with this late at night. Having references to God in the pledge, money, and various other places is directly contradictory to some religions. It is offensive to some, but removing it hurts no one, insults no one, merely keeps the goverment bipartisan. How is that bad? I fail to see a single reason why to keep the phrase "Under God" plastered all over our government. The Ten Commandments is slightly different, if only because I think that while it does make references to religion, a lot of it is good advice everyone would do well to follow.

Gay marrage is simular. It does hurt people by not allowing them to get married (A man cant visit his partner in the hospital because he doesnt have some "official" religious bond to him) and it hurts no one by allowing gays to get married. Divorce is a much bigger issue that homosexuals when it comes to "Violating traditional marriage".

The main Christian I know has her church praying for me because I think that man evolved from apes.

Relgion, I can take it or leave it. What I dont like is when it is practically forced upon me, whether it be in small references around me or social pressure.

Hrm. I tried to stick to the topic...

I'm an extremely happy atheist. Religion doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me, but I don't care what other people wish to believe. I only get upset with those who try to use their religion as a mandate to dictate how people should or should not live their lives.. such as the whole "family values" type. Or the people who try and impose their beliefs into politics as if to say what I believe should be law. Law should be based on common sense, not religion. That's my only beef with it.

WOW!! This is exactly how I feel. I don't care about peoples religions, until they tell me I'm going to hell. I give all my religous friends fair warning I'm athiest and we get along just fine, but people who go around sputtering about how good god is and that the only way to live in eternal paradise is believe in their god, piss me off. Well if their god does exist then he should love me anyway.

I would think, since atheists have no morals or any deterrent or sometimes, conscience in this regard, it wouldn't matter to them what had to be done to sway people to their views. So what if you have to kill 10 million people so the country agrees? It doesn't matter in the long run.

I've bolded another reason atheists get angry.

(pause for the Christians to think, "oh, anger isn't immoral to them!")

No, you dolt, I mean that Christians are always calling us amoral jerks. Just because we don't believe that doing something bad will get us punished (hell) doesn't mean we see no reason not to do bad things. In fact, if you look at Kohlberg's theory of moral development, atheists are far more morally developed than any "God-fearing" Christian.

A few reasons why I'm angry:
Because a former president (GHB) freely said he didn't think atheist should have any rights as citizens because "this is one nation under god".
Stem cell research is being stifled because some think a group of cells with no brain development a few weeks old has a soul.
Someone keyed the side of my car. It had a darwin sticker on it.( My new car has none). I have to look at all of those fish on other cars and realize their symbol is acceptable while my Darwin fish isn't.
I have to keep my mouth shut about my atheism or I'd lose at least half of my clients.
Since clients don't know I'm an atheist, I have to sit there and listen to them spout off about how stupid atheists are as well as their own particular dogma.
I can't say my pledge to my country honestly. The words "under god" were added to exclude atheists.
People think my country has freedom "of" and not "from" religion.
Even though I'm not gay, I hate to see them discriminated against by anti-gay civil-union laws. Also, for the first time since I can remember a group of people are being ostracized rather than being integrated into this society.
Superstition is being mandated to be taught in the science classroom here.
I'm tired of being told "all morality derives from god".
I'm tired of people telling me I'm close-minded when I don't accept the existence of a god for which there is no evidence.
I'm tired of religious based moral legislation. If it ain't hurting anyone else, what I do should be legal. (IF it does, that's another big discussion).

Question. Did Mao and Stalin do what they did in the name of atheism, or just because they were bad people? There is a diferance.

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.

personally i think it's because because of the challenging of ones personal ideals and state of living just like political racal sexual financial etc the lack of recognition and respect "the threat" i think people should do what ever they want as long as it doesn't hurt others if your a man and want to be with a man or a woman who wants to be with a woman or many men and woman if you want to worship god, christ, the god and goddess, no one, satan, the earth, allah, rah, isis another person or even a bowl of captain crunch go for it
just don't screw with others if that was a moral basis for many the world would be much more cozy.
I'm a beginning pagan but no-matter my spiritual ideals i hold to that moral I have atheist friends Muslim friends jewish friends gay friends hell I even have Christian friends because of that. they know it and respect it so it does work. I even have a few friends who don't like other races but since they don't screw with others and they let me be me it's a bit unsettling but it's ok. most of them are becoming more open minded about people who are not white southern Christian based on there own because I didn't attack there views and many of us get together and hang out so they get to see deferent people. I have my own little UN here only mine works :D

Actually, I'm pretty sure Charles Darwin was a christian. Just saying. Personally, I believe Creationalism and Evolution could possbily co-exist, but I don't really want to get into that right now.

As far as aithiesm goes, why christians (specifically) are worried about converting others is based on many different reasons.

1. Some christians feel it neccesary to try and bring others up to their own moral standards. Granted, members of other religions are good people and, honestly, many christians do not obey the moral beliefs that they propogate, and instead take limited views on small issues of the faith and extrapolate them to form the basis of a sort of neo-christianity. This is called fundementalism. Example: extrapolation of a small verse in the Jewish lawbook of Leviticus stating that homosexuality is "unclean" over the basic message of love that forms the basis of most christianity. (note: I'm not going to get into homosexuality, I'm not gay, so it's really none of my buisness and I shouldn't point fingers on the subject)

2. Some christians do, in fact, believe that anyone who is not a christian will go to hell. the idea of "hell" at it's core is something of much debate, and it should be noted that most christians believe that practicing christianity is only a step towards heaven, not a get-in-free ticket.

Frankly, I don't know why so many people are mad at christians. I suspect it is due to the fact that throughout history, christianity has recieved a pretty bad wrap (not, of course undeserved) while ignoring the many good works christians perform. I can cite a few if you'd like, but they would take up too much space for this post.
Truly, with any religion, there is divisions and lines amoung people of different beliefs, so immediatly branding all christians stupid, chauvanistic pigs is ignorant as well as hurtful to those who dedicate there lives to serving others in the name of their God.
Also, it is unfair to judge aithiests as elitiist anarchists. I respect aitheism, and try to refrain from judging others by mp personal standards and rather I try to understand the causes of people's actions. However, I'm always up for a good debate on the topic of aitheism vs. monotheistic religion, and I try to listen earnestly to all arguements for atheism.

, and I try to listen earnestly to all arguements for atheism.


The basic "arguement for atheism" is that there is no evidence or reasonable arguement for the belief in god.

Atheism is generally a default, not an assertion.

Question. Did Mao and Stalin do what they did in the name of atheism, or just because they were bad people? There is a diferance.


Hmm, I believe that stalin would send you to the gulag for having religious beliefs.

In any event, the point is that someone like Stalin, who trained as a priest, exchanged one belief system for another as an excuse for his behavior.

I'm sure given time a fundamentalist atheist will crop up - once the backgorund theory is fully developed.

The basic "arguement for atheism" is that there is no evidence or reasonable arguement for the belief in god.

Atheism is generally a default, not an assertion.

wouldn't agnosticism be the default?

Sigh.

1) Atheism isn't even related to religion. It's a binary function. Atheism is lacking a belief in deities. You can still believe in demons and angels and unicorns. You can still believe in magic. There are, in fact, atheist religions. Jainism is perhaps the most mentioned. The most referenced atheist, however, is the wholly secular non-religious atheist whom lacks a belief in any form of magic/supernatural effects and entities. Agreeing with the scientific conclusion that evolution occurs, and that the current evolutionary theory, for the moment, is as close to sound as it gets, also has zip to do with atheism. Anyone who thinks atheism is a religion may as well claim that "I don't believe in the Easter Bunny" is religion, or "I have a zit on my elbow", for that matter.

2) The reason that Christianity gets the most heat is because they, unlike most other faiths present in the US, try to shove their faith down your throat. Not all Christian faiths do this, and certainly not all Christians in those faiths do this,(And do know, the difference between any two varieties of Christianity can be MASSIVE, so you can't lump them that effectively) and, of course, just about every faith has some groups that do this. However, the ratio of Wiccans, Muslims, Religious Satanists, Druids, Jews, Pagans, Qabalists, Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists, Religious Atheists, and so on and so forth who get up and preach (my campus has a particularly evil ass of a preacher, we call him the Anti-Ghandi. He hides behind little kids who should be in school and screams when nobody listens, during classes. Oh, and every Christian outside of his version of it is going to hell with everyone else, so, yeah.), try to get favors from the government, try to have their laws placed in court rooms, scream at people on the street, or, of course, end up in jail.... the ratio doesn't even work.

3) Many many atheists are extremely happy people. Being rather certain that you only have this life to live causes many to live life to the fullest. I, personally, figure that since I'm going to be dirt someday, I'm going to enjoy every moment of my life, even my sadness. While I do get annoyed when the Anti-Ghandi is trying to make college students feel bad for not praising him (he says anyone who doesn't "show reverence" to his preaching is going to hell. Seriously. Direct quoted term.), after me and the rest of the random people who gather around him to tell him off (the school unites to tell him off, and its a very religious area, heh), everyone feels much better about themselves as people, because we aren't like the evil preacher. As such, even what might make me angry makes me feel good. I've had my day brighten from being dull and gloomy just by arguing with his backwards jabber. I'm also an extremely happy person right now. I have an extremely smart, sexy, and amazingly horny girlfriend who I evily frustrate by denying her sex for a year from our first meeting, but nothing else... always fun leaving a young woman's vision blurry... oh, and if you think atheistic folk can't stand religious folk, my girlfriend's Catholic, and my best friend in the whole world's Wiccan.

4) Yes, most things in the world have been done by religious people. That's because most of the world is religious. Those same people often get the church quite mad, too. Do keep in mind, as well, that, yes, GASP, the Bible-based religions aren't the only religions, and certainly aren't the oldest.

5) Most atheists are only angry at religious folk when those folk try to de-secularize the country, which is as unconstitutional as us trying to ban religious gatherings.

Oh please, must you ask? The THEORY of evolution is no more science than is the creation story, but the difference is, Christians do not claim that creation IS science, although everything written concerning the creation shows that since then, everything flows logically from it -- every creature after its own kind.

We do not deny that animals adapt to their environment. We deny (and science denies) that a creature changes into another creature, and eventually into the image of God himself, mankind. Science denies any such ridiculousness.
umm... yes. way to get the theory wrong.

the fact is that evolution has occured. the fact that we have any fossil records to indicate this says so. evolution is the change in life over a period of time. life has obviously changed since it started out on this earth, has it not?

evolution is a fact. the mechanisms are theory.

I think my favorite part about being an atheist is that it's kind of like being the incredible Hulk.

I not an athiest, but I can tell you why I am angry with Christianity. I have problem with Christians who use Christianity as an excuse to be ignorant. I am actually indifferent now, and respect Christians who are thoughtful and actually try to follow the teachings of Jesus. I used to be very incredibly angry because:

A. My stepmother pretends I don't exist because she doesn't believe in divorce, since God said divorce is a sin, don't ya know. (They got married when I was five.) Effects of this belief resulted in: not being allowed to go to my grandfather's funeral. My grandfather was listed as having no grandchildren in his obituary because my dad's wife didn't want her parents finding out about me by reading it in the paper. Oh and my two teenage half sisters don't know I exist. Plus not existing can present some problems when one does, in fact, exist. If that isn't twisted logic, I don't know what is.

Plus my mom remarried a whacko from an extremely religious familly, and lets just say my hatred for Christians and their hypocrisy worsened....

So yeah I used to be extemely anti-Christian. I don't have a problem with Christians now unless they get in my face. Its seems like alot of X-tians are f***ed people who try to make up for their awful ways by going to church once a week, and savoring the thoughts of everyone they don't like burning in hell.

I think Xtianity is a hateful religion. It doesn't have to be, but people make it that way.

Well, as an atheist.. and not an unhappy one... here is my take:

I like religion. I think it is a FASCINATING subject... I'm very interested in how it works, and the truth BEHIND the stories... all that kind of stuff.

This makes me an avid student of religion (religions, in general), quite well versed in various theologies/mythologies, and quite happy to discuss religion when it comes to the table.

Here is the 'problem', as I see it, though... why Atheists MIGHT be 'angry'.

Christian: Hello, can I sell you some Jesus?

Atheist: No thanks, I tried it, and I don't like it.

Christian: You are an evil sick puppy, and you will burn in hell, and so will your children and your childrens children, and your childrens' childrens' children... burn... burn... burn... like the evil twisted religion-haters you are, what is it with you people.. why are you always attacking us christians... you with your evil hedonistic lifestyles, and your 'sex' and your drugs, and killing each other, and worshipping the devil, yay, and graven images....

Atheist: huh?

Christian: GET THEE BEHIND ME. Stop trying to pervert me with you 'logic' and your 'science' and your 'facts'....

etc...

This is a debate that will never end. everyone will keep comming up with reasons why it is the other guys fault, or why there theory is right, or why partys on all sides have it wrong. It is therefore a pointless discussion.

All generalizations are false. :)

1. Oppression of women: To the best of my knowledge, Christianity was first the religion/culture to actually accept women as anywhere near equal to men.
pagan religions?

not to mention the anti-women passages in the bible. women should be kept silent in churches, women aren't to have authority over men, et c. it's really rather sad that you haven't noticed any of that.

2a. Oppose science: Most major scientific improvments from 1500 to c. 1800 or so were made by professing Christians.
and most scientific discoveries before then were pagan and arabic. also, when you consider that the early christians wiped out much of the pagan knowledge (i.e. the earth being round) they pretty much set back science quite some time.
not to mention the persecution of those who discovered new truths about the universe (e.g. gallileo) or striking fear into those who found out new things so that they wouldn't publish their works (i.e. kepler, copernicus both put off publishing their works for some time out of fear of the church)

2b. Oppose reason: Decartes' "cogito, ergo sum" was the first step in an attempt to prove God's existence, not man's.
if you've actually read this whole passage, you'd realise that it is quite unreasonable. he invokes god seemingly out of nowhere with little justification. it is a very weak ontological argument.

1. The only religious people these days that oppresses women are Muslims. There are a lot of people(mostly atheists..religious people these days actually have a conscience, and their religion teaches them to be honest and helpful) that belittle women, too, just because they don't care and it doesn't matter in their view of the long term.
umm... are you sure about muslims being the only oppressive group?

3. Who doesn't? Religious people have never tried to convince me or force me to believe them. They've asked me to listen to them. When I say no, they leave me alone. Don't tell me that even mild atheists don't try to sway people's beliefs.
i've had a bible shoved in my hands and have been preached at from a street corner. i didn't ask for this, they didn't give me the option...

I would think, since atheists have no morals
wow. misconception there. a rather disgusting one i might add.

and you claimed to be agnostic?

This is a debate that will never end. everyone will keep comming up with reasons why it is the other guys fault, or why there theory is right, or why partys on all sides have it wrong. It is therefore a pointless discussion.

as are most discussions on internet forums.

Well, as an atheist.. and not an unhappy one... here is my take:

I like religion. I think it is a FASCINATING subject... I'm very interested in how it works, and the truth BEHIND the stories... all that kind of stuff.

This makes me an avid student of religion (religions, in general), quite well versed in various theologies/mythologies, and quite happy to discuss religion when it comes to the table.


Oh, I agree.

I am not an atheist. I am moderately religious. However, I'm sure most of the religious extremist whack jobs would not want my religion imposed on them. I don't want theirs imposed on me, either. It is my firm belief that you cannot truly believe anything but that which you choose to believe completely with your free will. You can't truly believe something just because someone tells you to. That is why I am opposed to the government favoring any religion. I do not want a government that endorses the Christian god any more than I want a government that endorses the Aztec gods or any other deity.


And the reason I can't stand Christian extremist nutcases, or any religious extremist nutcases, is because they seem hell-bent (pardon the pun) on forcing me to bow to their particular religious view, when it is one that I do not share. And then when I tell them that I do not wish to take part in their fanatical version of Christianity, they verbally abuse me. That's not a very good way to make friends.

no what i hate are the religious people who think anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is an idiot. to you people i just say shouldn't we be free to choose what's best for us maybe what religion is best for you is not the right choice for another.

that is exactly what i think. i know a christian and he is always showing off his religion to me just because he knows i am non-religious. i know he means well but if he asked me the first time if i would change my mind about my religion why does he have to keep "hounding" me about it? why should i change my decision to make him happy when i was perfectly fine with mine?

everyone deserves to have their own choice and if his is christianity and i am not religious than he has the right to his decision and i have the right to mine. i don't think anybody should think they have the right to change that.

A few reasons why I'm angry:
Because a former president (GHB) freely said he didn't think atheist should have any rights as citizens because "this is one nation under god".
Stem cell research is being stifled because some think a group of cells with no brain development a few weeks old has a soul.
Someone keyed the side of my car. It had a darwin sticker on it.( My new car has none). I have to look at all of those fish on other cars and realize their symbol is acceptable while my Darwin fish isn't.
I have to keep my mouth shut about my atheism or I'd lose at least half of my clients.
Since clients don't know I'm an atheist, I have to sit there and listen to them spout off about how stupid atheists are as well as their own particular dogma.
I can't say my pledge to my country honestly. The words "under god" were added to exclude atheists.
People think my country has freedom "of" and not "from" religion.
Even though I'm not gay, I hate to see them discriminated against by anti-gay civil-union laws. Also, for the first time since I can remember a group of people are being ostracized rather than being integrated into this society.
Superstition is being mandated to be taught in the science classroom here.
I'm tired of being told "all morality derives from god".
I'm tired of people telling me I'm close-minded when I don't accept the existence of a god for which there is no evidence.
I'm tired of religious based moral legislation. If it ain't hurting anyone else, what I do should be legal. (IF it does, that's another big discussion).

Heck yeah. I agree.

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.
How would you feel if someone kept telling you the same thing over and over and over again? you'd be pretty annoyed wouldnt you? well, that's how us Atheists feel about Christains shoving thier religeon down the throats of non-believers

Exactly, it's the only religion that's annoying because it's the only religion that's true.

And to the other fellow who says he has no problem with religion, just with those who run their lives by it, you might try and take a look at that ridiculous statement. A person who does not live by their religion does not believe their religion.

Are you perhaps refering to the poster(s) who have said that they do not mind the religious as long as they don't try to run EVERYBODY ELSE'S lives with their beliefs? That's not rediculous, is it?

Question for the aetheists: If someone you knew and cared about were destroying their lives with a heroin addiction, Methamphetamine addiction, severe alcoholism, repeated criminal activity such as burglary, theft, etc. Wouldn't you do everything you could to stop them? Wouldn't you tell them how they are destroying themselves? Wouldn't you do all you could to change their behavior patterns?

::: more after I get answers :::

Question for the aetheists: If someone you knew and cared about were destroying their lives with a heroin addiction, Methamphetamine addiction, severe alcoholism, repeated criminal activity such as burglary, theft, etc. Wouldn't you do everything you could to stop them? Wouldn't you tell them how they are destroying themselves? Wouldn't you do all you could to change their behavior patterns?

::: more after I get answers :::
How does this have anything to do with religeon? all it has to do with is stupidity
(And yes, I am prepared for the onslaught of whatever I am about to revieve for this post)

Obviously he's saying that since Christians feel you are going to hell, they should try to *save* you, just like if you feel someone is an alcoholic (whether they are or not) you try to save them.

Question for the aetheists: If someone you knew and cared about were destroying their lives with a heroin addiction, Methamphetamine addiction, severe alcoholism, repeated criminal activity such as burglary, theft, etc. Wouldn't you do everything you could to stop them? Wouldn't you tell them how they are destroying themselves? Wouldn't you do all you could to change their behavior patterns?

::: more after I get answers :::


The problem with the comparison you're going to try to make is that "breaking god's laws and going to hell" is not something that is real.

You see, you can actually prove that all the things above hurt the person. All the things you list above are part of reality.

Heaven and hell are not part of reality, they are articles of faith for which no evidence exists.

Obviously he's saying that since Christians feel you are going to hell, they should try to *save* you, just like if you feel someone is an alcoholic (whether they are or not) you try to save them.
but what happens if everyone goes to the same place? no matter who they are
or what if there is nothing at all? then they're wasting thier time

as are most discussions on internet forums.

true.

but what happens if everyone goes to the same place? no matter who they are
or what if there is nothing at all? then they're wasting thier time
just playing devils advocate, if someone REALLY believes you're going to hell, you can't blame them for trying to "save" you. Just as if you truly believe someone has a drinking problem (regardless if they feel they don't), you try to "save" them.

I'm an atheist, and I'm not all that angry...

I'm also a pretty "moral" person... In fact, I agree with many of the rules set forth by the religions of the world, at least in terms of how we should be treating one another... Even though it seems to me that I see far too many "religious" individuals ignoring those rules...

I think that's a big part of the animosity between us... While there are a far greater number of "good" people on both sides of the debate, the only ones we notice are the "bad apples" in the bunch...

The loudest, and worst ones get all of the attention... And that, in turn, ruins the image as a whole...

For us atheists, we see nothing but those religious folk who are "cramming their beliefs down our throats", or "killing people in the name of their religion, or otherwise being hypocritical", etc... While the religous people see nothing but us atheists who are trying to "banish religon from the Earth", or "being angry at everyone", etc...

When the truth of the matter is, at either end of the spectrum, both sides have some really negative qualities... Extremism is bad in anything, and in a volitile topic such as this, it's even worse, and causes even more harm...

But while there are all of these very bad individuals in both camps, the majority of us are much closer to the middle, rational ground... We're just so drowned out by all of the yelling going on behind us, that the other side doesn't notice...

So yeah, I agree that there are many of us non-believers who are terrible, persecuting, hypocritical people... But at the same time, you can't deny that the same can be said of the religious side...

But when you look at things a little more closely, you'll notice that these few outspoken examples don't speak for the entire group...

just playing devils advocate, if someone REALLY believes you're going to hell, you can't blame them for trying to "save" you. Just as if you truly believe someone has a drinking problem (regardless if they feel they don't), you try to "save" them.



The vigor with which somone believes something *only* excuses their wrongs on the grounds of insanity.

To use that sort of defense for christian proselytizing is equivalent to saying that a man is innocent of killing his wife because he *honestly believed* that she was a devil who was going to kill the neighbors.

I dont know how the christians would feel about their devil's advocate using the insanity defense for them.

Atheism isnt a religion, it is lack of a religion.
Religion is a word that refers PARTICULARLY to belief IN a god.

Not every "system of beliefs" is a religion, only "systems of belief IN god."

(note, rant -
when the word religion is used to mean "with zeal or devotion," it is being used in a metaphorical or allusive sense to describe something that is similar to the way people believe in a god. It does not equate with the belief in a god in any way.

The same is true of saying "Jane's figure looks feline in that dress" the connotation is not that jane is actually a cat, but that she has certain attributes similar to those of cats, in this case, slenderness and sleek gracefulness, not fur or whiskers or a meow or paws.)

The word you mean is "secular."

Atheists try to make government secular.

So however, do many muslims, jews, christians and hindus.

re·li·gion
n.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Definition 5 covers Atheism, at least when praticed "religiously". :)

This is a debate that will never end. everyone will keep comming up with reasons why it is the other guys fault, or why there theory is right, or why partys on all sides have it wrong. It is therefore a pointless discussion.

Yeah, you're probably right. But it's the only place one can feel free to express one's feelings and it's good therapy. It may be pointless in the whole big picture but it's a healthy outlet.
This world is made up of individuals. All with feelings. ALL with feelings.

just playing devils advocate, if someone REALLY believes you're going to hell, you can't blame them for trying to "save" you. Just as if you truly believe someone has a drinking problem (regardless if they feel they don't), you try to "save" them.

And what if that person thinks that the tv is recording your life for the FBI, or sending brainwaves to you that only a tinfoil helmet can preotect you from?

They might go on and on and on, trying to protect form the 'FBI spycams' and the 'mind altering beams'... and they may be totally honest and earnest.

Hell, they could even be right.

But, are you happy with that idea? Someone telling you, day on day, how they want to save you from the mind probes that the CIA are peppering you with?

The parallel, you see... the average atheist (I would say) thinks that religions are psychological, and that faith is delusion... much the same way that you might think the guy in the tinfoil hat is delusional... since he believes in something that opposes logic, and has no real basis in fact.

To use that sort of defense for christian proselytizing is equivalent to saying that a man is innocent of killing his wife because he *honestly believed* that she was a devil who was going to kill the neighbors.
Not defending their proselytizing, I find it annoying and condescending, but I'm saying I understand why they act the way they do. I wish they'd but out of other people's lives, but with the deeply held beliefs some of them have, I just can't expect any better from them.

Definition 5 covers Atheism, at least when praticed "religiously". :)
not an atheist:

but that also covers my enjoyment of the original x-men cartoons and csi.

2a. The fact that the first scientists were also Christians doesn't mean that Christianity wasn't anti-science. See Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, and the Scopes Trial.

3. You forgot trying to coerce others by killing them or torturing them. (See the bloody, brutal part of the Spanish Inquisition and other religious purges)

And, of course, the 'peace' and 'equality' of Manifest Destiny....

well, an atheist such as myself could argue that christians are living a lie, and an atheist who cares for a christian can try to *save* him by making the christian see the reality, but then, what would that achieve?

you cant really change a person's mind once the person has already accepted his/her own version of the truth. christians should stop trying to convert atheists and vice versa. it just brings more mess than good.

im an atheist but right now im taking up 6 units of theology and a philosophy course entitled "Philosophy of Religion." im really out of place in this jesuit university. but as far as i can remember, some philosopher and i think St. Augustine pointed out that faith does not come from the mind or the emotions. faith comes as a "blessing from God." now, i obviously wouldnt know anything about that, but to pushy christians out there, doesnt this mean that you alone cant try to convert us?

so just leave us alone. why cant we just respect each other? the same goes to "angry atheists" although ive never encountered one.

I'm rather angry at religious maniacs for these reasons:

They oppress women.
They oppose science and reason.
They try to coerce others into adopting their world view.
By virtue of being maniacs, they are dangerous both to society and to individuals.
1. That's ridiculous.
2. Not true. In many ways, science works with faith. Check out www.creationists.org
3. I know plenty of atheists that try to do the same against my faith.
4. Way to make an objective conclusion. Note the sarcasm.

Definition 5 covers Atheism, at least when praticed "religiously". :)


Definition 5 is used in the same sense that "feline" is used in
1 : of, relating to, or affecting cats or the cat family
2 : resembling a cat: as a : sleekly graceful b : SLY

If i were to say that "Jane's dancing was positively feline" I would be implying that jane was sleekly graceful, like a cat, but not that she had whiskers or a tail or fur or any other charactaristics of a cat.

In the same sense, when somone is said to "play a video game religiously" it is implied that their devotion to the game is *similar to the devotion of religious people* but not that playing the game has anything to do with worshipping a god or that they are in *any other way* similar to religious people.

Religion is a very specific word when it refers to a belief system: the belief system *Must believe IN god.*

Religion refers ONLY to belief systems that hold a positive belief about the existance of a god or gods.

For this reason, the assertion "atheism is a religion" is not merely incorrect but a genuine contradiction in terms. The two words are mutually exclusive.

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.

Because we don't have God!!!
Just kidding. I'm an atheist, but I'm not really all that angry. I do get tired of being told I'm wrong because "God says so..."
Otherwise, I would just prefer to be left alone. I'm not trying to convert anyone.

1. That's ridiculous.
2. Not true. In many ways, science works with faith. Check out www.creationists.org
3. I know plenty of atheists that try to do the same against my faith.
4. Way to make an objective conclusion. Note the sarcasm.


1: anti-abortion is anti-women. Also, note god's command in the bible in corinth, I believe it is 14:34-37.

2. 'creationists.org' is a fantastic example of a christian organization fighting to the death against both science and reason.

3. I listed it as a reason I didnt like religious maniacs. If you percieve that others are doing it to you, I can understand why you'd be upset.

4. From abortion clinic shootings and bombings to the refusal of contraceptives to outright muslim suicide bombings to the maniacal belief that israel was beqeathed to *any* group by god, religious mania contributes directly to the deaths of human beings.

An atheist is someone (at least according to my definition) without a belief in a god (the supernatural). Atheism is not a religion.
If Tom has a pepperoni pizza, John has an anchovie pizza, and Jane has no pizza, is Jane still having pizza?
I think the insistance by (some) theists that atheism is a religion stems from their lack of ability to comprehend some not having a belief in a god (or gods). They don't really believe atheists don't bellieve in god, it's just that atheists are in denial of their true thoughts. Since it's impossible for Jane to not have a pizza she's having a "no-pizza" which is the same as pizza.

1. That's ridiculous.
2. Not true. In many ways, science works with faith. Check out www.creationists.org
3. I know plenty of atheists that try to do the same against my faith.
4. Way to make an objective conclusion. Note the sarcasm.

1) Not ridiculous... supported by scripture, and a very real reality in some areas...

2) Ah, a truly unbiased site....

3) But there isn't an 'Atheists Code' that makes it tantamount to a requirement.

This is a debate that will never end. everyone will keep comming up with reasons why it is the other guys fault, or why there theory is right, or why partys on all sides have it wrong. It is therefore a pointless discussion.


I agree, this forum has just become a way for people with limited views to preach to anyone who cares. Enough I say. Enough

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.

Why do you care in the first place...?

I'm a Roman Catholic and I have a couple of friends who are atheists...

And sometimes they may try and say that my religion is wrong and that my God doesn't exist... But I pay no heed to it... I mean...They're entitled to their opinion aren't they...?

Like or not...Christianity isn't the head honcho of the religious world anymore... So were going to be exposed to alot of different opinions...

But I learn from these opinions and try not to tread on the toes of a person who has an Atheist belief...

I'm secure enough in my own religious belief that I don't need to try and convert anyone... If a person finds a belief that allows them to keep going through life...then I'm happy for them... No matter what it is...

1: anti-abortion is anti-women. Also, note god's command in the bible in corinth, I believe it is 14:34-37.

2. 'creationists.org' is a fantastic example of a christian organization fighting to the death against both science and reason.

3. I listed it as a reason I didnt like religious maniacs. If you percieve that others are doing it to you, I can understand why you'd be upset.

4. From abortion clinic shootings and bombings to the refusal of contraceptives to outright muslim suicide bombings to the maniacal belief that israel was beqeathed to *any* group by god, religious mania contributes directly to the deaths of human beings.
Anti-abortion is not anti-women. Not all religious people are anti-abortion, by the way. However, if you can say that anti-abortion is anti-women, I can say that being pro-abortion and being pro-women makes you hate children and want them to die. Does that make sense? Of course not, and neither does the above claim.
Had you went to the website, you'd see that it is run by physicists, chemists, and biologists: all scientists with PhDs whom believe in creationism. Are you saying that you know more about science than these scholars, thus you should completely disregard their stances? At least give it a look. Keep in mind, even Darwinism is still just a theory.
Lastly, there are extremists in every category (including atheism). However, for religions, violent extremism is looked down upon. You can't let a very small minority of extremists skew your portrait of everyone.

...I would think, since atheists have no morals or any deterrent or sometimes, conscience in this regard...

Its people like you who make us angry. And as an atheist, i think its sad that your moral views are defined by your fear of being thrown into a horrible place after you die.

1) Not ridiculous... supported by scripture, and a very real reality in some areas...

2) Ah, a truly unbiased site....

3) But there isn't an 'Atheists Code' that makes it tantamount to a requirement.
I know the scripture. The Old Testament is a way of the past: a history. However (in Christianity), the New Testament, which is superior in Christianity, says no such thing.
You aren't going to find an unbiased site on this issue. You're biased, I'm biased. That means nothing for your case.
Check out my re-reply to the fellow above.

I know the scripture. The Old Testament is a way of the past: a history. However (in Christianity), the New Testament, which is superior in Christianity, says no such thing.
You aren't going to find an unbiased site on this issue. You're biased, I'm biased. That means nothing for your case.
Check out my re-reply to the fellow above.


Since when is 1 corinth part of the OLD TESTAMENT?????

Read the bible! specifically this passage:

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1Cr 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant

--

I suppose that God, in His wisdom, knew that in the 20th century christians with relative morals would balk at His command about women in church.

SO, He decided to make it absolutely clear that this was His personal commandment to mankind.

I'm not going to bother quoting the posts, but the point I was driving at was made (by the Devil's advocate no less :) ). To a Christian, heaven and hell are as real as rocks and sunshine are to an aetheist. Since Christians are directed to care about everyone, then it stands to reason that it matters if you go to heaven or hell when you die, so of course they will try to convince you to accept the existence of God and Jesus. Just as an aetheist would try to convince a person he cared for to stop using Methamphetamines because their life was being ruined.

However, just like an aetheist would give up on his friend after reasonable attempts had failed and just say "I care and hope you can lick this, but I've done all I can do." A "real"Christian should also tell the aetheist "I give up, I've told you what I think, but the choice is your's now" and walk away. A Christian who is obnoxious and forces you to listen to his spiel after you've made it clear you don't beleive and don't want to hear it any more has moved from asking you to consider it, to driving you away from it just as an aetheist that goes on and on to his drug addict friend reaches the point where the addict says "shut up, I need a fix." Gentle persuasion can too easily turn into strong dissuasion (is "dissuasion" a real word?). Sadly, some Christians don't see this, or at least don't see where the line is. The same thing for aetheists who try to argue with Christians and use logic to convince them there is no God. Once you reach the line where the Christian has heard your arguments, if you keep pushing you drive the Christian away and he catagorizes you as "angry" or "full of hatred" It is a fine line and a two edged sword.

Tell me, how do Christians try to "run your life"?

One example: in the state where I live, you cannot buy alcohol before noon on a sunday. Nevermind that sunday is not even really the Sabbath, even if it were, or if these blue laws refered to the actual Sabbath, this is an enforcement of a religious law, with no secular significance, onto the general population without regard for the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of individuals.

In addition, in many towns and cities, certain forms of business, typically retail, are not allowed to open at all on a sunday. It gets argued that this is to make sure that people get a day off from work, but this is greatly flawed on two fronts. First, overtime pay laws make sure that people get a day off, as it is simply cost-prohibitive to emply a worker for seven days a week. Secondly, in places where the blue laws have been repealed, the predicted seven day work week has simply not manifested.

They argue as well that such laws simply guarantee workers a day of rest, and are not religiously motivated. That this is a crock is shown in the fact that they do not care that a Jew, to be faithful to his own faith, would then have only five of seven days to work. The choice of sunday as this "secular day of rest" they admit is chosen because of its convenience to the majority. Thus it is obvously religiously motivated, and they do not care that it imposes a doubled hardship to those that keep faith with the true Sabbath.

The blue law supporters also argue that religious people would be disadvantaged by the repeal of the blue laws because secular (read: atheist) retailers would have an economic advatage over them. This is just so deeply flawed on more than one level. For one, shoppers who are religious would still not shop on sunday, so if secular retailers have a 16.666% greater chance of catching extra business from only secular shoppers, why not? They are, after all, "their" people. And the fact is, keeping a day of rest is an act of faith and sacrifice, and sacrifice is not sacrifice if it is mandatory. On other words, these faith-filled retailers don't really have faith in G-d of they fear the economic advantage that unbelievers might exploit by choosing, by being free not to choose, to sacrifice a day out of their week. Their faith is instead in Mammon, or in the Market Forces.

Christians "run my life" by imposing laws that serve no secular purpose, but rather exist only to support and preserve their hegemony, and to impose their entirely religious traditions, traditions with no non-religious motivation, onto everybody, those who agree with them and those who do not.

I am a Sabbatarian Christian. If my employment allowed for it, I would not work at all from sundown friday to sundown saturday. If I were a Jew, then my employers would actually respect this, and if they did not it would be far easier for me to find recourse in the law. As it is the law prevents me from doing certain forms of business on sunday, the Great and Venerable Day of the Sun and Wine Gods, Helios and Bacchus, Patrons of Rome. A day that has zero religious meaning for me. Christians ... Paganized Sabbath-breaking Christians ... force me to follow their religious laws.

That's how.

Since when is 1 corinth part of the OLD TESTAMENT?????

Read the bible! specifically this passage:

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1Cr 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant

--

I suppose that God, in His wisdom, knew that in the 20th century christians with relative morals would balk at His command about women in church.

SO, He decided to make it absolutely clear that this was His personal commandment to mankind.
It's considered older law of God. If you focus on the apostles, you'll see something different. That aside, can you respond to any of my other contentions?

And reason #1 why I get so angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:





I would think, since atheists have no morals or any deterrent or sometimes, conscience in this regard, it wouldn't matter to them what had to be done to sway people to their views. So what if you have to kill 10 million people so the country agrees? It doesn't matter in the long run.


I hear this bigoted crap all of the time. The only problem is that this view is completely acceptable among a great portion of people in the red states.

I know the scripture. The Old Testament is a way of the past: a history. However (in Christianity), the New Testament, which is superior in Christianity, says no such thing.
[snip]


Hmmm, I'm a bit confused by this... So to further my understanding (even things that I disagree with, I'd like to understand), can you explain to me what that means?

It is my understanding that the Bible is the Word of God, as told to man by God Himself, and recorded for posterity...

So, then, is that statement saying that the Old Testament is false? Or is that statement saying that the God has changed his mind along the way (which, I thought was an impossiblity, for an infallible being to do... after all, if you're perfect, there's never any reason, or even a way to change)? Or what?

I'm confused...

I know the scripture. The Old Testament is a way of the past: a history. However (in Christianity), the New Testament, which is superior in Christianity, says no such thing.
You aren't going to find an unbiased site on this issue. You're biased, I'm biased. That means nothing for your case.
Check out my re-reply to the fellow above.


Christianity is not the only religion. Why should someone who follows a different religion be forced to learn the BS that are the stories of creation (there are at least two) in the bible? Even the Pope himself has written that this is probably best not taken literally.

Even if Christianity does not claim to be anti-woman, many extremists of the religion are. Several other religions are rather sexist in practice as well.



Christian fundamentalists seem to think that they're somehow above everyone else, that they're somehow "special." They would not tolerate me shoving MY religion down their throats, why should I tolerate the same behavior from them?

It depends what you mean by 'atheist'. Generally I think people use that term to refer to someone who doesn't believe in God. However it also seems to mean 'living without God'. So I suppose one can still believe in God, yet still be classed as 'atheist'. Anyway, that is probably getting a bit off topic...

Why are atheists so angry? I don't know that they are all that angry, I know a number of atheists and they don't seem terribly angry in my opinion. They get a bit frustrated when Christians start trying to force their religion, but they aren't a bunch of disagreeable people always bitching. Some of them are like that, I'm sure. But then so are some Christians, so yeah…

Hmmm, I'm a bit confused by this... So to further my understanding (even things that I disagree with, I'd like to understand), can you explain to me what that means?

It is my understanding that the Bible is the Word of God, as told to man by God Himself, and recorded for posterity...

So, then, is that statement saying that the Old Testament is false? Or is that statement saying that the God has changed his mind along the way (which, I thought was an impossiblity, for an infallible being to do... after all, if you're perfect, there's never any reason, or even a way to change)? Or what?

I'm confused...
I'm saying that the Old and New Testaments sometimes conflict, and Jesus's rise changed a lot of things. It isn't fallible to change your mind. It this case, it is just finding a new way to approach the same goal.

Christianity is not the only religion. Why should someone who follows a different religion be forced to learn the BS that are the stories of creation (there are at least two) in the bible? Even the Pope himself has written that this is probably best not taken literally.

Even if Christianity does not claim to be anti-woman, many extremists of the religion are. Several other religions are rather sexist in practice as well.



Christian fundamentalists seem to think that they're somehow above everyone else, that they're somehow "special." They would not tolerate me shoving MY religion down their throats, why should I tolerate the same behavior from them?
Like I said, don't let extremism skew your view of everyone.

So, the thing is, many athiests are angry because that whole "surrounded by idiots" feeling is rather overwhelming. The real problem, though, is that many so-called athiests are, in fact, said idiots. And when idiots are arrogantly and ignorantly wallowing in the notion that they are surrounded by idiots, a sort of stupidity supernova occurs. Real athiests becpme angry at fake athiests as well as most other people, fake athiests become angry at most other people, and most other people think all athiests (real or fake) are a bunch of communists who are sending the good ol' apple pie-loving U-S-of-A down the drain.

I, myself, sometimes get irritated that people not only choose to believe in but actually DIE for an invisible man in the sky. But that's faith, for you. As a man of statitistics, probability, and generally cold, hard science and math, I can't have a whole lot of faith. To each his own, though. I look not to destroy religion; I'm simply wary of religion destroying me. (Note: I don't live in Northern Ireland or Palestine, so the odds of religion destroying me in the literal sense are relatively small)

One more little thing...Jesus. Love that Jesus. I mean, he was definitely one of the best guys on my list. From what I can glean from the New Testament that appears to be factual, Jesus was a carpenter-turned-rabbi who scared a few higher-ups by saying, "oh, what if we stopped being so sh*tty to each other and made things nice." The natural response, of course, was to nail him to a tree. The point is...Jesus was hardcore, man. Hard. Core. Just a thought.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.

I'm atheist. I'm not angry. :D

I've got work tomorrow morning, ladies and gents. I must be going. Look over my posts and consider my words.

If you are an Atheist, this is it, life, then nothing. If you want to remain a figure in history/ be worthy of remembrance, family is not enough. Your memory fades. So, if you want immortality, you have to accomplish something great.

Accomplishments of that nature are few and far between. So, if you are an athies that fits into the aforementioned categories, unless you have made that great accomplishment, your life is pretty depressing.

However, if you are an athiest that believes a person lives on through future generations, then supplying for your family brings you self worth and happiness.

If you are religious, then do your best here, as you have time imemorium; since, after death you get to be with God and those you love.

If an agnostic. Strive for immortality, provide for your family materially and emotionally, and follow the philosphical aspects of religion when applicable.

If you succeed in all three, then kudos to you.

Are you calling Jesus a liar? Bigot.

Are you serious? :rolleyes:

Please tell me you were kidding, or at least that you have a major reading comprehension problem.

1. The only religious people these days that oppresses women are Muslims.

Just wanted to address this and educate you a little about Islam.

The Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) said, "Women are the twin halves of men."

Some quotes from Qu'ran:

And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women. (2:226)

Who so does that which is right, and believes, whether male or female, him or her will We quicken to happy life. (16:97)

O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good. (4:19)

Before the advent of Islam women were often treated worse than animals. The Prophet wanted to put a stop to all cruelties to women. He preached kindness towards them. He told the Muslims: "Fear Allah in respect of women." And: "The best of you are they who behave best to their wives." And: "A Muslim must not hate his wife, and if he be displeased with one bad quality in her, let him be pleased with one that is good." And:"The more civil and kind a Muslim is to his wife, the more perfect in faith he is."

The Prophet (peace be upon him) was most emphatic in enjoining upon Muslims to be kind to their women when he delivered his famous khutba on the Mount of Mercy at Arafat in the presence of one hundred and twenty-four thousand of his Companions who had gathered there for the Hajj al-Wada (Farewell Pilgrimage). In it he ordered those present, and through them all those Muslims who were to come later, to be respectful and kind towards women. He said:

"Fear Allah regarding women. Verily you have married them with the trust of Allah, and made their bodies lawful with the word of Allah. You have got (rights) over them, and they have got (rights) over you in respect of their food and clothing according to your means."

I won't go on because this could become a very long post, but I will sum it up with the following:

Qu'ran forbids the oppression of women. Some Muslims do oppress women and they are wrong in doing so. Some Christian men beat their wives, but every Christian knows that doing so is wrong. It does not, however, make all Christians into wife beaters.

Mmkay? Mmkay!

I'm saying that the Old and New Testaments sometimes conflict, and Jesus's rise changed a lot of things. It isn't fallible to change your mind. It this case, it is just finding a new way to approach the same goal.

An omniscient, onmipotent, and omnipresent being has no need to change his/her/its mind... If you know everything and control everything, then anything you think, say, decide, or do is automatically the best...

There is no finding another route, because by default, whatever route you take is the route...

So if God can change his ideals and his stance on things, it tells me that God isn't as perfect as He is made out to be...

[Edit:] ...Unless:

It also suggests to me that the Bible itself might be wrong... After all, if God's word is final, and can't change (as I hope I've established above), and it would appear to contradict itself in a record, then that record must be flawed... IN the case of a contradiction or change, one or the other account must be incorrect (or both, I suppose)...

Which sheds a bit of light on just how "unquestionable" the Bible should be taken...

Like I said, don't let extremism skew your view of everyone.

I don't. That's why I said extremists. However, I understand why an atheist would be angry, because I'm not even an atheist and I'm sick of attempts by Christian extremists to force me to conform to the laws of THEIR religion.

I'm rather angry at religious maniacs for these reasons:

They oppress women.
They oppose science and reason.
They try to coerce others into adopting their world view.
By virtue of being maniacs, they are dangerous both to society and to individuals.

Emphasis: They try to coerce others into adopting their world view.

Isn't this what you're trying to do by opposing religion?

It's considered older law of God. If you focus on the apostles, you'll see something different. That aside, can you respond to any of my other contentions?

Um, hello? Check what part of the bible Corintians is in. I'll give you a hint: it's the fucking NEW TESTAMENT.

Yeah, I'm SURE you know you're bible well.



Ok, I'm getting really fed up of how faith = religion to people. I'm making a new damn thread about it now.



As for all my other comments...well, other people here have managed it well enough :p

can u tell me ,oh holy believers, what would happen if ur familly were not christians,but muslim? then u will be believing in ala and such. then would u be wrong? would u go to hell¿ religion is an heredative illness.
its pityfull that nowadays,people still believing in god. do u still believing in santa klaus? and superman¿
i will tell u a secret men, religion is born from ignorance, it was born when the paleolitical dumbasses said: hey men! what is that water falling from the sky?
dunknow man, probably god, as i im stupid and dunknow best explanation.
and lets talk about the Vatican, can u tell me how many lives could be saved with the vatican money¿? i will tell u, a lot. holy capitalism...
but its of no use telling all this bcs u are convinced that god exist, and no one can persuade u to become atheist or agnostic.
but its allways nice to give ur opinion xD

Darwinism is still just a theory.

Here's another reason atheists get angry.

Yes, evolution is a theory. So is Graph Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory). So is Music Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory). So is Game Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory). So is Number Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory). I can go on. Do a Google search for "Theory of (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Theory+of)" and you'll find that atoms comprising molecules is a theory, differential equations are theories, Poker is a theory.

Evolution is fact. If you believe otherwise, someone (probably yourself) is lying to you.

Indeed. Christians are no better than Muslims, nor Muslims better than Christians. In fact, pretty much all religions are guilty of the same thing: bigotry, ignorance and indeed murder in the name of a peace-loving god, even if only on the extreme fringes. Gotta love that Buddhism, though; you never really see a monk shouting for the blood of infidels or the capture of the Holy Land.

Emphasis: They try to coerce others into adopting their world view.

Isn't this what you're trying to do by opposing religion?


Not at all.

Convince and Coerce are two completely different things.
convincing means arguing the merits, coercing means applying pressure towards a desired end.

When you make a law that says the christian commandments must be taught to schoolchildren, you create a pressure for non-christian students to accept the christian commandments as true.

Ditto when you legally sanction prayers at events that are part of an institution (school) where children are forced to attend.

The supreme court has long held this position in its decisions.

Here's another reason atheists get angry.

Yes, evolution is a theory. So is Graph Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory). So is Music Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory). So is Game Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory). So is Number Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory). I can go on. Do a Google search for "Theory of (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Theory+of)" and you'll find that atoms comprising molecules is a theory, differential equations are theories, Poker is a theory.

Evolution is fact. If you believe otherwise, someone (probably yourself) is lying to you.

Evolution is fact; if you don't like it, grab a towel and get out of the gene pool for the sake of mankind.

Okay, I'll bite. Who says that just because I'm an atheist, I'm angry? I sort of operate under the creed of "hey man, you do your thing, I'll do mine, and we aren't hurting each other, so all's cool." Or whatever. I can certainly see both sides. I've been around long enough to hear all the debates. But really, I have to ask: All you folks who've got faith don't bother me, so why be bothered about lil ole me?

The basic "arguement for atheism" is that there is no evidence or reasonable arguement for the belief in god.

Atheism is generally a default, not an assertion.

No, a default would be Agnosticism. Atheism is an assertion, a belief in an absence which is taken wholey on faith in an unprovable position.

Cool, I'm right for once (figure I must be since I'm now being ignored after provoking replies).

No, a default would be Agnosticism. Atheism is an assertion, a belief in an absence which is taken wholey on faith in an unprovable position.

I disagree...

Atheism is the simple lack of belief in no god... which is what you have, until someone tells you what 'god' is. Until that point, you are not agnostic... since you don't believe there is no evidence either way.... because you don't even KNOW there is an either/or choice.

So, before you can become agnostic, you have to be either religious, or an atheist... religious being 'educated' in a faith... and atheist being the default... a non-believer.

No, a default would be Agnosticism. Atheism is an assertion, a belief in an absence which is taken wholey on faith in an unprovable position.

Agnosticism can only be seen as a default if your average agnostic entertains belief in (seriously questions the existence of) God and Loki and Vishnu and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm).
After all, disbelief in the invisible pink unicorn requires faith, because you can't prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn!

can u tell me ,oh holy believers, what would happen if ur familly were not christians,but muslim? then u will be believing in ala and such. then would u be wrong? would u go to hell¿ religion is an heredative illness.
its pityfull that nowadays,people still believing in god. do u still believing in santa klaus? and superman¿
i will tell u a secret men, religion is born from ignorance, it was born when the paleolitical dumbasses said: hey men! what is that water falling from the sky?
dunknow man, probably god, as i im stupid and dunknow best explanation.
and lets talk about the Vatican, can u tell me how many lives could be saved with the vatican money¿? i will tell u, a lot. holy capitalism...
but its of no use telling all this bcs u are convinced that god exist, and no one can persuade u to become atheist or agnostic.
but its allways nice to give ur opinion xD

Oh. Holy. Christ. Yet another example of something I'd fully agree with if it weren't typed by, apparently, an infinite amount of monkeys sitting at an infinite amount of typewriters. Paleolitical? I mean...come on. And for the LOVE OF <DEITY>, TYPE "YOU," "ARE/OUR," and "YOUR/YOU'RE." Are you really saving that much time? And even if you are, is it worth looking as though you've had a full frontal lobotomy?

By the way, nice name, Punk0. AFI, Sum 41 kinda' guy, am I right? Implode, good sir. Simply implode.

(Note: I know he may have meant Paleolithic, and that this is the least of the problems here. It doesn't matter, though, as I'm quite sure that this young gent doesn't quite grasp the progression of ages and eons through Earth's history. Don't ask me why. My father is a bit of a bastard, too. Maybe it's heredative? <Burnt, again>)

not an atheist:

but that also covers my enjoyment of the original x-men cartoons and csi.

Well... you could say that maybe... but that's an even greater stretch, unless you believe that Professor Xaviar is a real person. ;)

...or if there were people who did, so you devoted yourself to proving that he isn't.

Atheist try to make the state's religion atheism. Atheism is still a system a beliefs and it is a religion just as other nonorganized beliefs are. They need to realize that the separation of church(meaning every religion) and state also means that a separtaion of atheism and the govenment.If the athiests were trying to change the state's religion to altheism, they would be trying to push for "in NO God we trust" and "One nation, under NO god". Someone else mentioned 'secular', so I won't go there again.

Think of things in this manner:
Think of how much freedom your religion grants you, and compare it to how much society grants you.

If my religion (or lack thereof) says I can marry another of the same sex and get an abortion (two current hot topics), but society says I can't do either (as conv. christians are trying to do in congress), then my religious freedoms are being impeded, while yours are not.

If your religion is against gay marriage and against abortion, but society allows both, your religious beliefs are in no way being infringed, and neither are mine.

*THAT* is what non-christians (as it's not just atheists) are pushing for.

No, a default would be Agnosticism. Atheism is an assertion, a belief in an absence which is taken wholey on faith in an unprovable position.


Unless you believe in god, you're an atheist.


Agnosticism is a term that creates something of a false dichotomy.

Atheism strictly means the "lack of a belief in god," it does not imply a denial of the existance of god.

Are you calling Jesus a liar? Bigot.


Interesting comment... and no.

I consider an agnostic (myself) to be a person who has no real knowledge as to the existence of a God/sprituality.

That means if you have no real reason to believe that Jesus is the son of a God, that does not detract from his philosophical ideology. Furthermore, to think that Jesus would not allow a person who lived by the morals outlined in the new testament, how he stated man should live, would be denied entrance to heaven, illustrates a fallacy in judgment wilth respect to understanding his teachings. He taught understanding and forgiveness, to man and God, if you have not read the old testament you should do so.

Do not be so ignorant as to allow misunderstanding justify labelling another a bigot.

Exactly, it's the only religion that's annoying because it's the only religion that's true.I think you just insulted about 50% (I don't know the exact % of the world that is non-christian) of the world with that statement... to which I say "PROVE it."

This the "high horse" mentality that erks non-christians....

Yeah, I just don't understand why it is so hard for some people to accept evolution as a fact...

I mean, as someone mentioned above, we've seen it happen... We've literally watched as organisms make genetic changes...

As the aforementioned example brought up, viruses and bacteria change all the time, sometimes fairly drastically from one generation to the next... Want to know why everyone always tells you to take all of your prescribed antibiotic? It's because if you stop early, and it doesn't kill all of the germs infecting you, their next generation will come back stronger, and resistant to that antibiotic... And you're stuck taking something stronger, or a higher dosage... And so on...

One thing that gets some people confused (including in the example above) is exactly how this occurs... It is assumed that the stimulus that the change adapts to causes the change... When that isn't the case (for hte most part... I suppose it is possible, though), it is that changes occur all the time, and extremely randomly... And the ones that make a good change, are more able to survive, and get to pass on that change, and so on... "Natural selection"...

So evolution as a force in nature is a proven, witnessable fact...

But, here's another stumbling block... People get hung up on this one... "But that is only a small change! Those bacteria are still the same bacteria, basically!" And yeah, you're right... This is what is referred to as "microevolution"... "Macroevolution" is when an organism gradually changes into another one... So even those that can accept microevolution, still refuse to accept macroevoluton...

But think about it, if small changes occur, and occur in great enough numbers over the course of a long time, what do you end up with? Something really different from the original...

Sure, from A to B, there's not much different... But from A to Z, you might see a LOT of difference... Simply because we went through steps B, C, D, E, etc, etc... Each one isn't much different from the one before it, but by the time you add them all up, the end product is quite different from the first...

It's like adjusting a color of paint... You start out with Red, and add a small bit of blue... Sure, it changes a bit, but not to the point where you can't call it "Red" anymore... But add some more blue... It gets a bit more different... Still not enough? Keep adding a tiny bit of blue... Eventually, you get....PURPLE! Hmm, that's not Red anymore... It shares some properties with Red, but it's certainly different enough that I can't call it "Red" anymore...

Wow, I've made a new color from an old one!

See? Evolution...

And another thing, I just don't see why creationists can't accept evolution as well...

I mean, they're not mutually exclusive...

Why can't evolution be God's doing? Who says that He can't be making changes to His creations?

Like a video game designer releasing an update... Bug fixes, graphical improvements, feature additions, etc...

I mean, if God just plopped everything down, and then didn't keep fiddling with things, I'd call him pretty lazy...lol

Of course, this suggests that God isn't perfect, because His creation wasn't perfect (thus necessitating the "upgrades"), but this works just fine with my hypotheses above that God really isn't all as perfect as they'd have you believe...

[Edit:] And of course, the same can be said going the other way... Those of us who believe in evolution shouldn't automatically count out creationism... No, I personally don't believe in it, but I can't say that I've got any proof... Not even the fact that evolution exists can disprove creationism... When you get right down to it, us non-believers are going on just as much faith as our religious counterparts...

And another thing, I just don't see why creationists can't accept evolution as well...

I mean, they're not mutually exclusive...

Why can't evolution be God's doing? Who says that He can't be making changes to His creations?

Like a video game designer releasing an update... Bug fixes, graphical improvements, feature additions, etc...

I mean, if God just plopped everything down, and then didn't keep fiddling with things, I'd call him pretty lazy...lol

Of course, this suggests that God isn't perfect, because His creation wasn't perfect (thus necessitating the "upgrades"), but this works just fine with my hypotheses above that God really isn't all as perfect as they'd have you believe...

[Edit:] And of course, the same can be said going the other way... Those of us who believe in evolution shouldn't automatically count out creationism... No, I personally don't believe in it, but I can't say that I've got any proof... Not even the fact that evolution exists can disprove creationism... When you get right down to it, us non-believers are going on just as much faith as our religious counterparts...


After all the bible did say we where made in his own image and God knows we're not perfect.

Definition 5 is used in the same sense that "feline" is used in
1 : of, relating to, or affecting cats or the cat family
2 : resembling a cat: as a : sleekly graceful b : SLY

If i were to say that "Jane's dancing was positively feline" I would be implying that jane was sleekly graceful, like a cat, but not that she had whiskers or a tail or fur or any other charactaristics of a cat.

In the same sense, when somone is said to "play a video game religiously" it is implied that their devotion to the game is *similar to the devotion of religious people* but not that playing the game has anything to do with worshipping a god or that they are in *any other way* similar to religious people.

Religion is a very specific word when it refers to a belief system: the belief system *Must believe IN god.*

Religion refers ONLY to belief systems that hold a positive belief about the existance of a god or gods.

For this reason, the assertion "atheism is a religion" is not merely incorrect but a genuine contradiction in terms. The two words are mutually exclusive.

In the dictionary definition that I have provided, definition 4, and by extension definition 3, does not require the belief in a G-d or gods either. What source do you give for your definition? Or are you using the same source, but only choosing the options that uphold your conclusion?

Atheism is still a system a beliefs and it is a religion just as other nonorganized beliefs are.

Atheism not a system of belief. It is a term used to describe those who don't believe in a God (higher, incomprehensible power). There are no mutual beliefs that consolidate an 'atheist group' of any kind (beyond those that prefer to label themselves atheist). The term 'atheism' itself was probably coined by a believer who needed to categorise (and thereby comprehend) those who had no belief in a higher power.

Saying that individuals who don't believe in a God belong to a religion, is like saying bottlenose dolphins belong to the 'I despise land' religion because they live in the ocean. :rolleyes:

Just wanted to address this and educate you a little about Islam.

The Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) said, "Women are the twin halves of men."

Some quotes from Qu'ran:

And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women. (2:226)

Who so does that which is right, and believes, whether male or female, him or her will We quicken to happy life. (16:97)

O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good. (4:19)

Before the advent of Islam women were often treated worse than animals. The Prophet wanted to put a stop to all cruelties to women. He preached kindness towards them. He told the Muslims: "Fear Allah in respect of women." And: "The best of you are they who behave best to their wives." And: "A Muslim must not hate his wife, and if he be displeased with one bad quality in her, let him be pleased with one that is good." And:"The more civil and kind a Muslim is to his wife, the more perfect in faith he is."

The Prophet (peace be upon him) was most emphatic in enjoining upon Muslims to be kind to their women when he delivered his famous khutba on the Mount of Mercy at Arafat in the presence of one hundred and twenty-four thousand of his Companions who had gathered there for the Hajj al-Wada (Farewell Pilgrimage). In it he ordered those present, and through them all those Muslims who were to come later, to be respectful and kind towards women. He said:

"Fear Allah regarding women. Verily you have married them with the trust of Allah, and made their bodies lawful with the word of Allah. You have got (rights) over them, and they have got (rights) over you in respect of their food and clothing according to your means."

I won't go on because this could become a very long post, but I will sum it up with the following:

Qu'ran forbids the oppression of women. Some Muslims do oppress women and they are wrong in doing so. Some Christian men beat their wives, but every Christian knows that doing so is wrong. It does not, however, make all Christians into wife beaters.

Mmkay? Mmkay!

Ahh... the Q'ran also teaches that if a woman is feared to be at risk of "going astray" her husband should lock her in her room, beat her, and deny her sex.

Mmkay?

can u tell me ,oh holy believers, what would happen if ur familly were not christians,but muslim? then u will be believing in ala and such. then would u be wrong? would u go to hell¿ religion is an heredative illness.
its pityfull that nowadays,people still believing in god. do u still believing in santa klaus? and superman¿
i will tell u a secret men, religion is born from ignorance, it was born when the paleolitical dumbasses said: hey men! what is that water falling from the sky?
dunknow man, probably god, as i im stupid and dunknow best explanation.
and lets talk about the Vatican, can u tell me how many lives could be saved with the vatican money¿? i will tell u, a lot. holy capitalism...
but its of no use telling all this bcs u are convinced that god exist, and no one can persuade u to become atheist or agnostic.
but its allways nice to give ur opinion xD

I generally do not mock posters for bad English, but since your post is full of such condescending bigotted and childishly simplistic flamebait, for you I will make an exception:

Hey, Ass-Hat! Learn some English, please! :)

I'm an athiest, and i am relatively unangry.. I think most people like to be angry though.. Or you could say that the athiests are pissed that this life is all there is.. If I cared at all, I might be pissed too..

Damn you Dalai Lama :mad:

Seriously, that is a massive over generalization.

Some religious people are assholes, as are some atheists.

And some people, Buddhists for example, are both religious and atheists.
;)

A point I want to make about the potential "bitterness" of atheists:

Some people think that because we believe that death is it, and that our spirits won't go on (well, since many of us don't even believe in having a spirit to begin with, I suppose it can't go on...lol), life must be very depressing for us, and that we're somehow envious of those that will go to Heaven or whatnot...

I personally am not saddened by my impending non-existence in the least...

In fact, I don't fear death at all... Of course, I don't want for it to occur... But I know it is inevitable, and can accept that...

I really don't have any desire to have eternal life, anyways... I enjoy living, I enjoy my life... But I don't need it forever...

After all, once I'm dead, I won't be around to miss it, now will I? lol

And I was thinking a while back about eternal life... Wouldn't that get awfully boring and tedious? I mean, especially if it were in a Paradise? Yeah, it would be awesome for a while, but when the novelty wore off, and you realize that you're stuck in a place where nothing goes wrong, nothing exciting will ever happen, and you're there for all of eternity? I'd want to kill myself... Wait, ummm, I'd want to "birth" myself...lol

Nope, eternal life is not for me... At least not as it is described by Christianity... Now, if I could go on living forever in a world with some action, I'd be happy... But in paradise? Nope... Nice to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there...lol

And some people, Buddhists for example, are both religious and atheists.
;)

I don't know. The term appears to be evolving. Modern day atheism could almost be spread to spirituality in general as opposed to just non belief in a god. The same reasons emplored for not believing in a god could also be applied to a soul, or karma, and energy uniting all of nature.

By the way, nice name, Punk0. AFI, Sum 41 kinda' guy, am I right? Implode, good sir. Simply implode.

....Nothing wrong with AFI >_>

[QUOTE=The Tortilla People]It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.[/QUOT


naw those are just overly zelous people who have nothing to belive in so the take ahold of the belief that god doesnt exist, and most people who dont belive in god, do so through logic, these logic people like to argue with anybody who will let them, so just dont bring up the subject and and walk away, and the violence will dissappear.

as for agnostic people they just dont give two shits, and will just was well walk away than piss on you to put you out if your on fire.

that said, have fun ^^

A point I want to make about the potential "bitterness" of atheists:

Some people think that because we believe that death is it, and that our spirits won't go on (well, since many of us don't even believe in having a spirit to begin with, I suppose it can't go on...lol), life must be very depressing for us, and that we're somehow envious of those that will go to Heaven or whatnot...

I personally am not saddened by my impending non-existence in the least...

In fact, I don't fear death at all... Of course, I don't want for it to occur... But I know it is inevitable, and can accept that...

I really don't have any desire to have eternal life, anyways... I enjoy living, I enjoy my life... But I don't need it forever...

After all, once I'm dead, I won't be around to miss it, now will I? lol

And I was thinking a while back about eternal life... Wouldn't that get awfully boring and tedious? I mean, especially if it were in a Paradise? Yeah, it would be awesome for a while, but when the novelty wore off, and you realize that you're stuck in a place where nothing goes wrong, nothing exciting will ever happen, and you're there for all of eternity? I'd want to kill myself... Wait, ummm, I'd want to "birth" myself...lol

Nope, eternal life is not for me... At least not as it is described by Christianity... Now, if I could go on living forever in a world with some action, I'd be happy... But in paradise? Nope... Nice to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there...lol

Studies do show athiests not be as 'happy' as spiritual individuals. Why? Who knows, who cares really? But since someone asked why this is so (of course I am assuming this thread is based on such reports) people are answering.

Used If statements for a reason. So, if your not 'as happy as others,' or whatever, then why not is the question. If you are 'happy,' then Kudos to you. :)

Maybe SOME atheists are angry because they feel (and often actually are) somewhat discriminated by "believers", of any kind and religion.

After all, please just think at the fact that they're called "atheists".
This word means "without god".
It's a kind of racist definition in itself, because it starts from the point that "having god" is the normal thing and not having it is an unusual and strange situation.

Apart from that, please remember that a general "rule" of the human behaviour is that generally satisfied people tend not to say it loudly, while un-satisfied people tend to express their discomfort.
Therefore, you will always hear more expressed opinions from a dissatisified minority than from a happy majority.

Regarding Evolutionism vs Creationism, I think this is a dispute that it does not even is worthwile of existence.
It's not a scientific debate because Creationism is not a scientific theory at all: it's just a clumsy way of trying to adapt reality to personal beliefs.
This approached has gone quite out of fashion since the 17th century ("birth" of the scientific method).
Creationists base all their "science" on the mere examination of the Bible.
The Bible has proved many times wrong, not only re. "scientific" facts but also re. historical facts.
Of course, if somebody's so dumb to think that in any given subject the Bible is right even if there are dozens of proofs against... well, "agaist stupidity, the Gods themselves cannot nothing".

Sounds more like prejudice than racism.

All racism is discrimination, not all discrimination is racism.

Studies do show athiests not be as 'happy' as spiritual individuals. Why? Who knows, who cares really? But since someone asked why this is so (of course I am assuming this thread is based on such reports) people are answering.

Used If statements for a reason. So, if your not 'as happy as others,' or whatever, then why not is the question. If you are 'happy,' then Kudos to you. :)

Well, one 'logical' reason why the spiritual person might test as 'happier' than the non-spiritual, is that the spiritual person ALWAYS feels that they have someone 'there'. Someone to help alleviate guilt, someone to offer a validation, and a constant acceptance.

For the non-spiritual person, there are more direct 'ramifications' to your actions. If you act against your moral code, you don't have the benefit of automatic love and forgiveness - you have the sense of having to work out your own debts. The same for validation and acceptance - those things, to the non-spiritual person, must be obtained in the mundane realm, where there ARE no guarantees.

Myself, I am atheistic, and utterly content - which doesn't mean my life is 'great' - but it doesn mean that I accept it, and don't have a false image of my reality... the 'Hollywood disease', of unattainable 'realities'.

I generally do not mock posters for bad English, but since your post is full of such condescending bigotted and childishly simplistic flamebait, for you I will make an exception:

Hey, Ass-Hat! Learn some English, please! :)

Which is fine, if the person you are flaming IS english... or even 'american english'... but it is quite possible you are talking to one of the many other nationalities that are so well represented in NS.

In which case, the grasp of english, ESPECIALLY the 'accepted' version of 'youth-english', is quite dizzying, when compared to the attempts that most english speakers would make at trying to attempt a debate on a Spanish or German forum.

But, attack the CONTENT of the post, by all means.

I disagree...

Atheism is the simple lack of belief in no god... which is what you have, until someone tells you what 'god' is. Until that point, you are not agnostic... since you don't believe there is no evidence either way.... because you don't even KNOW there is an either/or choice.

So, before you can become agnostic, you have to be either religious, or an atheist... religious being 'educated' in a faith... and atheist being the default... a non-believer.

I believe we have gone over this months ago, but for the sake of sounding intelligent, I will indulge this again:



An Agnostic believes in neither the existence nor the non-existence of G-d. True, having no proof of G-d, he does not believe in G-d. But having no disproof of G-d, he does not believe in the absence of G-d. That is, not if he is intellectually honest as an Agnostic.

A person can become an Agnostic, but it is also the natural state of a person who has never considered, nor been presented with, any arguments for or against the existence of G-d. As such it is indeed the default, and the most neutral, position on the issue.

An Atheist believes in the non-existence of G-d. That is to say, he asserts a positive belief in the negative existence of G-d. While an Agnostic has an open mind, an Atheist has made up his mind. Many Atheists have or claim to have proof of the non-existence of G-d, although such proof definitively cannot exist. Thus, he believes on faith that there is definitely no G-d.

Likewise, most Theists take the existence of G-d on faith. This similarity is the basis of my assertion that, by at least some of the legitimate definitions of the word, Atheism is a religion. True, it is one that denies the existence of a G-d or gods, but by my chosen, admittedly, definition, it is a spiritual belief, that is, a belief regarding spiritual questions (what if any spiritual beings exist, what, if anything, we experience after death, etc.), that provides answers which are taken ultimately on faith alone.

However, I believe that some Theists believe what they believe not so much on faith but on gnosis. Gnosis is "spiritual knowledge" gained by direct experience. Such experience may be ligitimate or it may be delusional, but in either case it is not held on faith, other than faith in one's own spiritual perception faculties, but on personal experience. It is certainly not based upon established dogma, although it may, especially if it is indeed delusional, be informed by such dogma. And so it does not require faith in a dogma delivered by others. Rather, in fact, it comes from the testing, questioning and weighing of such teachings.

I am admittedly biased, being a Gnostic and a Theist myself, but I cannot forsee the valid existence of any gnosis that would support the non-existence of G-d. I suppose that if an Atheist made a believable claim to have searched every nook, shadow and possibility in the universe and come back with no gnosis of G-d, or with some gnosis that provides non-theistic answer to those spiritual questions, I would... well... probably conclude that either he or I had had a delusional gnosis.

Now it seems to me, and I have not the perspective to explain way, that Atheists and Agnostics have hang-ups about what they should be called. So they invent "hard" and "soft" definitions to fill in the gray areas in between them. Agnostics are, by the definitions that I prefer and have provided, the most open-minded of all. It is the default position, the position claiming total ignorence in the answers to the spiritual questions. The Atheist and the Theist both believe on faith, and the Gnostic has seen for himself whatever is true, or else he has a delusion of gnosis and this is simply a form of personal faith. But the Agnostic is unburdened by experience or dogma, and thus his mind remains opened.

Perhaps that is why so many Atheists prefer to call themselves Agnostics, or Hard Agnostics, or whatever. They reject the faith of Theists and wish to claim the mantle of the intellectually unbound, refusing to see that their belief in the non-existence of G-d is itself faith-based.

If your belief is that there may or may not be a G-d, and that you just don't, or even can't, know, then you are an Agnostic. But if you believe that there is not a G-d then you are an Atheist. Perhaps you say that you would believe that there is a G-d if you saw proof, but even the most hard-core of what you call Atheists, unless they were delusional in there fanaticism, would believe in the face of actual, unrefuteable proof. If you say that you believe that there is not a G-d, but that you are open to the possibility of proof, then call yourself a Soft ATheist if you like, but you are still an Atheist.

...actually, call yourself whatever you like. ;) AFAIK the definitions I present are the best most reasonable and most legitimate, but you are free to call yourself whatever you like.

Well, one 'logical' reason why the spiritual person might test as 'happier' than the non-spiritual, is that the spiritual person ALWAYS feels that they have someone 'there'. Someone to help alleviate guilt, someone to offer a validation, and a constant acceptance.

For the non-spiritual person, there are more direct 'ramifications' to your actions. If you act against your moral code, you don't have the benefit of automatic love and forgiveness - you have the sense of having to work out your own debts. The same for validation and acceptance - those things, to the non-spiritual person, must be obtained in the mundane realm, where there ARE no guarantees.

Myself, I am atheistic, and utterly content - which doesn't mean my life is 'great' - but it doesn mean that I accept it, and don't have a false image of my reality... the 'Hollywood disease', of unattainable 'realities'.


A good illustration, and one reason why I think religion can be a good thing.

Some people are without the ability for self reflection on their actions or thoughts, or attempt to, but are unable to recuperate, are without a strong enough will so to speak. For such individuals, a forgiving God is a sense of reassurance. He illustrates that when they have committed a wrong for which others may not forgive them, or have difficulty forgiving themselves, God still loves them.

Place that same in individual in the same circumstances, but without a God, and thus, no forgiveness. Well, that could get pretty depressing.

Myself, I am agnostic, and occasionally content with life. Constantly trying to improve and incorporate new thoughts and ideas into a personal system of ethics so as to be as consistent as possible. Frustrating, yes, but rewarding when successful.

If there were more unhappy non-believers (termed atheists) than believers (this forum topic is the first I've heard of such a phenomenon), I would put it down to the lack of 'emotional buffer' when it comes to personal events.

If you are a believer, and something not-so-good happens to you, you can fall back on your belief and find some recourse through religion. An atheist doesn't have that luxury, and needs to find consolation through other means.

In my opinion, this would mean atheists are more susceptible to unhappiness than true believers, because one method of relief is beyond their grasp.

(Note: I'm not advocating either side. I don't believe in a higher power, but I can see the personal benefits belief, and a tightly-knit religious community, can bring).

Which is fine, if the person you are flaming IS english... or even 'american english'... but it is quite possible you are talking to one of the many other nationalities that are so well represented in NS.

In which case, the grasp of english, ESPECIALLY the 'accepted' version of 'youth-english', is quite dizzying, when compared to the attempts that most english speakers would make at trying to attempt a debate on a Spanish or German forum.

But, attack the CONTENT of the post, by all means.

*LOL* Indeed, that is the tack that I usually take to mock those who mock the bad English of others, especially when, like upside-down-?-on-his-keyboard-guy, they are obviously not EFLs. But that was just such a load of shit that I had to mock his English, because the ideas behind them were so stomach-turning that I could not bring myself to mock them. ;)

In short, stooping to mock his English left me with more dignity. :D

An Agnostic believes in neither the existence nor the non-existence of G-d. True, having no proof of G-d, he does not believe in G-d. But having no disproof of G-d, he does not believe in the absence of G-d. That is, not if he is intellectually honest as an Agnostic.

Agree. Also like a later quote on knowledge. I personally consider an agnostic to be one without real knowledge as to the existence or non-existence of a god, and therefore does not believe or deny the existence of one. Real being a subjective interpretation of a life experience that leads one to believe that there either is or is not a God.

Ok I am a devout Christian and I would like to apologise for when Christian's (and I include myself in this) act arrogantly and in a judgemental manner. I can assure you that when it comes to judging others the bible commands us not to. It says in Matthew 7:5, 'Do not point out the speck in your brother's eye until you have removed the plank from your own'. But when it comes to peoples' faiths, it is not true that all religions are the same. Although moral codes might be similar when it comes to what is central to faiths there are irreconcilable differences. Not all the religions can be right, and I sincerely believe my faith to be right, and I am sorry if that makes me arrogant but in truth I am no less arrogant than those who firmly believe that no religion is right.

Agnosticism can only be seen as a default if your average agnostic entertains belief in (seriously questions the existence of) God and Loki and Vishnu and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm).
After all, disbelief in the invisible pink unicorn requires faith, because you can't prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn!

Absolutely true. :)

Any intellectually honest Agnostic will accept the possibility of any and all of those things and more.

Or you could say that he would accept the possibility of any of those things that could be called gods. But he wouldn't rule out the possibility a G-d or gods who Is or are invisible pink unicorn(s). Although I suspect that, in the real world, as he weighs the possibilities, he probably has more of an open mind about the possibility of an anthropomorphic of deistic or unknowable G-d or gods than in that of an invisible pink unicorn.



BTW, how can anything be both invisible and pink? :p



...I guess that just proves He's G-d, huh? :D

No, a default would be Agnosticism. Atheism is an assertion, a belief in an absence which is taken wholey on faith in an unprovable position.I disagree...

Atheism is the simple lack of belief in no god... which is what you have, until someone tells you what 'god' is. Until that point, you are not agnostic... since you don't believe there is no evidence either way.... because you don't even KNOW there is an either/or choice.

So, before you can become agnostic, you have to be either religious, or an atheist... religious being 'educated' in a faith... and atheist being the default... a non-believer.I would say that the 'default' lies somewhere in between these two statements.

Theism is the assertion that there is a god. Atheism is an assertion that there is no god. Agnosticism is the assertion that it is impossible to prove the existence/non-existence of a god.

But... if no one has told you what a god is, you don't have an opinion either way. If you don't know what a 'xzirthrasaur' is, or even that it exists, you have no opinion either way; it can't be said that you believe or disbelieve in its existence. It's kind of a religious NULL POINTER EXCEPTION.

Atheism is AWESOME!

Unless you believe in god, you're an atheist.


Agnosticism is a term that creates something of a false dichotomy.

Atheism strictly means the "lack of a belief in god," it does not imply a denial of the existance of god.

No. Really?

a·the·ism
n.

1.
... a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
... b. doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

(apologies for those who use definition 2.)

Can you source a definition that refutes this?

I believe we have gone over this months ago, but for the sake of sounding intelligent, I will indulge this again:

An Agnostic believes in neither the existence nor the non-existence of G-d. True, having no proof of G-d, he does not believe in G-d. But having no disproof of G-d, he does not believe in the absence of G-d. That is, not if he is intellectually honest as an Agnostic.

A person can become an Agnostic, but it is also the natural state of a person who has never considered, nor been presented with, any arguments for or against the existence of G-d. As such it is indeed the default, and the most neutral, position on the issue.

An Atheist believes in the non-existence of G-d. That is to say, he asserts a positive belief in the negative existence of G-d. While an Agnostic has an open mind, an Atheist has made up his mind. Many Atheists have or claim to have proof of the non-existence of G-d, although such proof definitively cannot exist. Thus, he believes on faith that there is definitely no G-d.

Likewise, most Theists take the existence of G-d on faith. This similarity is the basis of my assertion that, by at least some of the legitimate definitions of the word, Atheism is a religion. True, it is one that denies the existence of a G-d or gods, but by my chosen, admittedly, definition, it is a spiritual belief, that is, a belief regarding spiritual questions (what if any spiritual beings exist, what, if anything, we experience after death, etc.), that provides answers which are taken ultimately on faith alone.

However, I believe that some Theists believe what they believe not so much on faith but on gnosis. Gnosis is "spiritual knowledge" gained by direct experience. Such experience may be ligitimate or it may be delusional, but in either case it is not held on faith, other than faith in one's own spiritual perception faculties, but on personal experience. It is certainly not based upon established dogma, although it may, especially if it is indeed delusional, be informed by such dogma. And so it does not require faith in a dogma delivered by others. Rather, in fact, it comes from the testing, questioning and weighing of such teachings.

I am admittedly biased, being a Gnostic and a Theist myself, but I cannot forsee the valid existence of any gnosis that would support the non-existence of G-d. I suppose that if an Atheist made a believable claim to have searched every nook, shadow and possibility in the universe and come back with no gnosis of G-d, or with some gnosis that provides non-theistic answer to those spiritual questions, I would... well... probably conclude that either he or I had had a delusional gnosis.

Now it seems to me, and I have not the perspective to explain way, that Atheists and Agnostics have hang-ups about what they should be called. So they invent "hard" and "soft" definitions to fill in the gray areas in between them. Agnostics are, by the definitions that I prefer and have provided, the most open-minded of all. It is the default position, the position claiming total ignorence in the answers to the spiritual questions. The Atheist and the Theist both believe on faith, and the Gnostic has seen for himself whatever is true, or else he has a delusion of gnosis and this is simply a form of personal faith. But the Agnostic is unburdened by experience or dogma, and thus his mind remains opened.

Perhaps that is why so many Atheists prefer to call themselves Agnostics, or Hard Agnostics, or whatever. They reject the faith of Theists and wish to claim the mantle of the intellectually unbound, refusing to see that their belief in the non-existence of G-d is itself faith-based.

If your belief is that there may or may not be a G-d, and that you just don't, or even can't, know, then you are an Agnostic. But if you believe that there is not a G-d then you are an Atheist. Perhaps you say that you would believe that there is a G-d if you saw proof, but even the most hard-core of what you call Atheists, unless they were delusional in there fanaticism, would believe in the face of actual, unrefuteable proof. If you say that you believe that there is not a G-d, but that you are open to the possibility of proof, then call yourself a Soft ATheist if you like, but you are still an Atheist.

...actually, call yourself whatever you like. ;) AFAIK the definitions I present are the best most reasonable and most legitimate, but you are free to call yourself whatever you like.

It's all very nice... but I still maintain my dissent.

An atheist needs only to be a person who doesn't believe in god/gods - thus, we are all born atheists.

A HARD-atheist is an atheist who actively disbelieves... who says "There IS NO GOD", rather than the more reasoned "I don't believe in one".

An agnostic is someone who is aware of thh concept of god/gods, but considers there to be no conclusive proof to decide if god/gods exist or not.

So - the 'default' (if you will), is the state in which we are born... not actively disbelieving, not actively believing, and not claiming a mis-trial - just a state of 'not believing'. We are born atheists.

It's all very nice... but I still maintain my dissent.

An atheist needs only to be a person who doesn't believe in god/gods - thus, we are all born atheists.

A HARD-atheist is an atheist who actively disbelieves... who says "There IS NO GOD", rather than the more reasoned "I don't believe in one".

An agnostic is someone who is aware of thh concept of god/gods, but considers there to be no conclusive proof to decide if god/gods exist or not.

So - the 'default' (if you will), is the state in which we are born... not actively disbelieving, not actively believing, and not claiming a mis-trial - just a state of 'not believing'. We are born atheists.

To you and to New Granada i ask again, please, show me your dictionary. :)

*LOL* Indeed, that is the tack that I usually take to mock those who mock the bad English of others, especially when, like upside-down-?-on-his-keyboard-guy, they are obviously not EFLs. But that was just such a load of shit that I had to mock his English, because the ideas behind them were so stomach-turning that I could not bring myself to mock them. ;)

In short, stooping to mock his English left me with more dignity. :D

Cruel to be kind?

:)

Sounds more like prejudice than racism.

All racism is discrimination, not all discrimination is racism.

Actually... you could hate people of a certain race with a fiery passion, but never express it or let in effect your words or actions or practical decisions in any way. That would mean you are racist, but non-discriminatory. :D

The number or racists per capita that actually keep it totally on the inside, though... :(

Cruel to be kind?

:)

Gotta be.

;)

Excuse me? I'm an atheist, I'm not the type filled with anger. I just don't believe that there is an all-knowing power being that could go 'zap' and put humans on the Earth. I believe we were formed by atoms. I have nothing against religion, or the people that believe in it. I just have a different mindset than others.

You would be speaking of the militant atheist, they exist to combat the militant Christian. I used to use my lunch period debating with a Chrisitan friend of mine, I realized that was a bad idea and was putting other people off. Just keep it to yourself and everyone will be happy.

Why are atheists so angry?

God only knows.

Damned if I know.

Why are atheists so angry?

God only knows.

Damned if I know.
Well since I don't believe in God, who knows for atheists?

No. Really?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

(apologies for those who use definition 2.)

Can you source a definition that refutes this?

See, without your 'bold' type on part of it, your source supports my argument equally with yours... it's all about how you read it.

Merriam Webster takes a very slightly different tack, but with similar result:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

But, you see, I read this to support my definition of atheism.... since disbelief is not limited to one god, here... it is just the 'disbelief in... deity'.

I think MW point 2(b) comes closer to how you are defining "atheist", and what I refer to as 'Hard Atheism'.

"One Look Dictionary Search gives:

Quick definitions (Atheism)

noun: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
noun: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

Well, I'm an atheist and that basicly means i live my life without religion. I never start a discussion on (a)theism, but when someone else brings it up, i will give the opposing side a hard time. For example:

When i was 15 or so, my religion teacher (i went to a catholic school) was explaining to us what god is to her. I thought about what she said and the next day i just started from her beliefs as she had explained them and went through a logical discourse, with her agreeing every single step, untill i reached the conclusion that god does not exist. She was kinda shocked and had to save herself by stating that god was a metaphore for the good in all of us and then she simply put an end to the discussion by starting to read from her books.

One of the questions many people have asked me was: why did you do it?
The reason why i do such things i that i think everyone should be able to explain why they believe certain things. I don't like it when people believe things that are not true (creationism for example, or wrong concepts of evolution), but i hate it when people can't even explain why they believe in something and still go on believing in it.

It's frustration. We've been trying to get our message across for far too long and against an opposition who's far too stubborn and, frankly, ignorant to listen. Ask a christian for proof of the existance of god and they'll ask straight back "where's your proof that he DOESN'T exist, huh?", believe me, this has happened to me enough. Even a reasoned argument doesn't affect their judgement in the slightest. So, us atheists tend to go nuts and scream rants at people. Still doesn't work, but what the hell...

If this was an honest question, I'd respond with the following:

Many of us are angry at the way our society rejects the normality of our beliefs.
To say to the average American "I dont believe in God" and at the very least you may get a strange look.

Others just plain dont believe you.

So, keeping this in mind, lets look at the average christian.
A possibly decent average human being, who wants to help save the souls of people just like me.

Now apply the "not-so average Christian".

You get someone who is bound and determined to save this godless heathen sinner from the brimstone of Hell.

This is how many of us are treated, regardless of wether you think it happens or not.

You can understand why there might be some resentment at organized religion.

No one wants to be persecuted for thier beliefs, even if that belief, is a lack thereof.

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.

Atheists cannot prove the non-existance of G-D. Likewise for theists.

Atheists cannot prove the non-existance of G-D. Likewise for theists.

now replace the "G-D" by "invisible pink unicorn", see how both are equivallent and then wonder how pointless that sentence looks now...

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.

Most atheist are agnostics. NO ONE KNOWS THE EXIXTANCE, OR NON-EXISTANCE OF G-D.

Isn't it obvious? We atheists are angry because we don't have the solace of a superior being guiding our every move, or a church to make us feal moral and superior or a belief that we will live long beyond you. There is no eye rolling emoticon anymore? Well, *rolls eyes*.

See, without your 'bold' type on part of it, your source supports my argument equally with yours... it's all about how you read it.

Merriam Webster takes a very slightly different tack, but with similar result:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

But, you see, I read this to support my definition of atheism.... since disbelief is not limited to one god, here... it is just the 'disbelief in... deity'.

I think MW point 2(b) comes closer to how you are defining "atheist", and what I refer to as 'Hard Atheism'.

"One Look Dictionary Search gives:

Quick definitions (Atheism)

noun: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
noun: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

*LOL* The bolded part was 1 & 1/2 of the two definitions listed! :D Take away the bolding and nothing changes 'cause the bolding was really just to emphasize how tiny the unbolded part would be. Yes, the unbolded part allows you some wiggle-room... We are not without Mercy. ;)

Here... more fun with bolding:


1. disbelief
n.

Refusal or reluctance to believe

2. disbelief
n.

The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

3. disbelief
n.

1: doubt about the truth of something
2: a rejection of belief

Now you read your Webster as supporting your view, but as we can plainly see, leaving out the "wicked" part exactly half of it supports my definition, and the other half, hinging on the word "disbelief" 2/3 supports you and 1/3 supports me. Although... I did use the AHDS version of "disbelief" ;)

And you read your One Look... well... you didn't comment. I read it as exactly one half to me, one half to you.

So... leaving aside the "wicked" definitions... hmm... 3/4 of one to me... 2/3 of the next... 1/2 of the next... hmm... that's (23/12)/3 ... that makes 23 of 36 to me, leaving you with... 13/36 .

Oh but wait... the other 1/4 of the AHDS definition hinged on disbelief too, didn't it? So that's 49/72 to me, 23/72 to you.



YES I AM GETTING SILLY!!! :D I MUST SLEEP!!!

I had started a new dictionary... something to clear this all up... it was lost in a cut&paste mishap :( . I will try to post it later...

...also watch this space for a true story of fervent atheistic evangelism. :):fluffle::(


Sweet dreams...

P.S.: I seem to have cheated myself via math errors. :D

edit: Nope. All good! ;)

Isn't it obvious? We atheists are angry because we don't have the solace of a superior being guiding our every move, or a church to make us feal moral and superior or a belief that we will live long beyond you. There is no eye rolling emoticon anymore? Well, *rolls eyes*.

Well you certainly have no trouble feeling moral and superior, do you? :rolleyes:

Note to Atheists who are not asinine: this was not intended for you. ;)

Atheists cannot prove the non-existance of G-D. Likewise for theists.

Why would Theists WANT to??? :D

A good illustration, and one reason why I think religion can be a good thing.

Some people are without the ability for self reflection on their actions or thoughts, or attempt to, but are unable to recuperate, are without a strong enough will so to speak. For such individuals, a forgiving God is a sense of reassurance. He illustrates that when they have committed a wrong for which others may not forgive them, or have difficulty forgiving themselves, God still loves them.

Place that same in individual in the same circumstances, but without a God, and thus, no forgiveness. Well, that could get pretty depressing.

They might just learn to cope, which is something we atheists learn to do from an early age.

*LOL* The bolded part was 1 & 1/2 of the two definitions listed! :D Take away the bolding and nothing changes 'cause the bolding was really just to emphasize how tiny the unbolded part would be. Yes, the unbolded part allows you some wiggle-room... We are not without Mercy. ;)

Here... more fun with bolding:



Now you read your Webster as supporting your view, but as we can plainly see, leaving out the "wicked" part exactly half of it supports my definition, and the other half, hinging on the word "disbelief" 2/3 supports you and 1/3 supports me. Although... I did use the AHDS version of "disbelief" ;)

And you read your One Look... well... you didn't comment. I read it as exactly one half to me, one half to you.

So... leaving aside the "wicked" definitions... hmm... 3/4 of one to me... 2/3 of the next... 1/2 of the next... hmm... that's (23/12)/3 ... that makes 23 of 36 to me, leaving you with... 13/36 .

Oh but wait... the other 1/4 of the AHDS definition hinged on disbelief too, didn't it? So that's 49/72 to me, 23/72 to you.



YES I AM GETTING SILLY!!! :D I MUST SLEEP!!!

I had started a new dictionary... something to clear this all up... it was lost in a cut&paste mishap :( . I will try to post it later...

...also watch this space for a true story of fervent atheistic evangelism. :):fluffle::(


Sweet dreams...

Of course, I read some of those numbers slightly differently (since I don't think 'disbelief' is actually working in your favour... about 2/3s of the definition of disbelief as presented actually supports me, I feel... so 49/72 to you, and 46/72 to me....

:)

Someone here needs their sleep?

Of course, I read some of those numbers slightly differently (since I don't think 'disbelief' is actually working in your favour... about 2/3s of the definition of disbelief as presented actually supports me, I feel... so 49/72 to you, and 46/72 to me....

:)

Someone here needs their sleep?

I gave you that 2/3, as applicable...

49 + 46 =?= 72 :D ???

...looks like more than one of us need sleep. ;)

I gave you that 2/3, as applicable...

49 + 46 =?= 72 :D ???

...looks like more than one of us need sleep. ;)

Only if you consider that the x/72 fractions were mutually exclusive.

Hell, I never said I didn't need sleep, but it can't be that time yet... I slept less than 22 hours ago....

:)

Just to stir the definition pot some more, here's what the OED has to say:

atheism:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness

Disbelief:
The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief

Unbelief:
Absence or lack of belief; disbelief, incredulity. a. In matters of religion.
b. In general use.
c. Personified.

Disbelieve:
1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to:
a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of. (With simple obj. or obj. clause.)
b. a person in making a statement.
2. absol. or intr.
3. intr. with in: Not to believe in; to have no faith in: cf. BELIEVE 1, 3

Believe:
1. To have confidence or faith in (a person), and consequently to rely upon, trust to [. . . .]
3. ellipt. To believe in (a person or thing), i.e. in its actual existence or occurrence.


The fact is, dictionaries have both definitions, and arguing fractions is silly.

OK so let's create a new dictionary to get us beyond the pitfalls of these largely misunderstood words.



Theism - belief in the existence of G-d or gods.

Antitheism - belief in the non-existence of G-d or gods.

Atheism - absence of belief in either the existence or the non-existence of G-d or gods.

Gnosticism - belief in the ability to know true answers to spiritual questions.

Antignosticism - belief in the inability to know true answers to spiritual questions.

Agnosticism - absence of belief in either the ability or the inability to know true answers to spiritual questions.

Dogmaticism - belief that true answers to spiritual questions can be truly known by studying and belieiving in communications from others who have or claim to have direct knowledge of such thruths.

Antidogmaticism - belief that true answers to spiritual questions cannot be truly known by studying and belieiving in communications from others who have or claim to have direct knowledge of such thruths.

Adogmaticism - absence of belief that either true answers to spiritual questions can be truly known by studying and belieiving in communications from others who have or claim to have direct knowledge of such thruths, or that they cannot.



BTW I would be an Adogmatic Gnostic Theist. :) You?



Anyway until such new definitions take hold, AFAIAC "atheism" means belief in the non-existence of G-d or gods. Here's another quote:



disbelief

. . .

Syn: Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects. Men often tell a story in such a manner that we regard everything they say with unbelief. Familiarity with the worst parts of human nature often leads us into a disbelief in many good qualities which really exist among men.

"Agnosticism", as used commonly today, is unbelief. "Atheism" is disbelief.

They might just learn to cope, which is something we atheists learn to do from an early age.

Yeah, that's what I tell people: life got you down? Then learn to deal with it. Go look in the mirror and tell your reflection all your problems, cause that is the only person who truelly cares!

Health care problems? Then don't get sick!

JK.

Point was for some people the only way the can cope is knowing that there is a power greater than themselves who forgives and still loves them. Depends on a lot of factors. But God/jesus is always ready willing and able to.

Your generalizing yourself to all athiests.

. . .

The fact is, dictionaries have both definitions, and arguing fractions is silly.

But... but but... but that would make ME silly! :eek:

a. Theism - belief in the existence of G-d or gods.

b. Antitheism - belief in the non-existence of G-d or gods.

c. Atheism - absence of belief in either the existence or the non-existence of G-d or gods.

d. None of the above.
-----------
a. Gnosticism - belief in the ability to know true answers to spiritual questions.

b. Antignosticism - belief in the inability to know true answers to spiritual questions.

c. Agnosticism - absence of belief in either the ability or the inability to know true answers to spiritual questions.

d. None of the above.
-----------
a. Dogmaticism - belief that true answers to spiritual questions can be truly known by studying and belieiving in communications from others who have or claim to have direct knowledge of such thruths.

b. Antidogmaticism - belief that true answers to spiritual questions cannot be truly known by studying and belieiving in communications from others who have or claim to have direct knowledge of such thruths.

c. Adogmaticism - absence of belief that either true answers to spiritual questions can be truly known by studying and belieiving in communications from others who have or claim to have direct knowledge of such thruths, or that they cannot.

d. None of the above.

I answered the question!

BTW I would be an Adogmatic Gnostic Theist. :) You?

Judge for yourself. I bolded my responses.

I don't know that I really like your definitions, but they are interesting. I generally class myself as an Agnostic Theist, because I believe in God, but I don't believe God's existence can be known in the non-faith sense. Of course, I don't think anything can be known in a non-faith sense, so I'm pretty consistent on that point. ;)

I answered the question!



Judge for yourself. I bolded my responses.

I don't know that I really like your definitions, but they are interesting. I generally class myself as an Agnostic Theist, because I believe in God, but I don't believe God's existence can be known in the non-faith sense. Of course, I don't think anything can be known in a non-faith sense, so I'm pretty consistent on that point. ;)

Sounds to me like you're either a Dogmatic Gnostic Theist or a Adogmatic Agnostic Theist. ;) You didn't say whether you believe that thruth CAN be known in a faith sense. If you lack that as a positive belief, then you are an Adogmatic Agnostic Theist. Which is pretty much what you said you are. Also you seem to be Antignostic about Antidogmatic beliefs. If the only way that you are willing to belief is by having faith in what is presented to you by dogma, that is to say.

But just what is it about my definitions that you don't much care for? :D

But just what is it about my definitions that you don't much care for? :D

Well, first of all, you spelled 'truth' as 'thruth'. Second, I have the same basic problem with those definitions that I have with all definitions. They really oversimplify a complex belief system.

Well in other words: why do you put in "none of the above" when the above are essentially "yes", "no" and "neither"?

I mean... it's adding "none of the above" to the bottom of a list when "none of the above" is already a part of that list. :confused:

Well, first of all, you spelled 'truth' as 'thruth'. Second, I have the same basic problem with those definitions that I have with all definitions. They really oversimplify a complex belief system.

Well dang, no wonder that looked funny! :D

OK so let's create a new dictionary to get us beyond the pitfalls of these largely misunderstood words.

Theism - belief in the existence of G-d or gods.

Antitheism - belief in the non-existence of G-d or gods.

Atheism - absence of belief in either the existence or the non-existence of G-d or gods.

Gnosticism - belief in the ability to know true answers to spiritual questions.

Antignosticism - belief in the inability to know true answers to spiritual questions.

Agnosticism - absence of belief in either the ability or the inability to know true answers to spiritual questions.

Dogmaticism - belief that true answers to spiritual questions can be truly known by studying and belieiving in communications from others who have or claim to have direct knowledge of such thruths.

Antidogmaticism - belief that true answers to spiritual questions cannot be truly known by studying and belieiving in communications from others who have or claim to have direct knowledge of such thruths.

Adogmaticism - absence of belief that either true answers to spiritual questions can be truly known by studying and belieiving in communications from others who have or claim to have direct knowledge of such thruths, or that they cannot.

BTW I would be an Adogmatic Gnostic Theist. :) You?

Anyway until such new definitions take hold, AFAIAC "atheism" means belief in the non-existence of G-d or gods. Here's another quote:

"Agnosticism", as used commonly today, is unbelief. "Atheism" is disbelief.

I would probably have to term myself an Adogmatic Gnostic Antitheist.

I would also probably pick the OED over practically any other dictionary - because it is, in effect, the definitive dictionary of the English Language - but that, unfortunately, is something of a rare commodity.

To me, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god... whether they are 'active' or 'passive' in their disbelief. (The 'Hard' or 'Soft' Atheists).

Also, to me, an Agnostic is a fence-sitter category... the 'maybe/maybe not... I can't decide' contingent.

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.
1. Atheists are generally not against all religious people, only the crazy fanatical/extremist types.

2. The "angry atheists" you refer to are probably just a very vocal minority of atheists. It would be like judging all Christians by these guys:
www.godhatesamerica.com

Well, why is the original poster so presumptive, anyway...?

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.
I'm not particularly angry at religion, but I frequently resent it. Religion often prevents people from acting rationally and is frequently misused as a justification for repressive or antisocial behaviour.

I am kinda devoted to destrying religion. I mean, in no way, I wish to kill or harm religious people and in no way I wish to destroy churches, but, I feel religion (the judeo-christian ones) do more harm then good to the world.
I, also, do not wish to destroy any moral values, just to rethink some of them and evaluate others, it´s like, morals made by church are very weak, the so-called moralistic people are the ones with the weaker moral standards, because they do not follow their own moral values, and yes, other guy´s. So, an atheist who thinks "killing is wrong" will hardly change his opinion, he will if something very strong make he do it, but, if an atheist came to the conclusion that killing is wrong, he will not do it. Now, morals of religious people are very weak, I mean, one minute they think that killing is wrong (like in abortion), so, the president tells the priests that killing is right (like in war), the priests tells the reliigous people and bang, their morals are upside-down, so, there is a teaching to be tolerant, but a homosexual appears and bang, other teaching that is completely forgotten.
So, my point is that religion addicts people in false hope, easy answers and the "don´t think, we think for you". So, these people end up sad (as, they are always accepting abuse because god told them it´s ok, they are being tested, etc...), with incomplete lifes (because their notions of happines excludes a very large portion of life) and makes them nothing but soldiers following a church that, sometimes, have political purposes, wich, makes everything more dangerous, because then we have people who are teached to not think for themselves deciding the future of a contry.
So yes, I am in favor of destroying religion, but nothing like "let´s dance naked on the streets" or whatever you think that atheists value...

I would probably have to term myself an Adogmatic Gnostic Antitheist.

I would also probably pick the OED over practically any other dictionary - because it is, in effect, the definitive dictionary of the English Language - but that, unfortunately, is something of a rare commodity.

To me, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god... whether they are 'active' or 'passive' in their disbelief. (The 'Hard' or 'Soft' Atheists).

Also, to me, an Agnostic is a fence-sitter category... the 'maybe/maybe not... I can't decide' contingent.

I thought you might like my definitions, as they support your view of "Atheism" meaning "unbelief" ... although you take "disbelief" as meaning "unbelief" too.

But anyway, in common usage "Agnosticism" means unbelief in G-d ...lack of belief but also lack of assertion in the non-existence of G-d, leaving "Atheism" as meaning belief in the non-existence of G-d. But I am sure that you can find dictionary definitions that support your interpretation. Etymologically, you are right, and my new definitions are etymologically based. But I must contend that the dictionaries you refer to are wrong with regard to common usage.

It even costs a load to look things up on the OED's website.

Sad, sad I must say.

Hmmn, I work at a bookstore and get 40% off purchases, I wonder what a nice set of the OED would come up to with that discount...

I thought you might like my definitions, as they support your view of "Atheism" meaning "unbelief" ... although you take "disbelief" as meaning "unbelief" too.

But anyway, in common usage "Agnosticism" means unbelief in G-d ...lack of belief but also lack of assertion in the non-existence of G-d, leaving "Atheism" as meaning belief in the non-existence of G-d. But I am sure that you can find dictionary definitions that support your interpretation. Etymologically, you are right, and my new definitions are etymologically based. But I must contend that the dictionaries you refer to are wrong with regard to common usage.

See, most of the people I know actually use agnostic correctly, and similar with atheist... although I have known some contention over the definitions of 'hard' or 'soft' atheism.

So - I would have to contend that my dictionaries are correct, since they match the sampling I am aware of.

To be honest - and I don't want you to take this as an insult - the only people I know who interchange agnostic and atheist are my wife's family - who are very strict Southern Baptists... and are more.... in tune with their faith than with the language and it's usage.

I was angry before I became an atheist. I think in some ways I am less angry now. I don't bite people anymore, for one thing.

While I can't answer for everyone, as an atheist myself, I can try to give my view on things.

Obviously, I don't believe in a god. I've got more of a scientific way of thinking, so I believe that science will eventually be able to answer any questions I may have. However, since as of yet, science can not prove or disprove the existance of a god, if you want to believe in one, I'm not going to stop you because I can't disprove it.

Now, this leads to a problem with, most notably, Christians, since there are some that try to ram it down your throat, preaching all about god without respecting others decisions. After a while of this, we can get to have a "screw you" attitude, and that may lead to the said problem of bitterness.

Personally, don't try to ram your belief down my throat, and I'll let you keep yours in peace.

I am so damn angry because I forgot to take my passport with me!

Now I have to pay 45€ to get to Estonia....grr...Schengen....


madmadmadmadmadmad

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.
Maybe it's just that the happy atheists have no reason to be vocal about their beliefs, and therefore, it seems to you that all atheists are angry, when infact you're just observing a biased sample.

I can tell you why I'm so angry. It's because Christian lemmings keep pushing their lies on us! :sniper:

here is what i have to say about it, many christians are very arrogant, i have to admit, i am a christian, i believe in god and such, but what bothers me about atheists is that they are out spoken on many subjects, i don't go around a force my religion upon anyone, but when someone trys to force their views on me that pisses me off, freedom of speech is great but come on, i won't infringe on your rights if you won't do the same to me, it is as simple as respect, i will respect your views i may not agree but i am not goin to throw a fit over it, i would suggest everyone christian or not to show each other respect, and maybe then ppl would stop these silly squables over this sort of thing

See, most of the people I know actually use agnostic correctly, and similar with atheist... although I have known some contention over the definitions of 'hard' or 'soft' atheism.

So - I would have to contend that my dictionaries are correct, since they match the sampling I am aware of.

To be honest - and I don't want you to take this as an insult - the only people I know who interchange agnostic and atheist are my wife's family - who are very strict Southern Baptists... and are more.... in tune with their faith than with the language and it's usage.

We need to know upon what we base ourselves. Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any.

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html

It would appear to me that you hail from a community of strict etymological reformists. ;) Bully for you. :D But I myself must confess that I have never before coming here encountered anyone who used the technically correct definitions for the words.

Let me axe you this: do you critique and deconstruct the belief that G-d exists? And do you critique and deconstruct the view that G-d does not exist? For only if both are you truly an Atheist in the technical sense of the word. Perhaps you would say yes to the second and not so much of the time to the first, but that this is due to a greater amount of evidence to the latter. Well, this makes you an Antitheist in the tech sense, or at least one who leans to that side. There is in fact no real evidence of either position. And let me axe you this as well: In your crowd, what do y'all call a person who believes that G-d does not exist? And what is your definition of "agnostic"?

But he is pro-life and against gay marriage though.

Yeah. He's socially conservative. Much so. But the dalai lama is pretty much just the pope of Bhuddism. There are other sorts of Bhuddism.

PS: WOO Futurama! OH wait...

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.
i'm an agnostic, but i think my answer is still pertinent.

i am devoted to destroying religion. let me just get that out in the open. i think religion is hideous, dangerous, unhealthy, dishonorable, and an insult to the most fundamental aspects of what it means to be a human. however, i'm not especially angry. in fact, i would say that i am generally a great deal less angry than the average person. anger has nothing to do with my desire to eliminate religion, though religious beliefs (or the ignorance of those who hold them) will often cause me to become angry.

put in another way: atheists feel about religion the way a Christian would feel about a grown man who thinks Santa controls all existence, and who bases his entire moral code upon doing what Santa thinks is best. atheists think that people who need a God to feel happy or to make them behave themselves are, well, a little spooky, and probably dangerous. people who believe in crazy things tend to also DO crazy things, and when you find yourself living in a country full of people who believe crazy things then you tend to get wound a bit tight.

atheists have to fight for every inch of recognition and every scrap of dignity they have in America. secularists in general have it worse than any minority religious group, despite being the LARGEST non-Christian religious classification. years of being marginalized, reviled, and compared to the Devil will generate some tension.

read up on your history, and i think you will find the simplest answer; check out how "angry" Christians get when they are marginalized by society. ;)

It seams to me that all the atheist i meet are devoted to destroying religion and just unhappy people in general. Can anyone explain this to me? This message board is filled with athiests who want to get deep and philisophical but their message is always angry. It seems to me that agnostic people are more reasonable as they do not confirm nor deny the existence of god.

Please explain to me why you atheists are so angry at religion.


I think you met many atheist without knowing they ae atheists. The same way the intolerants religious are those who always wear a "god is great" t-shirt, the intolerant atheists are those who always claim "your god is crap". There is a silent minority ;)

about me personnaly (i'm atheist):
I must admit I'm borderline since I do critic the religious establishment, that tends in some case to format minds: religious should tell their followers about religion, not politics. In the USA, we've seen religious leaders appeal their followers to vote for Bush, and in the arab world, we see religious leaders appeal for djihad. Religion proved in many occasions that it isn't worth a shit in politics, with for exemple the church refusing to condemn nazism, even when asked to, during WWII ; I do have a problem with religion interfering with politics. However, I realize I'm talking about a minority :)

Atheism is a religious belief (Though not a religion). It is entirely impossible to prove that there exists no God, gods or some other spiritual entity. Atheists who believe that they are somehow enlightened and have special knowledge that those who have religious beliefs (of other kinds) cannot see, are kidding themselves. Atheism is no more or less plausible than Belief in the existence of some kind of spiritual entity.

BTW I am personally an atheist

i'm an agnostic, but i think my answer is still pertinent.

i am devoted to destroying religion. let me just get that out in the open. i think religion is hideous, dangerous, unhealthy, dishonorable, and an insult to the most fundamental aspects of what it means to be a human. however, i'm not especially angry. in fact, i would say that i am generally a great deal less angry than the average person. anger has nothing to do with my desire to eliminate religion, though religious beliefs (or the ignorance of those who hold them) will often cause me to become angry.

put in another way: atheists feel about religion the way a Christian would feel about a grown man who thinks Santa controls all existence, and who bases his entire moral code upon doing what Santa thinks is best. atheists think that people who need a God to feel happy or to make them behave themselves are, well, a little spooky, and probably dangerous. people who believe in crazy things tend to also DO crazy things, and when you find yourself living in a country full of people who believe crazy things then you tend to get wound a bit tight.

atheists have to fight for every inch of recognition and every scrap of dignity they have in America. secularists in general have it worse than any minority religious group, despite being the LARGEST non-Christian religious classification. years of being marginalized, reviled, and compared to the Devil will generate some tension.

read up on your history, and i think you will find the simplest answer; check out how "angry" Christians get when they are marginalized by society. ;)

Welcome to the (a) Communist. I can never remember which one it was that said that religion was a crutch for the lame, and which it was that said it was the opiate for the masses. Why do these threads always degenerate to name calling and insults? I appreciate those who responded to my earlier post in a polite manner and addressed the issues I brought up without insulting me personally. I was unclear in my referrence to Galileo. When he was studying the planets and stars, he came to the conclusion that the earth moves. He was brought before the Inquisition and made (on threat of torture etc.) to recant his public statments. As he was leaving, however, he was heard to mutter something along the lines of "they still move". This was an example of the inability of an outside group to force an actual change in personal belief.