NationStates Jolt Archive

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.

I oppose religion in general. I find it to be more of a hinderance to mankind than a help. I respect the rights of individual people to believe and behave as they wish, but I expect them to respect my rights in return.

I think most athiest have a "if you don't bother me, I won't bother you"-mentality. So it makes sense they attack religious people that bother them, but not the rest.

Though I'm not an athiest, there have been times where after I've read a statement by Pat Robertson and Falwell, I think to myself "What the hell am I doing?"

In the context of this board, it's specific mealy mouthed self righteous fuckwits I have a problem with. If people wish to believe nonsense and quietly follow Christ's example without expecting special treatment for doing so, I have no problem with that. People who quote scripture as an excuse for bigotry and bile, on the other hand I won't abide.

I oppose religion in general. I find it to be more of a hinderance to mankind than a help. I respect the rights of individual people to believe and behave as they wish, but I expect them to respect my rights in return.
Have you ever practiced a religion, DC?

For some atheists, the fact that there are valid beliefs out there in the world that are different from their own is hard to accept. They have as much trouble accepting that as the most dogmatic, fundamentalist of Christians or Jews or Muslims.

It's nothing new. There are narrow-minded, self-righteous dickheads in any group you care to name.

Have you ever practiced a religion, DC?
I was raised Roman Catholic and became devout for a while. Then I lost faith in organized religion and did alot of reading during which time I changed from a non-denominational Christian to a person who believed in God but was seeking the best way to know it's will and it's mind, and finally to an atheist when I stumbled on Alt.atheism, on usenet. The atheists' arguments made sense to me.

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.

The Christian scripture is inconsistent, unsupported, and often erroneous... thus, I have a problem with people using it as a rulebook for how THEY think I should act.

Many Christians are hypocritical, on top of that.... and many act in accordance with a book, rather than relating to how Jesus acted... thus, I have a problem with a number of people that CALL themselves "Christians".

I also find ORGANISED religion somewhat self-defeating. Religion should be about a relationship with your god/gods... not about going to the right meetings on Sunday morning, or knowing the 'correct' responses.

But, for those who (try to) live 'Christ-like' lives, I have all the time in the world, and nothng but respect.

In theory, I oppose religion in general, but since there's nothing I can do about it, I have a "live and let live" attitude in practice. However, Christians who constantly preach at non-Christians really irritate me, and while they may not be in the majority overall (I don't know), they are often the most vocal. Therefore, it is natural that others are going to point out the flaws they see in their religion - ie, why they don't believe it.

If the Christians who sermonise at others the most were to stop, I'm sure the anti-Christian venom on this forum (and elsewhere) would be vastly reduced.

Part of being Christian is being persecuted. It's in the Bible. So don't think much about, be better than those who wish to hurt you and you'll be doing God's will.

For some atheists, the fact that there are valid beliefs out there in the world that are different from their own is hard to accept. They have as much trouble accepting that as the most dogmatic, fundamentalist of Christians or Jews or Muslims.

It's nothing new. There are narrow-minded, self-righteous dickheads in any group you care to name.

Narrow-minded, self-righteous dickheads? So... that's the reason you perceive, that Atheists might rail against an oppressive majority religion?

You don't think that might be perceived as 'narrow-minded'?

Narrow-minded, self-righteous dickheads? So... that's the reason you perceive, that Atheists might rail against an oppressive majority religion?

You don't think that might be perceived as 'narrow-minded'?

You'll note I began with "some atheists", yes?

I find all religions to be based on superstition and exclusionary policies, even the "nice" ones that claim to be all loving, non-judgemental are just more tolerant of non-believers.

I respect your right to believe but, I can't respect your belief any more than I could respect any other action I view as primitive/childish/foolish/unrealistic.

That said, my policy is live and let live, if you get in my face (e.g. door to door prosletizers) or are a detriment to society (creationists) than I will react to defend myself or my society as appropriate.

You'll note I began with "some atheists", yes?

I'm sure you won't mind if I ask if you are an Atheist?

Muslims have never set up a band on a flatbed in my court early Saturday morning.

Buhdists have never come to my door while I was eating to ask if I've found Buddha.

Hindus have never campaigned that the schools teach the alternative theory that the world was created by Vishnu humming.

For that matter, Scientologists have never insisted that I was not going to reach the next level while stuck with them on a bus.

Voodoo priests have not posted threads about how if I don't convert they'll make a doll of me.

For atheists, it's a non-issue. We only deal with religon when it's brought up. We are, for the most part, in a society that happens to bring one religion up a whole lot.

Though I'm not an athiest, there have been times where after I've read a statement by Pat Robertson and Falwell, I think to myself "What the hell am I doing?"

Sometimes I just watch the 700 Club to see what else that idiot can say:D

I'm sure you won't mind if I ask if you are an Atheist?

In the etymological sense of the word, I am, in that I have "no gods". But I'm not an exclusive materialist, no. Is that important?

And what are you doing capitalising "atheist", you silly man? :p

In the etymological sense of the word, I am, in that I have "no gods". But I'm not an exclusive materialist, no. Is that important?

And what are you doing capitalising "atheist", you silly man? :p

I'm capitalising Atheism, as the apellation of a 'school of thought'... the school of thought that operates without the need for belief in 'god' (s).

I wonder what you mean by 'not an exclusive materialist'?

The reason why it might be important is, if you are NOT an Atheist, one wonders where you get the authority to describe WHY Atheists might do the things they might do. If you are not speaking from personal experience, or from witnessing such behaviours, then you are merely speculating.

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.

The religion is created by man. It is impossible to analyze the religion without analyzing those responsible for it.

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.
Religions are fundamentally at odds with independent thought & personal freedom. I know of no religion that doesn't attempt to be thought-police. That being the case, I can see no argument for promoting religion.

That said, many religious people don't practice the thought control bits, or stick to applying those things to themselves. I see nothing wrong with that. People should live & believe whatever the hell they please, and long as they allow others the same privilege.

I'm anti-religious in the sense that I don't see how organised religions can be anything but detrimental to society at large. All I see is opiate for the masses, and I can't imagine how that's a good thing.

But I don't have anything against religious people. Several of my friends are religious, and at least two of the most rational & tolerant people here on NSG are Christians. If only these people were representative of religion, I might be inclined to believe religion is a good thing.

I wonder what you mean by 'not an exclusive materialist'?Probably that there is 'something', some force or energy.
Somethingism, would be the literal translation of the word we have for it in Dutch.. It may not be a god, but it's something..

I'm capitalising Atheism, as the apellation of a 'school of thought'... the school of thought that operates without the need for belief in 'god' (s).

I wonder what you mean by 'not an exclusive materialist'?

The reason why it might be important is, if you are NOT an Atheist, one wonders where you get the authority to describe WHY Atheists might do the things they might do. If you are not speaking from personal experience, or from witnessing such behaviours, then you are merely speculating.

I mean exactly I said; I'm not an exclusive materialist. I thought that was fairly straightforward, but feel free to let me know what about that you can't get your head around and I'll explain.

Well, I was an atheist (or Atheist, if you prefer) for most of my life, and I had a lot of the concerns that many Atheists seem to have, and used a lot of the arguments that some Atheists use. Also, most of my friends and other people I regularly interact with fall into one of two groups: explicit Atheists and Christians (of various demoninations and levels of devotion to dogma). They also regularly interact with each other, so I'm often in a position to observe them and join in arguments. So, you could say that I can both speak from personal experience and from witnessed behaviour.

I'm capitalising Atheism, as the apellation of a 'school of thought'... the school of thought that operates without the need for belief in 'god' (s).

Actually, here's a source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism) I find much more reliable than the Bible that doesn't say anything about any capitals.

By the way, I think you are a bit ill-informed about Atheism. This (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Atheism) might be worth reading.

I think it depends whether someone has had a bad experience with people who call themselves christians or not. I can easily see that someone whos never really had another person tell them their going to go to burn for all eternity or whatever unless they convert to <insert-religion-here> would probably have a different view to someone who has.

I tend to say live and let live. If someone won't try to shove their views down my throat i won't hit them over the head with their religious text (or whatever the nearest heavy book is). :p

I mean exactly I said; I'm not an exclusive materialist. I thought that was fairly straightforward, but feel free to let me know what about that you can't get your head around and I'll explain.


You know... this just sounds like prevarication...

To repeat the question: I wonder what you mean by 'not an exclusive materialist'?


Well, I was an atheist (or Atheist, if you prefer) for most of my life, and I had a lot of the concerns that many Atheists seem to have, and used a lot of the arguments that some Atheists use. Also, most of my friends and other people I regularly interact with fall into one of two groups: explicit Atheists and Christians (of various demoninations and levels of devotion to dogma). They also regularly interact with each other, so I'm often in a position to observe them and join in arguments. So, you could say that I can both speak from personal experience and from witnessed behaviour.

And... from your personal experience... did you find "the fact that there are valid beliefs out there in the world... different from [your] own... hard to accept"?

From your witnissed behaviour, would you say that your Atheist friends argued with your Christian friends, because they were "narrow-minded, self-righteous dickheads"?

I have to admit... I've never encountered an area that ONLY had Christians and Explicit Atheists... indeed, I've never actually found myself in a situation where Explicit Atheists were the most numerous Atheist 'denomination'. I believe your experience may be somewhat unique.

Actually, here's a source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism) I find much more reliable than the Bible that doesn't say anything about any capitals.

By the way, I think you are a bit ill-informed about Atheism. This (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Atheism) might be worth reading.

An attempt to lighten the mood, perhaps?

Heh, it must be. Also appears to be taking the piss out of atheists.

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.
The thing is, Atheists would have no problem with Christianity if people who advocate it were more moderate. As it stands, many here live in a place where radical Fundamentalists make irrational assumptions about their faith and claim to represent the body as a whole.

I think it's fair to say that the problem is neither and it is both of the suggestions. We do not oppose those who humbly take on the message of Christ and use it for the good of mankind, nor do we oppose the structure that exists behind that. People oppose the aggressive Christianity in the west that imposes itself so severely upon its followers that they become it. People oppose those Christians that take this section of Christian doctrine and allow it to take over them. People despise that which reeks of self-righteous bigotry, which is sadly all too common among those who claim to represent the Church. And increasingly, People are becoming annoyed at the rest of the Church for failing to stand up to this menace, which is perhaps why this "Bad Apple" mentality is becoming so commonplace.

If you were to take a stand against that two-faced evil pervading through your community, neither you nor the organisation would be so opposed.

An attempt to lighten the mood, perhaps?

What, you expect me to go and construct an elaborate, logically sound argument explaining why I think the poster's incorrect? Last time I did that...

Actually, here's a source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism) I find much more reliable than the Bible that doesn't say anything about any capitals.

By the way, I think you are a bit ill-informed about Atheism. This (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Atheism) might be worth reading.
You just made my day with that wiki link :p

About the capitalization of the word though; I often do it when debating fundies. It's meant as a slight provocation, since they insist on capitalizing the words they use to describe themsevles & their ideas, and capitalization is usually used to stress the importance and/or authority of certain words.
I do it to demonstrate that the words they use doesn't become any more important, credible or anything else, just because they capitalize them. Noone's ever commented on it though, so I'm far from sure that anyone's ever noticed it.

I'm considering not doing it anymore though, because I'd hate if people thought I did it to promote some sort of atheist philosophy. Atheism (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Atheism) sure sounds nice, but it still doesn't change that there's something fundamentally wrong with basing one's actions on what one percieves a divine authority figure wants. Authority that cannot be challenged is dictatorship, and not something I will ever submit to - regardless of what it decrees.

I largely live by the same ethical principles as Christians (ought to). That doesn't change the fact that I find Christianity to be a very, very bad thing. And I'd prolly feed the Jesus fellow his own balls if given the opportunity.

Heh, it must be. Also appears to be taking the piss out of atheists.

Which is fine. It never pays to take yourself TOO seriously, no?

I found it rather amusing... I just wanted to make sure that it was postes with that intent... :)

I just wish people stopped using language in such an infantile manner. I mean, it's only a tool to communicate ideas, not Some New And Improved Mind Control Device!™. Religion names are capitalized because they're proper nouns, because there's only one Christianity, not because you secretly desire the Pope. If we went about capitalizing everything which we thought was deserving of respect I wouldn't need these -6 contacts.

Do you oppose Christians or Christianity?

Both to a degree. What may surprise some is that I oppose "non-fundamentalist" and "sunday" Christians more than "fundies".

With "non-fundamentalists" I mean people who say "we are Christians, but we do not do everything the Bible says because some things are just too weird". [1]. These people need to make up their minds: either they follow ALL the morals of God or they don't. Afterall, you cannot claim your morals are superior because they are based on Gods word while at the same time saying you know better than the good Lord...

With "sunday Christians" I mean people who are only Christians when it suits them ("extreme non-fundamentalists") - like when it helps them protest against gay marriage - as well as people who only go to church every sunday but do not follow any other Bible teaching in daily life.

IOW: I dislike hypocrites. Even more than I dislike some parts of the religion itself - like the way of thought it teaches - but that is subjective.

Footnotes:
1] Note that this is different from someone who actually gives a reason based on Scripture to not follow certain commandments (e.g.: "I do not follow the old testament laws because Jesus death created a new convenant").

You know... this just sounds like prevarication...

To repeat the question: I wonder what you mean by 'not an exclusive materialist'?


Basically, I'm still in the process of "figuring things out." I'm not convinced that anyone else's ideas are totally compatible with me, be it dogmatic religions or atheists. I have few beliefs of my own that I've cobbled together out of things that make sense to me, and things I personally feel, some of which correspond with what are seen as typically "atheist" beliefs by some, some of which are closer to various other religions or spiritual teachings. It's definitely a work in progress at this point (and will probably always be, if I have my way). I can go into detail about the specifics of my spirituality if you really like, but I think you'd probably find it boring.



And... from your personal experience... did you find "the fact that there are valid beliefs out there in the world... different from [your] own... hard to accept"?


Absolutely. I was totally convinced that I knew right, and everyone who believed different was just ignorant, misguided, "brainwashed" or deliberately ignoring the facts. I think most of it came from the fact that my extended (and to a lesser extent, some of my immediate) family were all quite devout Christians, and I was, from an early age, obliged to join in prayers in their presence, go with them to Church and, at the very least, pay lipservice to a religion I didn't agree with. So, when I was old enough that I could get away with refusing their religion, I did so in the most extreme way I could; I went atheist.


From your witnissed behaviour, would you say that your Atheist friends argued with your Christian friends, because they were "narrow-minded, self-righteous dickheads"?

Some of them, sure. There are narrow-minded, self-righteous dickheads on both sides, especially when a religious arguments starts up. There are a lot of persecution complexes (complices?) and what strike me as conspiracy theories floating around as well.

Admittedly, in the US at least, atheists believing they often get the rough end of the stick may not be entirely unjustified.



I have to admit... I've never encountered an area that ONLY had Christians and Explicit Atheists... indeed, I've never actually found myself in a situation where Explicit Atheists were the most numerous Atheist 'denomination'. I believe your experience may be somewhat unique.

Well, it's not like these are the only people around here. Most of my friends and acquaintances fall into one of those two groups though. Mostly because I tended to gravitate toward other atheists and made good friends, and because there are simply a lot of Christians around, so I'm always going to know some. In my circle of friends there are also a couple of agnostics and a Muslim, but it's usually the atheists and Christians that get into arguments with each other about this stuff. The atheists only really become especially "explicit" when someone mentions God, then it's "on for young and old", as they say. I don't really think my experience is all that unique. I tend to think it's just that young people are often very self-assured and have no qualms about letting everyone know it in as vociferous a way as they can.

I just wish people stopped using language in such an infantile manner. I mean, it's only a tool to communicate ideas, not Some New And Improved Mind Control Device!™. Religion names are capitalized because they're proper nouns, because there's only one Christianity, not because you secretly desire the Pope. If we went about capitalizing everything which we thought was deserving of respect I wouldn't need these -6 contacts.

Who told you I secretly desire the Pope? There's no evidence! None, I tell you!

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.


Paranoid garbage - athiesm is simply a lack of belief in a God - it does not automatically follow that the typical athiest would be in any way opposed to either religion or religious people.

There are always some athiests who will be like this; in a similar manner to the way in which some religious people are incredibly intolerant whereas the typical believer need not be and usually isn't.


Isn't such generalisation based upon the example of a few bad apples precisely what you're complaining about anyway?

Basically, I'm still in the process of "figuring things out." I'm not convinced that anyone else's ideas are totally compatible with me, be it dogmatic religions or atheists. I have few beliefs of my own that I've cobbled together out of things that make sense to me, and things I personally feel, some of which correspond with what are seen as typically "atheist" beliefs by some, some of which are closer to various other religions or spiritual teachings. It's definitely a work in progress at this point (and will probably always be, if I have my way). I can go into detail about the specifics of my spirituality if you really like, but I think you'd probably find it boring.


So - by 'not an exclusive materialist'... what you are actually talking about is a form of unfocused siprituality, perhaps? A suspicion that there is more to the world than just the mundane physicality we see?

I think you'll find that MOST Atheists are actually 'still in the process of figuring things out'... indeed, I'd say that was almost the definition, in a lot of ways... certainly for the Implicit Atheist.

I'd be interested to see the 'specifics of [your] spirituality'... in my opinion, a 'good' Atheist never turns down the possibility of discovering 'truth'.


Absolutely. I was totally convinced that I knew right, and everyone who believed different was just ignorant, misguided, "brainwashed" or deliberately ignoring the facts. I think most of it came from the fact that my extended (and to a lesser extent, some of my immediate) family were all quite devout Christians, and I was, from an early age, obliged to join in prayers in their presence, go with them to Church and, at the very least, pay lipservice to a religion I didn't agree with. So, when I was old enough that I could get away with refusing their religion, I did so in the most extreme way I could; I went atheist.


And, this was basically what I was looking for... this is what makes your 'testimony' more than mere anecdote.

I don't actually disagree with your overall judgement... that SOME Atheists are all the things you said, perhaps.... but one has to bear in mind how such comments will be received, and where the comment 'comes' from.

I have encountered Christians in previous threads, that have made similar comments to the one you made, with none of the experience, and just a prejudice as 'justification'.


Some of them, sure. There are narrow-minded, self-righteous dickheads on both sides, especially when a religious arguments starts up. There are a lot of persecution complexes (complices?) and what strike me as conspiracy theories floating around as well.

Admittedly, in the US at least, atheists believing they often get the rough end of the stick may not be entirely unjustified.


I deem to recall seeing opinion polls, about who the average American would NOT vote into the Presidential Office. Although, obviously, rich white Christian seems to be the best option... it was interesting to see that WAY, WAY below woman, black, muslim, communist... etc... Atheist was pretty much the ONE thing the average American will not tolerate.


Well, it's not like these are the only people around here. Most of my friends and acquaintances fall into one of those two groups though. Mostly because I tended to gravitate toward other atheists and made good friends, and because there are simply a lot of Christians around, so I'm always going to know some. In my circle of friends there are also a couple of agnostics and a Muslim, but it's usually the atheists and Christians that get into arguments with each other about this stuff. The atheists only really become especially "explicit" when someone mentions God, then it's "on for young and old", as they say. I don't really think my experience is all that unique. I tend to think it's just that young people are often very self-assured and have no qualms about letting everyone know it in as vociferous a way as they can.

Aaah... the assurance of the young.

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.
Some people are unskilled at debate, and others, like me, learn as we go. I think it's inevitable to find some who will attack others (especially when they feel they are being attacked because their beliefs are being criticized) rather than the ideas presented. I made the same sort of mistake when I first started (not on this board, but a prior one).

I think most athiest have a "if you don't bother me, I won't bother you"-mentality. So it makes sense they attack religious people that bother them, but not the rest.

Same here.

You leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone.

It's as simple as that.

So - by 'not an exclusive materialist'... what you are actually talking about is a form of unfocused siprituality, perhaps? A suspicion that there is more to the world than just the mundane physicality we see?

I think you'll find that MOST Atheists are actually 'still in the process of figuring things out'... indeed, I'd say that was almost the definition, in a lot of ways... certainly for the Implicit Atheist.

I'd be interested to see the 'specifics of [your] spirituality'... in my opinion, a 'good' Atheist never turns down the possibility of discovering 'truth'.


I suppose that's as good a pay of putting it as any. It's a little more than suspicion and a little less than absolute certainty. I'm not willing to let myself think "this is the way it is", anymore, because I believe spirituality (or lack thereof) and perception of the world should never be static. There's always the possibility that you are slightly wrong or very wrong, and there are always new things to be explored and, sometimes, incorporated into one's belief.

I'm not sure this thread is really the right place to get into my personal beliefs, being as it is, about atheists and Christians. If you're interested, though, feel free to TG me or wait for one of those "what is your religion" threads that inevitably crop up.



And, this was basically what I was looking for... this is what makes your 'testimony' more than mere anecdote.

I don't actually disagree with your overall judgement... that SOME Atheists are all the things you said, perhaps.... but one has to bear in mind how such comments will be received, and where the comment 'comes' from.

I have encountered Christians in previous threads, that have made similar comments to the one you made, with none of the experience, and just a prejudice as 'justification'.


I suppose you're right. I did qualify my comment, but I perhaps could have worded it a little more diplomatically. I find myself getting rather frustrated with people of any belief system who take it upon themselves to proclaim that they have a monopoly on the truth, and that everyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe is "delusional", "stupid", a "a dirty heathen", "going to hell", etc.

But I do have the experience of what it is like to be an "asshole atheist", and I know all the arguments and all the rationale behind them. The rationale I used, anyway, and from what I've seen, it seems to be a fairly common one for that kind of atheist, unfortunately.


I deem to recall seeing opinion polls, about who the average American would NOT vote into the Presidential Office. Although, obviously, rich white Christian seems to be the best option... it was interesting to see that WAY, WAY below woman, black, muslim, communist... etc... Atheist was pretty much the ONE thing the average American will not tolerate.

Atheist was below Communist? I thought all commies were godless! Ah well, I suppose it just goes to show the prevailing attitude in the US. Atheists in the US have a very vocal, prejudiced Christian majority to deal with, unfortunately. Many of the Christians over there, however, seem to think the occasional bagging of their attitudes from some of the intelligentsia qualifies as "atheist oppression."



Aaah... the assurance of the young.

Heh, well, you have to enjoy the youthful invincibility before all that mortality garbage kicks in!

I largely live by the same ethical principles as Christians (ought to). That doesn't change the fact that I find Christianity to be a very, very bad thing. And I'd prolly feed the Jesus fellow his own balls if given the opportunity.

You have a problem with the message of Jesus, you know that whole "Love thy neighbor thing"?

As per bolded, why?

I don't like the religion or the actions that arrive out of a belief in that religion.

Go ahead and tell me Christians are not tuaght to hate. Although I do realise the Bible says as such it also has some very dehuminising statements for differrent groups of people. Another thing I hate about Christianity is the conscept of Forbidden Knowledge. Forbidden Knowledge is the conscept that suggests there is harmfull ideas which can be depicted in pictures
( pornography ) or words ( Harry Potter books ). It is hard to argue against positions of faith. You show a position of faith to be irrational and it does not change anything becuase faith need not require rational. There are plenty of other things as well.

Paranoid garbage - athiesm is simply a lack of belief in a God - it does not automatically follow that the typical athiest would be in any way opposed to either religion or religious people.

Notice how I said "some" athiests

You leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone.

It's as simple as that.
And if I jump off a bridge....? ;)

I suppose that's as good a pay of putting it as any. It's a little more than suspicion and a little less than absolute certainty. I'm not willing to let myself think "this is the way it is", anymore, because I believe spirituality (or lack thereof) and perception of the world should never be static. There's always the possibility that you are slightly wrong or very wrong, and there are always new things to be explored and, sometimes, incorporated into one's belief.
Well done; that's a very scientific attitude.

If you're interested, though, feel free to TG me or wait for one of those "what is your religion" threads that inevitably crop up.


I'm actually contemplating starting just such a thread... :)


I find myself getting rather frustrated with people of any belief system who take it upon themselves to proclaim that they have a monopoly on the truth, and that everyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe is "delusional", "stupid", a "a dirty heathen", "going to hell", etc.


Absolutely. This is the heart of the matter. The problem isn't any ONE spiritual explanation... ONLY the assertion that any ONE view is MORE worthy than any other.


Many of the Christians over there, however, seem to think the occasional bagging of their attitudes from some of the intelligentsia qualifies as "atheist oppression."


This is true... and they even use scripture to support it, whipping out texts about how prophets will not be respected in their own towns, how the world will turn against the followers od Christ, etc...

So - EVEN THOUGH I'm a 'godless Heathen' I can't get a bottle of wine to go with my Sunday dinner... and yet, THEY are the oppressed party?


Heh, well, you have to enjoy the youthful invincibility before all that mortality garbage kicks in!

Indeed... we're not 6'6'' and bullet-proof, for ever... :)

I don't oppose anything. I simply don't believe there's a god. People can believe what ever they want, just don't start bugging me about it or expect special treatment for it.

I'm actually contemplating starting just such a thread... :)


Despite the number of them that appear on NS General, I usually find them interesting before they degenerate into a big Christian V.S. Atheist pissing contest. Which they usually do, unfortunately.


Absolutely. This is the heart of the matter. The problem isn't any ONE spiritual explanation... ONLY the assertion that any ONE view is MORE worthy than any other.

Yep. If all you have is internal evidence and faith to justify your belief, you shouldn't go around telling everyone that their internal evidence and faith is somehow crappier than yours. That's just stupid. I have no problem with basing spiritual belief on those things, heck, I think they are the only things that spiritual belief CAN be based on, but when you take that path, you need to acknowledge that what works for you works for you, but may not and need not work for others.

Despite the number of them that appear on NS General, I usually find them interesting before they degenerate into a big Christian V.S. Atheist pissing contest. Which they usually do, unfortunately.


Well, we DO have an interesting mix on the forums... a variety of belief structures and justifications... it interests me to read how others have approached that one question....

I can piss further than you.

Whelp there goes this thread.

Well, we DO have an interesting mix on the forums... a variety of belief structures and justifications... it interests me to read how others have approached that one question....

Yep, we sure do. And diversity can only be a good thing.

I can piss further than you.

Whelp there goes this thread.
Who you calling whelp? ;)

Everybody is someone elses ******.

With "non-fundamentalists" I mean people who say "we are Christians, but we do not do everything the Bible says because some things are just too weird". [1]. These people need to make up their minds: either they follow ALL the morals of God or they don't. Afterall, you cannot claim your morals are superior because they are based on Gods word while at the same time saying you know better than the good Lord...

One might suggest that those who mindlessly follow the Bible are saying that human beings know better than God. After all, while many believe Scripture was often inspired by God, none believe that God physically wrote it. It all had to be passed through the fallible human beings. Thus, what is in the Bible may not be the exact sentiments of God. If the guidance God gives is contradictory to what the Bible says, wouldn't it make more sense to follow God than the Bible written down by human beings?

1] Note that this is different from someone who actually gives a reason based on Scripture to not follow certain commandments (e.g.: "I do not follow the old testament laws because Jesus death created a new convenant").

You really have an obsession with Scripture being absolute, don't you?

One might suggest that those who mindlessly follow the Bible are saying that human beings know better than God. After all, while many believe Scripture was often inspired by God, none believe that God physically wrote it. It all had to be passed through the fallible human beings. Thus, what is in the Bible may not be the exact sentiments of God. If the guidance God gives is contradictory to what the Bible says, wouldn't it make more sense to follow God than the Bible written down by human beings?

But what other way to know the way God feels than the Bible is there ? "I had a gut feeling" is most definately NOT a good basis for moral decisions, unless you are able to work it out into a consistent system. But if you do the latter, you are de facto writing your own religion/moralsystem instead of following an existing one. I have nothing against that - as long as people admit what they are doing.

You really have an obsession with Scripture being absolute, don't you?

How can you justify moral decisions based on Gods will if it isn't ? The moment you say "I know better than what it actually says here" you have admitted the whole book is suspect - that you no longer have a non-subjective reason to call your morals "right".

I oppose religion in general. I find it to be more of a hinderance to mankind than a help. I respect the rights of individual people to believe and behave as they wish, but I expect them to respect my rights in return.

Exactly what I wanted to say

I largely live by the same ethical principles as Christians (ought to). That doesn't change the fact that I find Christianity to be a very, very bad thing. And I'd prolly feed the Jesus fellow his own balls if given the opportunity.

Feeding Jesus his own balls doesn't sound like you are living by the same ethical principles Christians are supposed to adhere to... Just saying...

But what other way to know the way God feels than the Bible is there ?

The guidance of God. I believe, as do most Christians, that you can ask God for guidance and receive it.

"I had a gut feeling" is most definately NOT a good basis for moral decisions, unless you are able to work it out into a consistent system.

No, it isn't, which is why we must learn the difficult task of separating our own feelings from the guidance we are receiving.

But if you do the latter, you are de facto writing your own religion/moralsystem instead of following an existing one.

You are not "writing your own", you are doing your best to follow that of your God, instead of those of preacher 001 or pope 002.

How can you justify moral decisions based on Gods will if it isn't ?

The guidance of God.

The moment you say "I know better than what it actually says here" you have admitted the whole book is suspect - that you no longer have a non-subjective reason to call your morals "right".

I never say, "I know better......", I believe that God is guiding me in a different direction. Meanwhile, there isn't a single person in existence who has a non-subjective reason to call his morals "right". We all do the best we can and try to find the "right" thing, but from the point of view of human beings, all morals are subjective, even those of Scripture.

You have a problem with the message of Jesus, you know that whole "Love thy neighbor thing"?

As per bolded, why?
Eh.. Did you read the rest of the post? I thought I made it perfectly clear that I have a hard time tolerating divine dictatorship.

Also, you even quoted me saying I largely live by the same ethical principles as Christians (are supposed to), so I don't understand how you got the impression I have something against those principles?

I'm gonna assume you actually meant to bold the bit about me feeding the guy his ballsac. Like I already posted, I'd do it because the guy made a religion (or at least changed an existing one) & claims to be 'the son of god'. It's that divine dictator thing I mentioned. I'd have nothing but respect for the zombie if only he'd claimed to be a man, and didn't attribute his ideas to 'god'. As it is, I have 0 respect for the corpse.

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.

My criticisms stem from the inconsistencies of the judeo/christian/muslim holy texts.
The dogmatic approach to teaching as "true" some very subjective and outright erroneous writings.
There are other religions that I find silly because of the reliance on emotional feelings for truth. These religions don't usually proselytize. Therefore they don't elicit the negative response that other, growing religions do.
I have neither problem nor issue with any person believing in anything they wish, as long as it doesn't affect society in a detrimental fashion, and doesn't require the rest of the human race to become believers without valid, factual evidence of being true.

Do unto others as they would like to be treated,and as long as it harm no other, do as you will.;)

Question to some athiests, do you oppose Christians or Christianity?

I oppose proselytising religionists or any other "ist or ism". I also oppose the institution that fosters these stalwart "believers in nothing substantial".

I oppose both and neither.

^
I guess I should go into further details then.

I don't hate either, I don't really want them in my life but I am tolerant of them. I mean churches can do some cool things for the communities. But its the typical ignorance I run into in the religious people at my school. An Jehova witnesess...which is a whole different topic.


But on the whole they are okay and tolerable. I wouldnt hate someone for the sole fact they are catholic I would hate someone for the way they act.

I am not strictly atheist, or even agnostic per se. I acknowledge the possibility of Christ's existence. I am endeared to his teachings of universal respect and tolerance. The New Testament, as set out by Christ, is indeed an enlightened piece of work. What I do oppose are attempts at personifying God as a deity, at interpreting the New Testament as a continuity of the Old Testament, when it replaces it, and at the use of Christianity as a social policy tool (ie its policies on abortion, homosexuality, contraception and so on, referring more specifically to the Catholic Church).

I have no problems with Christians, so long as they are open-minded and respect and tolerate my being. Neither do I have a problem with Christianity as whole. I admire certain aspects of Catholicism. However, due to its continued insistence on acting as an arbiter of social policy, I cannot bring myself to identify myself as a Christian. I only hate those Christians who believe that their way is the only way, and that all others are damned to burn in fire and brimstone.

Part of being Christian is being persecuted. It's in the Bible. So don't think much about, be better than those who wish to hurt you and you'll be doing God's will.
Yes because Christians are the ones being persecuted...
Not converting to your beliefs is not persecution, wanting to live a life which is contrary to your beliefs is not persecution, wanting you to keep your religious beliefs out of the public class rooms, court houses, and government office is not persecution.

Christians are not persecuted any more than any other group. Except in retaliation to having been persecuted or harassed by Christians.

Stop pushing your beliefs on everyone and people will leave you alone, well the other people that shove their beliefs around won't. The issue here is that Christians appear much more pushy then any other group.

Part of being Christian is being persecuted. It's in the Bible. So don't think much about, be better than those who wish to hurt you and you'll be doing God's will.

See, this belief is what gets atheists all riled up.

First, you are not a minority. WE are the minority. Just because we in the U.S. are trying to get your religion taken out of the government (seporation of church and state, ever hear of it?) doesn't make you oppressed. It just means that we are tired of YOUR oppression of US. Christians haven't been persecuted in the United States, EVER. Unless you are in a country that is NOT mostly christian, you cannot play the "persecuted" card.

Second, you say "it's in the bible" like that means something in this debate. It doesn't. Atheists do not have blind faith in a book written by a bunch of different guys over a period of a few hundred years that is supposedly the word of god "because you say so".

And it says that in the bible, by the way, because those ancient Christians who wrote it were persecuted at that time. Not in the present day, where you are majority.

edit: as for who I oppose- some of both; but mostly I oppose people who refuse to keep their religion to themselves, and say "god bless" all day long.

Oppose, only to a certain extent. Fear, quite certainly.

In addition to being an atheist, I'm also a Historian. My specialty is modern history (1800-2000), but I have a firm grounding in pretty much the last thousand years. The thing that really gets me, is how very LITTLE the various organizations of religion have changed since the 1600s.

The biggest alteration has been among the Jews; the rise of the Reform Movement. But Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Shinto are still basically the same as they were four hundred years ago, aside from a little window dressing.

At which time, you might recall, people like me had a distressing tendency to wind up burned alive.

Now, you might well say that the average Christian today wouldn't stand for that. You might be right; but the fact is that in 1600, from the writing that have survived, most people didn't really support it then either. They just weren't willing to risk their own lives and freedoms to try and stop it.

Sound familiar? Think Germany, 1940-45.

Maybe a resurgent christianity in the west would show me wrong, show that it has matured, show that it can now tolerate those who disbelieve.

I don't believe it for a minute, though. A thousand years of bloodthirsty brutality is not washed away in 150 years of weakness. So I will continue to oppose any possibility of religion and political power getting stronger ties - and where I live, that means opposing certain forms of christianity.

Sorry but even though I'm anti-religion, I have to disagree with your idea that religions haven't changed much since the 1600s. They are pretty different, as they have lost a lot of power since then.

Also: Germany 1940-45? Are you an American? The crap in Germany went on all through the 1930s, it didn't just start when the US got involved! Sorry, its a pet peeve of mine that a lot of Americans think of Nazism and WW2 *only* in terms of their involvement.

Back to the topic: I'm technically an atheist, but I do believe in some form of 'spirituality'. I think their is probably a second or 'deeper' layer of being that we haven't figured out yet. I believe in reincarnation by virtue of the decomposition and recycling our bodies undergo, and I think our 'spirits' probably break down and get recycled into new 'souls'. My beliefs have led me to socialism. I believe that this one life is all anybody really gets, and therefore everyone should try their best to make it as good as possible for everyone around them.

My main problem with religion is that it has far too much control over society. Why should it get to control my actions when it doesn't line up with any of my beliefs? In a multicultural society it is surely far easier anyway to have a separation of *all* religion and the state, rather than choosing one particular religion and saying it is better than all the others.

I would objection to the idea of accepting that there are other 'valid' beliefs in the world than my own. In order for me to believe in my ideals and belief system I have to believe that it is the *only* valid one. However, as others have pointed out, there is a big distinction between believing that your personal beliefs are right and shoving it down everyone else's throats.

I grew up in a Catholic background, going to two Catholic schools. I went on a pilgrimage to Rome in the Jubilee year of 2000, passed through the doors of the four basilicas (absolving me supposedly of all my sins) and attended Mass said by Pope John Paul II. So just to give the background that, while my parents were never overly religious, I have spent the majority of my life in a religious setting. Also, I grew up in Northern Ireland where religion pretty much defines which side of the community you belong to.

Part of the reason I drifted away from 'God' was the fact that my mum got very ill when I was in my early teens. She has never fully recovered from it, and its made life pretty horrible at home. That got me thinking very early on, if God is all-powerful why did this happen? I've talked to priests and read various parts of the Bible. None of it seemed a satisfactory answer to me. God has the power to do anything, everything is a test of faith. But if I had the power to stop a man shooting another man, I should stop him or be blamed for standing by. I couldn't argue that I was 'testing him' or that I was giving him 'free will'. Therefore I think that if there is a 'God' and he/she/it is so powerful that things like illness and disaster *could* be prevented then they *should* be.

Basically what I'm saying is that, even if I was convinced by someone that there is a 'God', I wouldn't want anything to do with it anything, because they seem a cold and irresponsible deity.

Basically what I'm saying is that, even if I was convinced by someone that there is a 'God', I wouldn't want anything to do with it anything, because they seem a cold and irresponsible deity.

That is an attempt at personifying deities. A deity could well be an emotionless being with powers of creation. There is no reason for it to be emotional at all. Neither is there a reason for it to be the paternal figure that many Christians believe God to be.

Christians are not persecuted any more than any other group. Except in retaliation to having been persecuted or harassed by Christians.


Its hard to believe that anything like Jerry Springer the Opera would be done to Islam

And also see here (I would post a link but you need a subscription to get to it)

For most citizens of Iraq, the invasion meant the end of tyranny. For one group, however, it meant a new start: the country’s historic Christian community. When the war stopped, persecution by Islamists, held in check by Saddam, started.

At a church in Basra I visited a month after the war ended, the women complained of attacks against them for not wearing the Islamic veil. I saw many Christian-owned shops that had been firebombed, with many of the owners killed for exercising their legal right to sell alcohol. Two years and many church attacks later, Iraq may still be occupied by Christian foreign powers, but the Islamist plan to ethnically cleanse Iraq of its nearly 2,000-year-old Assyrian and Armenian Christian communities is reaching fruition.

There is nothing unusual about the persecution of Iraqi Christians, or the unwillingness of other Christians to help them. Rising nationalism and fundamentalism around the world have meant that Christianity is going back to its roots as the religion of the persecuted. There are now more than 300 million Christians who are either threatened with violence or legally discriminated against simply because of their faith — more than any other religion. Christians are no longer, as far as I am aware, thrown to the lions. But from China, North Korea and Malaysia, through India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they are subjected to legalised discrimination, violence, imprisonment, relocation and forced conversion. Even in supposedly Christian Europe, Christianity has become the most mocked religion, its followers treated with public suspicion and derision and sometimes — such as the would-be EU commissioner Rocco Buttiglione — hounded out of political office.

I am no Christian, but rather a godless atheist whose soul doesn’t want to be saved, thank you. I may not believe in the man with the white beard, but I do believe that all persecution is wrong. The trouble is that the trendies who normally champion human rights seem to think persecution is fine, so long as it’s only against Christians. While Muslims openly help other Muslims, Christians helping Christians has become as taboo as jingoistic nationalism.

On the face of it, the idea of Christians facing serious persecution seems as far-fetched as a carpenter saving humanity. Christianity is the world’s most followed religion, with two billion believers, and by far its most powerful. It is the most popular faith in six of the seven continents, and in both of the world’s two biggest economies, the US and Europe. Seven of the G8 richest industrial nations are majority Christian, as are four out of five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The cheek-turners control the vast majority of the world’s weapons of mass destruction.

When I bumped into George Bush in the breakfast room of the US embassy in Brussels last month, standing right behind me were two men in uniform carrying the little black ‘nuclear football’, containing the codes to enable the world’s most powerful Christian to unleash the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal. Christians claiming persecution seem as credible as Bill Gates pleading poverty. But just as Christian-majority armies control Iraq as it ethnically cleanses itself of its Christian community, so the power of Christian countries is of little help to the Christian persecuted where most Christians now live: the Third World.

Across the Islamic world, Christians are systematically discriminated against and persecuted. Saudi Arabia — the global fountain of religious bigotry — bans churches, public Christian worship, the Bible and the sale of Christmas cards, and stops non-Muslims from entering Mecca. Christians are regularly imprisoned and tortured on trumped-up charges of drinking, blaspheming or Bible-bashing, as some British citizens have found. Just last month, furthermore, Saudi Arabia announced that only Muslims can become citizens.

The Copts of Egypt make up half the Christians in the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity. They inhabited the land before the Islamic conquest, and still make up a fifth of the population. By law they are banned from being president of the Islamic Republic of Egypt or attending Al Azhar University, and severely restricted from joining the police and army. By practice they are banned from holding any high political or commercial position. Under the 19th-century Hamayouni decrees, Copts must get permission from the president to build or repair churches — but he usually refuses. Mosques face no such controls.

Government-controlled TV broadcasts anti-Copt propaganda, while giving no airtime to Copts. It is illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity, but legal for Christians to convert to Islam. Christian girls — and even the wives of Christian priests — are abducted and forcibly converted to Islam, recently prompting mass demonstrations. A report by Freedom House in Washington concludes: ‘The cumulative effect of these threats creates an atmosphere of persecution and raises fears that during the 21st century the Copts may have a vastly diminished presence in their homelands.’

Fr Drew Christiansen, an adviser to the US Conference of Bishops, recently conducted a study which stated that ‘all over the Middle East, Christians are under pressure. “The cradle of Christianity” is under enormous pressure from demographic decline, the growth of Islamic militancy, official and unofficial discrimination, the Iraq war, the Palestinian Intifada, failed peace policies and political manipulation.’

In the world’s most economically successful Muslim nation, Malaysia, the world’s only deliberate affirmative action programme for a majority population ensures that Muslims are given better access to jobs, housing and education. In the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, some 10,000 Christians have been killed in the last few years by Muslims trying to Islamify the Moluccas.

In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, most of the five million Christians live as an underclass, doing work such as toilet-cleaning. Under the Hudood ordinances, a Muslim can testify against a non-Muslim in court, but a non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim. Blasphemy laws are abused to persecute Christians. In the last few years, dozens of Christians have been killed in bomb and gun attacks on churches and Christian schools.

In Nigeria, 12 states have introduced Sharia law, which affects Christians as much as Muslims. Christian girls are forced to wear the Islamic veil at school, and Christians are banned from drinking alcohol. Thousands of Christians have been killed in the last few years in the ensuing violence.

Although persecution of Christians is greatest in Muslim countries, it happens in countries of all religions and none. In Buddhist-majority Sri Lanka, religious tension led to 44 churches being attacked in the first four months of 2004, with 140 churches being forced to close because of intimidation. In India, the rise of Hindu nationalism has lead to persecution not just of Muslims but of Christians. There have been hundreds of attacks against the Christian community, which has been in India since ad 100. The government’s affirmative action programme for untouchables guarantees jobs and loans for poor Hindus and Buddhists, but not for Christians.

Last year in China, which has about 70 million Christians, more than 100 ‘house churches’ were closed down, and dozens of priests imprisoned. If you join the Communist party, you get special privileges, but you can only join if you are atheist. In North Korea, Christians are persecuted as anti-communist elements, and dissidents claim they are not just imprisoned but used in chemical warfare experiments.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Barnabas Trust, which helps persecuted Christians, blames rising global religious tension. ‘More and more Christians are seen as the odd ones out — they are seen as transplants from the West, and not really trusted. It is getting very much worse.’

Even in what was, before multiculturalism, known as Christendom, Christians are persecuted. I have spoken to dozens of former Muslims who have converted to Christianity in Britain, and who are shunned by their community, subjected to mob violence, forced out of town, threatened with death and even kidnapped. The Barnabas Trust knows of 3,000 such Christians facing persecution in this country, but the police and government do nothing.

You get the gist. Dr Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Centre for Religious Freedom in Washington, estimates that there are 200 million Christians who face violence because of their faith, and 350 million who face legally sanctioned discrimination in terms of access to jobs and housing. The World Evangelical Alliance wrote in a report to the UN Human Rights Commission last year that Christians are ‘the largest single group in the world which is being denied human rights on the basis of their faith’.

Part of the problem is old-style racism against non-whites; part of it is new-style guilt. If all this were happening to the world’s Sikhs or Muslims simply because of their faith, you can be sure it would lead the 10 O’Clock News and the front page of the Guardian on a regular basis. But the BBC, despite being mainly funded by Christians, is an organisation that promotes ridicule of the Bible, while banning criticism of the Koran. Dr Marshall said: ‘Christians are seen as Europeans and Americans, which means you get a lack of sympathy which you would not get if they were Tibetan Buddhists.’

Christians themselves are partly to blame for all this. Some get a masochistic kick out of being persecuted, believing it brings them closer to Jesus, crucified for His beliefs. Christianity uniquely defines itself by its persecution, and its forgiveness of its persecutors: the Christian symbol is the method of execution of its founder. Christianity was a persecuted religion for its first three centuries, until Emperor Constantine decided that worshipping Jesus was better for winning battles than worshipping the sun. In contrast, Mohammed was a soldier and ruler who led his people into victorious battle against their enemies. In the hundred years after the death of Mohammed, Islam conquered and converted most of North Africa and the Middle East in the most remarkable religious expansion in history.

To this day, while Muslims stick up for their co-religionists, Christians — beyond a few charities — have given up such forms of discrimination. Dr Sookhdeo said: ‘The Muslims have an Ummah [the worldwide Muslim community] whereas Christians do not have Christendom. There is no Christian country that says, “We are Christian and we will help Christians.”’

As a liberal democrat atheist, I believe all persecuted people should be helped equally, irrespective of their religion. But the guilt-ridden West is ignoring people because of their religion. If non-Christians like me can sense the nonsense, how does it make Christians feel? And how are they going to react? The Christophobes worried about rising Christian fundamentalism in Britain should understand that it is a reaction to our double standards. And as long as our double standards exist, Christian fundamentalism will grow.

Other religons don't get ridiculed because they don't blow so much hot air.

Personally, I'd let 'em alone iff'n they didn't bother me...but you see, bothering my school curriculum, my system of laws, and the advancement of science in general bothers me.

Other religons don't get ridiculed because they don't blow so much hot air.

Personally, I'd let 'em alone iff'n they didn't bother me...but you see, bothering my school curriculum, my system of laws, and the advancement of science in general bothers me.
Islam gets ridiculed for very similar reasons :p

Islam gets ridiculed for very similar reasons :p

They do? *shrug* Not by me...

They do? *shrug* Not by me...
Fundamentalist Islam is oppressive, even more so than Christianity, and more aimed at proselytising non-Muslims. So yeah.

In the US? Because, as an ignorant american, I've no idea what happens to people in other countries.



P.S. More opressive then JWs? :eek:

In the US? Because, as an ignorant american, I've no idea what happens to people in other countries.
That explains a lot then :) Do some research on fundamentalist Islam in arab theocracies such as Saudi Arabia. ;)

JW?

Jehovah's Witnesses. *shudder*

Jehovah's Witnesses. *shudder*
They are annoying, but they enjoy nowhere near the power that radical Islam (or fundamentalist Christianity) enjoy.

JW are also a cult, not Christians in any way.

I oppose religion in general. I find it to be more of a hinderance to mankind than a help. I respect the rights of individual people to believe and behave as they wish, but I expect them to respect my rights in return.

second

First, you are not a minority. WE are the minority. Just because we in the U.S. are trying to get your religion taken out of the government (seporation of church and state, ever hear of it?) doesn't make you oppressed. It just means that we are tired of YOUR oppression of US. Christians haven't been persecuted in the United States, EVER. Unless you are in a country that is NOT mostly christian, you cannot play the "persecuted" card.


Care to back that one up?

I am not a Christian. I was born in a Hindu family. Even though I am an atheist, I have an enormous respect for Christianity and most of the other religions. The reason is because I consider all of them philosophies and they are just theories towards approaching the ultimate truth. Just because I believe the ultimate truth could be approached through science, doesn't mean I have to disrespect the hypothesis of approaching the truth through spiritualism. Remember, you cannot prove a theory wrong, you can only make the theory stronger or weaker....

Technically, they aren't statments made to be tested, and after made are accepted a truth.

And, while you can't prove a theory (outside mathmatics) you can disprove it with any counterexample.

Remember, you cannot prove a theory wrong, you can only make the theory stronger or weaker....

Well... if I have a theory that all swans are white, and I see a black swan, my theory is disproved! But I take your point - the larger and more encompassing the theory, the more evidence you need to disprove it.

But I prefer to think of religions as being philosophies rather than theories, and preserved philosophies at that; it's rude to whine about another person's religion. Unless he keeps throwing it in your face, then you can! You _shouldn't_, but you can :p

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.


I oppose assholes.

I oppose assholes.
How do you shit?

if I have a theory that all swans are white, and I see a black swan, my theory is disproved

No, that's not a theory. You are saying that the colour of all swans are white, then it's not a theory, here you are playing with a matter of facts. There can be only "true" or "false" there. Theories are like Darwin's theory, which is trying to define the life here on earth. We cannot for sure know how if there was evolution or not but new inventions can only make his theory stronger or weaker.

you can disprove it with any counterexample

Remember, theories are sort of like hypothesis. You can only accept or reject a theory, you cannot disprove a theory, then it's not a theory....

The kind of christianity which needs to be opposed, Bad Christianity, is inseperable from "bad christians."

A distinction is trivial.

Neo danube, admittedly some of us get a bit worked up, but why don't Christians STFU about what other people are doing?
If you can't because of moral reasons, don't fuck with the atheists and Eastern believers who puke at your ideals.
Maybe both sides should let the other live how they choose. Unfortunately for your argument, that isn't your side's philosphy. And has never been.

They are annoying, but they enjoy nowhere near the power that radical Islam (or fundamentalist Christianity) enjoy.

JW are also a cult, not Christians in any way.

I would say that, since the Witnesses actually base their belief ENTIRELY on scripture (whether or not you agree with their conclusions), they are probably more truly 'Christian' than most of those who claim the title.

Lets see here, I don't believe myself, and religion is one of the biggest causes of wars and oppressive moral codes. Plus religion is the opiate of the people.

Although, if more people were like Jesus, helping the poor, the world wouldn't suck so much. But instead we have so many assholes like Pat "kill Chavez" Robertson and the "don't let fags marry" crowd.

I am an athiest. I think less of people who adhere to a religion because it shows a weakness in reason and in character. I have had friends who would be considered fundamentalist Christians, and while I respect and admire them for other characteristics, the fact that they are religious is a point against them in my eyes. It's not everything about them, however. Therefore, I would not say that I oppose Christians as people, as many of them are excellent human beings, but I do oppose Christianity.

But instead we have so many assholes like Pat "kill Chavez" Robertson and the "don't let fags marry" crowd.
Didn't Chavez offer New York an oil deal? :confused:

<snip> Buddhism, <snip> is still basically the same as it was four hundred years ago, aside from a little window dressing. <snip>

That's because we haven’t had any corrupt leaders, we've been good at picking the llamas …heh, heh llamas (I’m probably the only Buddhist in the world who laughs at that).

As for being an atheist I have problems with any religion telling nonmembers to be intolerant (fundamentalist Islam’s at the top of my list right now, but Christianity is a close second)

I think God is something that needed to be created in order to keep the earlier people from doing really bad things, in order to make their lives better.

When most of your children will die before they make it to double digits, when most women will die during childbirth after a while, there are some laws that need to be followed to ensure the survival of the human race. Creating a God who is a glorified Santa Claus, rewarding the good, punishing the bad, helps those laws be followed when there's nobody around to enforce them.

Just my opinion.

I have nothing against people of faith though, any faith. A couple of my best friends are pretty religious Jews. (One even wrote a pretty amazing book about helping homeless teens) Most of my father's side of the family are pretty strict catholics.

Where I get annoyed is where the religious people will try to force what they believe down everyone's throats. Like wanting to ban gay marriage because it's a sin. Please. Wanting evolution to be taught as a theory, not as fact... I'm ok with that as well- wanting to teach creationism in schools as a theory... that irks me. As I said in another thread, if one religion's belief is going to be taught in schools, they all should- I want the Oceanic creation myth of Areop-Enap the premordial spider that created the world to be taught as a theory as well.

I've been with one man in my life, we're together 10 years, I'm tired of my catholic neighbors asking me when we're going to get married and stop "living in sin".

It isn't the religion, or most of the religion's followers that I have an issue with. It's the extremists who feel everyone should believe what they do. Even extremist athiests who try to make everyone else disbelieve in God annoy me to no end.

I'm not an atheist and I only oppose Christianity as it's been practiced since around 300-400 CE.

Apparently God had a problem with it, too, or there would have been no Qur'an.

*oops*

Christians? I love them all. From Falwell to Eutrusca and everything in between. I love them all. They're my fellow man. Some have gotten lost in translation, though, and I don't hate them ... but I damn sure feel sorry for them.

Well there's much that's been already said to cover most of my opinion so I'll just break it down. But again I apologize for the repetition and length.

My Beliefs:
- I'm Athiest but my belief on extends to me.
- To me, there is no god that has a effect or impact on my life whatsoever.
- My actions alone dictate the and direct the events that are to happen in my life
- The only exception is when my actions are applied to the constant irrational series of events that occur in our "percieved" world by the many sentient beings that inhabit it, be it to allow it or prevent it.
- Everything happens for a reason, however I am not in the position to fully understand all that occurs in this world. This does not mean that there is thus proof that god exists as that would make him a placebo for all that could not be explained. All that proves is, again, my lacking in knowledge/understanding for a great deal of things. To be so otherwise would not only be impossible but would only go to then strengthen my self reliance and thus rejection of god's existence.


How I see everyone else:
- Even though I do not believe in a god I do not think it is wrong to do so.
- To believe in god is not a weakness of ones will or self as many have been able to achieve great things with their beliefs as well as live normal lives like the rest of us.
- It is a life choice do believe and it's one I respect. Not just for Christianity but for all religions.

Where I draw the line:
- Again, I respect all religions and beliefs, however that respect is extended to those who do the same onto me.
- Meaning, quite simply, those who force their religion onto others in any shape or form be it, conversion, prejudice, fanatism, to persecution are people/groups that I have no respect for and dispise.
- Tolerance of a persons beliefs, even if not the same, is what seperates the good relgious people to the bad.
- This idea of tolerance is not to be carelessly taken out of context to be applied in the sense of beliefs of let's say; the belief of smoking being a good thing as it's a gross generalization and perversion of my earlier point. AND there is proof that smoking is bad for you so THAT belief itself is proven wrong period.

So a final thought:
- I know this was not intended, but the question that began this topic "Question to some athiests, do you oppose Christians or Christianity" speaks, to me, of the same intolerance and ignorance that I dispise.
- To be an athiest does not imply opposition or loathing of other religions. that is not the fundamental basis of this belief.
- My beliefs in atheism only applies to myself so I cannot oppose Christianity on any person except me.
- Rather then asking why is it that athiest oppose you, which they should not in the first place.....

Why is it that you must continue to feel threatened or be intolerant of those who do not share your beliefs?

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.

No religion is inherently bad. Every religion is wide open to interpretation, just have a look at all the different Christian denominations and their different attitudes and levels of tolerance. It doesn't make much sense to start criticising something that can basically mean almost everything or nothing at all.

What I criticise are the people who are trying to justify their own shortcomings, their intolerance, their arrogance, their hatred, their narrowmindedness and their general disregard for others by hiding behind a religion, be that Christianity for bashing gays, Islam for denying women the same rights as men or Judaism for mistreating Palestinians.

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.



I can be said to be guilty of being one of the more militant leaning athiests on this board, but I rarely attack most of the christians who post honest threads.
90% of all the christians I know, are good, decent honest people.
The other 9 percent were douchebags, regardless of thier chosen faith.
However, about 1% of the christians I know, use their religion to enforce thier beliefs on as much of thier world, as they can.
These people are dangerous, bigotted people, who deserve all the scorn and ridicule I can muster.

Occasionally, one such poster on this site, will start a thread and use the same crap, I hear from the people above..
This raises an ire within me, and sometimes I lash out.

I'm an atheist, but I tend not to talk about it to other people (especially considering I go to a Christian school, where EVERYONE is expected to be religious). But I'll tell you what I think of religion, not the people who follow it.

I think religion is a sort of teddy bear for people to hug in times of need. I believe that god (note the decapitalized g) does not exist. I believe that the world was made in a big bang. I believe that we all started as blobs, but then the blobs gained new characteristics because they needed to do things, and they evolved. Then, they eventually became us. And one day human beings are gonna be put in zoos and science labs, just like monkeys and blobs. And, believe it or not, we'll sound unintelligible to the future species. Just like monkeys and blobs :P

There are several athiests on this board who are exceptionally outspoken in their attacks against religion. However the nature of these attacks seems to fluctuate in the terms that most of them on here seem to be attacking certian people who practise Christianity as opposed to those to the religion itself. I would think that its far more logical to analyise a religion, not the people who practise it. Also I think that many of the criticisms of Christianity here stem from what people would consider bad actions anyway by a small number. Surely it would be more logical to examine the majorities beliefs and actions.

I'm an atheist. But I don't think that Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is 'bad' or 'wrong'.
In answer to your topic question, no, I do not oppose Christianity or Christians. Do you oppose atheists? Or try to question thier ways?
It is an unfortunate thing that the ones who usually represent a religion are fringe groups, & extremists, such as the Klu Klux Klan, or the Al-Qaeda.
This is because of sensationalism. Who wants to hear about how a Christian donated money to a hospital, when they can read about an abortion-docter killer, or a flaggelant?
Of course it would be more logical to examine the larger groups. But according to the media, most religions are just con-houses, or terrorist breeders.
Be assured, not all atheists believe that religion is bad. They just don't believe in it. As long as neither tries to ridicule the others beliefs, then everything would be fine.
However, there isn't much chance of that happening, now, is there?

I do oppose Christians more specifically than Christianity, but not because of the few, because of the many. Christianity has been used throughout history to make cruelty seem okay. Examples: Christian missionaries, religious Crusades, general religious persecution. Also, to honor the teachings of Malcolm X, Christianity was taught to black slaves to make them think that if they just stood by and let themselves be mistreated, they would have a wonderful afterlife. Meanwhile, the slaveowners had their own heaven on Earth. Christians said that it was unholy for whites to marry blacks in the past, and now they says it's unholy to have a homosexual marriage. The real hypocrisy of Christianity is in the fact that Christians pretty much NEVER follow the "turn the other cheek" philosophy they preach so much.

So. Like most things in this world, Christianity would be great in theory. I'm really alright with it. But the simple truth is that it's always been carried out the wrong way.

Lets see here, I don't believe myself, and religion is one of the biggest causes of wars and oppressive moral codes.I don't know about the latter, but the former is just plain wrong. The biggest cause of wars has been someone-else wanting something that someone else has. Religion has just been an excuse to mobilize the people who don't get anything from it. And as has been shown in many a war, you don't need religion to do that.

I am an athiest. I think less of people who adhere to a religion because it shows a weakness in reason and in character. I have had friends who would be considered fundamentalist Christians, and while I respect and admire them for other characteristics, the fact that they are religious is a point against them in my eyes. It's not everything about them, however. Therefore, I would not say that I oppose Christians as people, as many of them are excellent human beings, but I do oppose Christianity.

What is it about Christianity that makes you consider it a point against them?

Apparently God had a problem with it, too, or there would have been no Qur'an.

This is a problem (one of many) that I have with Islam. It is based on the writings of a man in a cave, on his own, where he claimed to have visions of God. Its completley non falsifiable. In the case of Jesus his claims and his life can be examined.

First, Carryduff:

Also: Germany 1940-45? Are you an American? The crap in Germany went on all through the 1930s, it didn't just start when the US got involved! Sorry, its a pet peeve of mine that a lot of Americans think of Nazism and WW2 *only* in terms of their involvement.


First, while I am American, I live in Australia. Second, don't jump to conclusions. I chose the dates 1940-45 for the reason that that pretty clearly matches the dates of the Final Solution - who was involved in the war at that time was irelevant (Oh, and if you think the US attitude to WWII is arrogant, you should hear what the Chinese say about the European assumption the war started in 1939 - when it ACTUALLY began seven years earlier).

As regards the topic at hand: sure, the christian churches have less power than they did in 1600. But that's the only thing that's realy changed. They still want to control society, run the political processes and be the final word on morality. They still have people like the Reverend Ian Paisley actively seeking the extermination of those they consider "heretics". And they still consider themselves above national/secular law, no matter how often they get slapped down for it.

Should they gain back their temporal power, I have little doubt they would start acting just as they did in 1600.

This is a problem (one of many) that I have with Islam. It is based on the writings of a man in a cave, on his own, where he claimed to have visions of God. Its completley non falsifiable. In the case of Jesus his claims and his life can be examined.

Man writing in cave = bad.

Man born in cave = God.

How very, very strange.

This is a problem (one of many) that I have with Islam. It is based on the writings of a man in a cave, on his own, where he claimed to have visions of God. Its completley non falsifiable. In the case of Jesus his claims and his life can be examined.

Because 2000 years of playing telephone, and people editing the original text like crazy picking from one book, then ignoring entire other chapters... that's rock solid :).

I'm taking it you haven't read other holy books have you? Did you know that man in a cave actually gave women more rights then anyone else? They could own their own land? They had to give the ok for their husband to take on more wives? If his current wife/wives weren't ok with it, he couldn't get married to another. Those I know for certain, but I think he even made it possible for the woman to ask for a divorce of sorts in abusive relationships.

That's the thing. As in most other main stream religions, the original message gets lost along the way. Most religions teach theirs is the only way, and there are a few who encourage their followers to get more into their belief system.

Personally, I'm agnostic but I don't oppose religion. I think some people take religion too far in the form of fundamentalism but there are plenty of good religious people. I may choose not to believe in any formal religion, mostly because the Vatican is the richest corperation in the world. But I think some people need to believe in something. They need the encouragement that, just maybe, there is something else out there.

Remember, theories are sort of like hypothesis. You can only accept or reject a theory, you cannot disprove a theory, then it's not a theory....

Theories are hypotheses - with a great deal of evidence and testing already backing them up.

Meanwhile, you can disprove a theory, and then it ceases to be a valid theory. If it is logically impossible to disprove something, it cannot be part of science at all, much less part of a scientific theory.

This is a problem (one of many) that I have with Islam. It is based on the writings of a man in a cave, on his own, where he claimed to have visions of God. Its completley non falsifiable. In the case of Jesus his claims and his life can be examined.

There is no LESS contemporary, independent evidence for Mohammed, than there is for Jesus.

If you are willing to accept Christianity as the inspired word of god, and yet you DON'T accept Islam the same way... you are admitting that you base your belief on what you WANT to believe, rather than what is 'supported'.