quote
follow
|
13-04-2012 I LOVE how Atheists say they don't like Christians shoving their beliefs down peoples throats. Yet when it comes to no belief in God, you are the ones who annoyingly jam it into peoples minds. Why do we attack Atheists sometimes? Most of us don't. But some, like me, will also attack after being verbally insulted and abused. ATHEISM: Like genitals. Don't show it off in public, don't jam into down childrens throats. Christians let people decide if they want to be Christians or not, and we respect their decesions even if they say no. At least Christians help out the community, versus Atheists who sit all day long trying to disprove something they know exists. Pastors are willing to give everything to help one family of the church, Richard Dawkins doesn't care for anyone other than himself. If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in morals. So you're better off commiting crimes, why would you care? If you TRULY don't believe in God, then you'd just go on with your daily life. But you don't. Instead, you act like a little know-it-all prick who feels its right to attack anyone with a different belief. Have a nice freaking day, jerk. |
[ link ] |
13-04-2012
Yet when it comes to no belief in God, you are the ones who annoyingly jam it into peoples minds I've never seen an atheist wandering the streets handing out atheist leaflets, yet just a few days ago I got stopped on the street and offered one from a Christian. My mother is getting calls from some religious woman trying to preach to her. Just last year at least twice Jehovah's Witnesses knocked on our door. This year our orthodox church convinced the parliament to start working on abortion banning laws. You want to compare this kind of jamming with personal blogs and youtube videos that atheists make? Christians let people decide if they want to be Christians or not, and we respect their decesions even if they say no. And that's why they insist 10 commandments to be hanging in US schools and public prayers to their Christian god. Right. At least Christians help out the community, versus Atheists who sit all day long trying to disprove something they know exists. Unproven bold statement. Pastors are willing to give everything to help one family of the church, Richard Dawkins doesn't care for anyone other than himself. Another one, highly generalized unsupported claim. And why compare pastors (a group of people) to Richard Dawkins (one person)? If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in morals. So you're better off commiting crimes, why would you care? The golden rule was discovered by people long before it was found in Bible. Morals existed before Christianity. Thats a fact. People are better off not committing crimes simply because then they have a better chance of survival in a society where crime is condemned. If you TRULY don't believe in God, then you'd just go on with your daily life. I am. This is one of the topics I write about. And if you believe in god, you should be seeing everything as part of his divine plan and thus, maybe be a little bit less aggressive, try and love your enemies, etc. Sounds like something Jesus would do. |
|
14-04-2012 Sounds like a defensive Christian to me..It's difficult when our beliefs are challenged, no? That's the problem with living from dogma. The insecurity it breeds.. the subconscious knowing that it is false.. produces an incredible forward motive force that impels the believer to evangelize and defend. The same happens in mental illness: the need to pull others in to not feel alone. The crusades and inquisition came from the same human feeling, only on a larger scale. |
[ link ] |
14-04-2012
The crusades and inquisition came from the same human feeling, only on a larger scale. Ernest Becker explains this insecurity and touchiness in the sphere of religious beliefs by the fact that the individual's illusion of immortality is being threatened. Thats why the hatered towards the members of other death-denying clubs. Everyone from a different religion puts your own into question. They can't all be right. On the other hand, if you convert/eliminate all the members of other religions, the anxiety will subside. So you go on a crusade. I think religious people become hostile when they start doubting their own beliefs, someone has actually succeeded in shaking them, so now they are angry because they don't want to lose their faith, but in the same time find themselves unable to completely turn off the voice of reason. |
|
20-05-2012 Well said. It's true, for all the good that religious organizations have done, religion does more harm than good. Primarily because it teaches people to believe in things that are not reasonable, nor supported by evidence. |
|
21-05-2012 Atheists are believers as much as non atheists. Atheists have a belief of what god is, and then they say 'this belief that I have, I don't believe' |
[ link ] |
21-05-2012
Then we're also all are the believers in ghosts, bigfoots, chupakabras and UFOs. |
|
21-05-2012 Yes, in a sense you are right. The point is though that it is not possible to address the fundamental human problem with 'beliefs'. Because a belief is fundamentally insecure.Security is in understanding what is. Either something is to be understood or it is to be believed. You can see the absurdity of common thinking in that people are happy to discuss 'God' without ever defining it. And since everyone has there own definition it's rather absurd. You can ask someone "do you belief in God" and they are happy to answer, when really the only answer you can give to a question like that is "please define what you mean by God". |
[ link ] |
21-05-2012
Either something is to be understood or it is to be believed. Theres the third - suspending judgement. Acknowledging the limits of your understanding. Also, accepting insecurity as part of existence. |
|
21-05-2012 I'm not sure how you mean 'judgement'. Many people in the past judge concepts like 'black holes' to be nonsense. But it was never a subject of judgement it was a matter of knowledge. Judgement is only a matter for courts.You cannot say insecurity is part of existence until you have made a genuine inquiry. Maybe it is maybe not. If not then it would be wise check first because it's the difference between living a good life and living a life of suffering. |
[ link ] |
21-05-2012
I mean evaluations. It is much more wise to suspend evaluating something you have too little information about. If a part of the box is hidden behind the curtain, and you still want to describe the whole box, even though you only can see a part of it - this is silly. The honest thing to do is to say 'we have too little information to conclude what the whole box is at the moment'. Clearly, you're unable to do that. You have to think you have knowledge and clarity on all possible questions. (judging from your other comments) Insecurity is part of existence from the 1st day a child is born. Fear and pain are ingrained in us. Later on we grow up and want to deny our insecurity because it feels better, and we're just animals driven towards pleasure away from pain. |
|
22-05-2012 "Atheists are believers as much as non atheists. Atheists have a belief of what god is..."Iconoclast, you are mixing up belief and religious faith. Atheists do not have faith in any god, but they do have a concept in mind of what religious people mean when they use the term, perhaps an accurate concept, perhaps not. I would say that most atheists are agnostic on the nature or existence of god. They don't have faith that god does not exist, they simply don't want to waste time with such an unlikely possibility, until such time as some evidence comes to light. At least, that's how I feel about it. As far as "the difference between living a good life and living a life of suffering", I have been much more relaxed and happy since I was able to give up trying to reconcile the idea of a loving god, the picture presented of that god in the Bible, and reality. I wish you could experience the joy I feel not having to pretend to have "the assurance of salvation." |
|
22-05-2012 Hi Steven.>>but they do have a concept in mind And this concept is still a belief. It's a subtle point. However even without defining god it's possible to eliminate god by dividing the world up between "I" and "not I". There is not third thing, if you say 'what about god', well then if god is either you or not you, either way they both reduce down to the original two things. To live a good life one only needs to be honest and use commonly sensed ethics. However there is nothing wrong with religion per se. People perform good actions or bad actions with or without religion. |
|
07-07-2012 "I will do just that once those who do believe will learn to keep their religion private as well."Those who do hold religious beliefs are so cocooned in those beliefs that they don't notice the prevalence of religious propaganda in their daily lives. So long as the imagery they see is in line with their own beliefs, it hardly registers with them. A poster bearing a religious image or line of scripture is no more remarkable than an advertisement for a new car. If they see one sign or image of an atheistic nature, then all of a sudden there is a co-ordinated attack on God under-way. It as a form of confirmation bias, in my opinion. As a way of supporting their own beliefs it is common to point out those who believe differently. And as non-believers are the ones most likely to be pushing for civil rights such as contraception, abortion, gay marriage etc (at least in their eyes) they are primed to see an 'atheist agenda' everywhere. They may hear a lot about atheism, and if they want to find it there is a lot of atheist activism to be found, but they seem to forget or ignore the fact that they did actually have to seek it out. It is incredibly rare to find atheists openly advertising themselves in public. But because these religious people are so primed to think that their way of life is under attack, they fail to see how proportionally miniscule examples of atheist advertising or proselytising actually are. In the medium sized town where I live (Bray, Ireland) there are dozens of places of worship, two exclusively Christian graveyards, a dedicated Christian bookshop, Mormons and JW's calling to houses, Church newsletters posted through the letterbox, several Catholic primary and secondary schools and religious charities. We don't even have an atheist group of our own here, nor have I ever seen any anti-religious messages anywhere. Yet I occasionally read in the local papers about the rise of atheism and why it needs to be opposed for fear of society crumbling into an immoral wasteland. I'm planning on creating a simple and non-offensive atheistic advertisement here soon on a piece of public ground that is often used to convey political messages and protest signs etc. These signs rarely receive any overt criticism, even when they are sometimes nationalistic or divisive in nature. I'm very curious to see what the reaction will be. I would be happily surprised if it was similarly ignored. But no doubt some will see this lone example as the latest assault on the poor, down-trodden, embattled, persecuted religious majority. Time will tell. |
[ link ] |
07-07-2012
Thanks for your comment, DaithiDublin, I agree, and good luck with your advertisement) |
|
22-08-2012 !! this comment was moved here from "Is universal harmony worth the tears of one tortured child?" due to irrelevance to the question raised there. !!I read the first excerpt and could not continue, simply because the notion of further cruelties of that sort could only escalate and be more disheartening. There is very clear reason why the world has progressed so far as it has to this point, and that is the mass conviction that moral has always been dictated from something greater than anyone man, or group of men. No matter how much might, lack of moral could not trump right. This is the one key item that all leaders have feared of their populaces since time eternal. Anger God (or Gods, if we speak of other traditions), and the ruler is no longer right with the higher power, and if the morals dictated by such a power are crossed, then the consequence was usually terrible for the transgressor. Many tyrants have been destroyed at the hands of those who said no more. God, morality, rules passed down from something greater than us, these things are the foundations and structures upon which we have hung the world we live in so to speak. Why do we know to not murder? Why do we know to not torture? Why do we know to not steal? It was not a powerful ruler that, with sword in his hand, decreed that this was to be the way of the world. Most rulers would gladly see the religions and scriptures of the world disappear, Stalin, Mao, and I only name the most obvious. It serves no purpose for a government or a group in power to be dictated to by the masses on certain limiting factors that protect the interests of those not in power. This premise has been the only reason for expansion of freedom in the world. The belief by the masses that they are entitled to certain equalities is only found in the doctrine of religion. There is no other place, except a few recent authors that just piggy back off the ideals already espoused by religion, where the premise of our RIGHT to certain basic tenants of individual freedom are found or can be justified. Without the confines of a morality imposed upon us without the influence of man’s whim to twist it to his own means, a hundred years (just a number, not quoting any scripture or none such) after religion is erased from the planet there shall come the men who will use logic to impose upon man the most terrible and horrifying circumstances imaginable, all in the name of science, the benefit of mankind, and the well being of us all. Once children are convinced that there are indeed men and women who ARE superior to them by virtue of genes and capabilities, and they are subject to the whims and occurrences that appears in those people’s minds, then we are all doomed to a world where those of privilege will be justified to do whatever they say is best, simply because the evidence supports it. An egoless society with no trappings of individual greatness would be much like ant colony, far more superior in terms of survivability, and it would mean a tiny elite class and vast disposable working class. Ironically enough, the social construct described there is NOT too far off the mark of many puritan colony attempts in America, but with the exception that they answered to God, not another man, and thus they were humble, even with each other, and the PRIVELEDGE of governance was born by the people to an individual that best represented the ideals held by that group, and it was not dictated by one man, or a few, but rather the Bible. The mere notion of a world where mankind decides what is right and wrong is a truly scary thing. Politicians and business men who claim to be within a moral framework of governance based upon Judeo-Christian values can hardly be trusted, as they break the social contract of what is right and wrong all the time now. Allow these same men and women to dictate right and wrong and I hope, for all our sakes, that something terrible occurs to us and we all die before the afflictions and sufferings of such a world could be felt upon my children, and the children to come. Mankind is a worthless lot when it comes to being decent, and the only thing that has kept most of us in check is the threat of a greater being who can punish our transgressions, without the fear of man of these things, mankind will be free to exact upon each other whatever the powerful dictate and the world will have no reason to argue it. Might will make right, knowledge will be the only power, not wisdom, and decency will be nothing more than a quaint historical mind set. You seem like a very decent lady, and I know you must have a great deal of faith in people, the world, and the promise of a future that can only be better if we were better to one another, but I fear history has proven time and again, that while religion is the impetus for much of man’s suffering, it is only because those in power of it seek to twist it to their ends, invoking the good of God to cover the evils of man. . . (cont) |
[ link ] |
23-08-2012
Why do we know to not murder? Why do we know to not torture? Why do we know to not steal? Having existed for some half a million years on this planet, I think it is almost inevitable for our species to figure these questions out, no? How? From expirience. Those who were persistent in killing and steeling from one another died out, cooperative tribes survived. Evolution. Even animals have some basic ground rules for cooperation, they have reciprocity (you feed my kids today - i feed yours tomorrow, if you don't - i don't) It was not a powerful ruler that, with sword in his hand, decreed that this was to be the way of the world. Most rulers would gladly see the religions and scriptures of the world disappear, Stalin, Mao, and I only name the most obvious. It serves no purpose for a government or a group in power to be dictated to by the masses on certain limiting factors that protect the interests of those not in power. It does serve their interests to have population believe smth they themselves can reject. Putin does very well today with Orthodox Church, they rub each other's backs. Ahmadinejad, other arab rulers have no problem with religious population. Napoleon Bonaparte once said 'Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich'. That's pretty convenient for the ruling class, isn't it? And yet, were the majority of Hitler's army atheists? How does religious conviction prevents wars? It doesn't. Every side embarks on a killing mission with a conviction of God being on their side. All those religious serial killers do the same: they convince themselves God approves of what they're doing. Are you familiar with the study that concluded believers subconsciously endow God with their own beliefs on controversial issues? It once again explains how it's possible to be religious and act in whichever way one chooses. Religion doesn't really set boundaries. What is preventing people from hurting each other is empathy that we feel. Both believers and atheists have empathy, because we're all people. Even animals have empathy (even though for them it is only species-specific, humans empathy spreads to other species). You seem like a very decent lady, and I know you must have a great deal of faith in people, the world, and the promise of a future that can only be better if we were better to one another Wrong. I have little faith in people. I'm just doing what I feel like doing and talk about what matters for me anyway. |
|
22-08-2012 . . . (cont) One has nothing to do with the other, and I am always disheartened when I have to admit that the very church I am a part of is part and parcel in the suffering of so many, but the fact remains that tenants of faith, especially when viewed with the prism of the New Testament, is clearly superior to any contrived humanistic moral imperative. The absoluteness of religious moral is obviously superior to the subjective opinion of morality of any one individual because it imparts no bias to the whims and desires of the person declaring the morality of it. Let one person dictate, that by human measures, their beliefs are in the best interest for everyone, and we are as good as cattle from that point on. People need to be aware of and be clear on the fact that if a story such as the one above can be told, it can happen, and happen over and over again, a crueler tales can also be told and exist as well, and without the moral confines of a religious nature to dictate bad and good behavior, those tales of cruelty could be allowed, even encouraged, or one day be seen as necessary and good for the greater population. Madness is only a subjective insight. If we believe it is alright to use live test subjects to study the effects of medical procedures because the suffering of one will benefit the many, we cannot call this madness, we call this moral now. These things are too long to list, but rest assured we could hardly recognize a world without God in the future from the one we know today, and suffering would be so great, greater than in any other time, that death would be preferable to existence.Now, I know I will not sway you from your point of view towards religion with this, but DO NOT be so quick to discount it’s benefits upon society, because if you are here and writing about it openly on the web, it’s because Ronald Reagan believed whole heartedly that Communism was and evil that had to be destroyed, and it was the enemy of all free people everywhere, and while he did not drop a single bomb on Russia, he fought a bloodless battle that finally broke the Kremlin’s financial back. You don’t have to believe in God, but you need to know that those who do have an effect upon this world that is both great and in the best interest of each and every one of us. They can believe in whatever faith they wish, so long as it holds the promise of self determination here, and in the next life we are to be judged for it. When we have NO recourse to our future except accountability for our actions, we tend to see things very differently from a trite and capricious existence that is marked with nothingness afterwards. Many people have been held in check by this and hopefully this NEVER changes, or else. |
[ link ] |
23-08-2012
I am always disheartened when I have to admit that the very church I am a part of is part and parcel in the suffering of so many, but the fact remains that tenants of faith, especially when viewed with the prism of the New Testament, is clearly superior to any contrived humanistic moral imperative. Superior how? Superior to the declaration of human rights? Slavery was never condemned in Bible, it was humans finally figuring out that we should abolish that practice and treat everyone equally. The absoluteness of religious moral is obviously superior to the subjective opinion of morality of any one individual because it imparts no bias to the whims First, religious moral is nothing more than human moral, there is no evidence it has descended from heaven, it was a human creation. And even if it was of a higher origin, what good is that when people still interpret it in 1001 different ways, as I've just pointed out above - by subconsciously asking themselves what would they do and then concluding thats exactly what Jesus would do also.
Benefits should be weighed against harm. The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift. Too little too late, don't you think? They can believe in whatever faith they wish, so long as it holds the promise of self determination here, and in the next life we are to be judged for it. Get acquainted with Terror Management Theory, it explains how religious wars get started. Religion divides. We should evolve to the next stage where we realize we shouldn't hurt one another simply because it hurts, not because an angry dad will punish us for misdeeds. |
|
23-08-2012 I think the above comment(s) by Fleghorn should be held up as the perfect example of why atheists attack religion. |
Comments to Why do atheists attack religion