Always Atheism vs Christianity?

[nash8]

I've been down this path a million times. Atheism as I would probably assume you agree, is the lack of a belief in god not the direct disbelief in god. The vast majority of athesits are Agnostic Atheists and this insistent need for people to force the idea of Atheist to mean a BELIEF in anything ranges from grasping at straws to pure blatent lie.

What is the difference between lack of belif and disbelief in you opinion? From my own perspective, I don't qulify agnostics as athiests.

Its very important to set aside the meaning of these words.

While were at, it let's set aside the meaning of all words, so noone understands anything that anyone else is saying.

I am now officially an athiest who holds a firm belief in the existence of God.

Your talking about Ignostic. I find Ignostic tends to be a subsection of Atheist in most cases. Its more or less a more specific need to define what god is and most Ignostic want to stress the idea that we haven't defined what god is so they can't say anything in a broad statement. While I respect this point of view I also find it tedious and rather fruitless in conversations.

Yeah, the lack of clarity in the concept that you are speaking about is clearly fruitless.

Baseball is awesome, I love the idea of throwing and/or running an egg shaped brown ball with laces in order to reach a designated area on a 120 x 53 yard rectangle of grass and/or astroturf in order to score 6 points, or alternatively to reach a specific area where I can kick said "ball" through two yellow posts in order to score 3 points.

You said that noone get's to decide the definition of an athiest, so I proposed on the other side, who get's to decide the definition of a thiest?

The discussion of politics, and it's role in the banking and corporate industry in conversation for the large majority of people is tedious and fruitless in my opinion. However I don't deem it unimportant.

The reason I say *you* don't get to decide is because someone showed you the definition and you merely responded with " I don't believe that " as if it were some sort of rebuttle. It is not a rebuttle.

My rebuttle is that in order to decide something that the general criteria of what something is or isn't must be decided prior to the beginning of the discussion/debate.

The criteria of God is not so general or simple where it doesn't merit some sort of criteria before discussion in my opinion. If my concept of God is my T.V. and your concept of God is an all-powerful sentinent being, but neither of us knows what the other's view of God is, of course we're going to disagree on it's existence.

If someone believed God was a pink elephant on earth, I would most assuredly agree that it didn't exist, or at the least that there was no evidence that it existed. But if someone said that they themselves were God, and I was talking to them at that moment, I would definitely agree that their conception of God existed, but I would deny that "they" were actually God dependent on my own criteria of what constitutes "God" from my perspective.

There is a general concensus as to what god is in most normal every day conversation. If you wish to make a more definite definition then thats fine. If you want me to make it more specific what I "don't believe" then I can do so. However that means your position has to stop being Ignostic further in this specific conversation.

I have yet to see that consensus of what God is in most everday normal conversation, unless you constitue God in the sense of the Christian view which is predominate in "my" everyday conversation independent of this forum. And even with that there is no definition that I have gathered as a general consensus. Is God a man, or is he beyond being a man, or is he both a man and beyond being a man at the same time?

I am an atheist in that every claim of god that has been brought to my attention lacks evidence enough for me to accept the claim. I am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't have any specific or set definition for god except for those that have brought me claims and I have to work within those. Beyond that the thought of god dosen't even persist in my daily life.

I personally don't except agnosticism as athiesm per the dictionary defintion of athiesm. Agnosticism excepts that a God may or may not exist, athiesm says, from my perspective, that no God exists regardless of the definition.

My definition of God is the universe, and all that is contained within it. At any specific point in time some part of the universe, including myself, governs every action and/or thought that I think. The only thing is that each part of the universe varies in it's ability to decide my actions, when I'm hungry at 2 in the morning, taco bell governs the majority of my actions, when I'm horny my girl dominates the majority of my actions, but then, with all of these actions, my brain and/or myself governs how I react to all of these external forces, so in a sense I am a God of myself. I could choose not to eat, or not to get laid just as easily as I could choose to do these things.

Then you have to factor in how much do external sources affect my decisions. With the growth of "quantum mind" theories and such, and the fact that we don't know what emits certain frequencies of light, and how those frequencies of light directly effect our brain and thus our actions, we can't really say conclusively how much external "lifeforms" affect our existence. My goal is to figure out how and how much they do and act accordingly to the laws of the natural universe.

Read above. The concept of god is such a vague thing that it requires more definition in what your talking about. So far anything beyond what we currently "know" or have evidence for doesn't hold up to reason for me to grand it "belief".

So in one post you say that discussion of the definition of the concept of God doesn't is fruitlesss and meticulous, but then you go on to say that discussion of such concept needs more definition?

I would agree with you though. We don't currently have the information to designate something as the totallity of God. That's why I choose to designate the universe and all contained within it as God. It may not be precise, but is no less effective.

You may choose to call it by any name you choose... the universe, reality, or whatever else. The difference for me is the recognition that the particular concpetion possesses the ability to affect everything you do, which I think God generally conveys, where as the universe and/or reality does not convey generally speaking of course.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What is the difference between lack of belif and disbelief in you opinion? From my own perspective, I don't qulify agnostics as athiests.

Lack of belief means what it means. It is someone who lacks a belief in something. A disbelief or active belief in the opposite or belief that something is untrue is not the same thing as simply "lacking belief". If someone were to present evidence for god I would believe in god. However evidence has not been provided.

Agnostic merely means that you don't claim to "know". You can be agnostic about a lot of things but Agnostic doesn't mean some strange vague middle ground between theist and atheist.

While were at, it let's set aside the meaning of all words, so noone understands anything that anyone else is saying.

I am now officially an athiest who holds a firm belief in the existence of God.

That was a typo on my part. I meant *Set up* not Set aside. Another good word to use in the situation is Assign. "make sure that both parties understand the definition and context of the vocabulary". My bad.

Yeah, the lack of clarity in the concept that you are speaking about is clearly fruitless.

Baseball is awesome, I love the idea of throwing and/or running an egg shaped brown ball with laces in order to reach a designated area on a 120 x 53 yard rectangle of grass and/or astroturf in order to score 6 points, or alternatively to reach a specific area where I can kick said "ball" through two yellow posts in order to score 3 points.

You said that noone get's to decide the definition of an athiest, so I proposed on the other side, who get's to decide the definition of a thiest?

The discussion of politics, and it's role in the banking and corporate industry in conversation for the large majority of people is tedious and fruitless in my opinion. However I don't deem it unimportant.

When someone says "NOPE. Can't; define it. So can't talk about it" is a rather fruitless and tedious conversation.

And I didn't say "no one" can deside definitions. I am merely saying that your personal definition of atheist doesn't match up with the rest of the world's and you will have to accept that people will not agree with you. Atheist doesn't have to mean a belief in no god. It can and often does mean lack of a belief.

My rebuttle is that in order to decide something that the general criteria of what something is or isn't must be decided prior to the beginning of the discussion/debate.

The criteria of God is not so general or simple where it doesn't merit some sort of criteria before discussion in my opinion. If my concept of God is my T.V. and your concept of God is an all-powerful sentinent being, but neither of us knows what the other's view of God is, of course we're going to disagree on it's existence.

I already explained the context of my atheism. All god claims brought to me do not have ample evidence for acceptance. I don't go around making up god claims. However I can say that so far there has not been an acceptable definition of god presented to me that I can believe in.

If someone believed God was a pink elephant on earth, I would most assuredly agree that it didn't exist, or at the least that there was no evidence that it existed. But if someone said that they themselves were God, and I was talking to them at that moment, I would definitely agree that their conception of God existed, but I would deny that "they" were actually God dependent on my own criteria of what constitutes "God" from my perspective.

This is a semantics battle on the broadest and most absurd of terms. I understand where you are going with this but the same could be said with anything else. For example I could ask you "do you like hotdogs?" and you would assume I meant the general definition of hotdogs. However if I handed you a shoe and said "eat up" then you would look very confused.

We can muddle semantics of what "god" is or we can take the general definition of a supernatural being with different attributes depending on who is the claiment.

I have yet to see that consensus of what God is in most everday normal conversation, unless you constitue God in the sense of the Christian view which is predominate in "my" everyday conversation independent of this forum. And even with that there is no definition that I have gathered as a general consensus. Is God a man, or is he beyond being a man, or is he both a man and beyond being a man at the same time?

I have seen a general consensus with the majority of people on a very base definiton of god. Usually it means supernatural entity that usually has inteligence. Again we can get into wild claims that aren't the norm but that is really beside the point all together. There has yet to be a claim of god (both serious and not serious) that has ample evidence. Ergo I am an atheist.

I personally don't except agnosticism as athiesm per the dictionary defintion of athiesm. Agnosticism excepts that a God may or may not exist, athiesm says, from my perspective, that no God exists regardless of the definition.

Agnostacism says god may or may not exist but it has no bearing on belief. If someone believes in god but doesn't believe its impossible then they are an agnostic atheist. Very simple.

My definition of God is the universe, and all that is contained within it. At any specific point in time some part of the universe, including myself, governs every action and/or thought that I think. The only thing is that each part of the universe varies in it's ability to decide my actions, when I'm hungry at 2 in the morning, taco bell governs the majority of my actions, when I'm horny my girl dominates the majority of my actions, but then, with all of these actions, my brain and/or myself governs how I react to all of these external forces, so in a sense I am a God of myself. I could choose not to eat, or not to get laid just as easily as I could choose to do these things.

Then you have to factor in how much do external sources affect my decisions. With the growth of "quantum mind" theories and such, and the fact that we don't know what emits certain frequencies of light, and how those frequencies of light directly effect our brain and thus our actions, we can't really say conclusively how much external "lifeforms" affect our existence. My goal is to figure out how and how much they do and act accordingly to the laws of the natural universe.

by what definiton of your "god" is different than the "universe". Are they interchangeable?

So in one post you say that discussion of the definition of the concept of God doesn't is fruitlesss and meticulous, but then you go on to say that discussion of such concept needs more definition?

I would agree with you though. We don't currently have the information to designate something as the totallity of God. That's why I choose to designate the universe and all contained within it as God. It may not be precise, but is no less effective.

You may choose to call it by any name you choose... the universe, reality, or whatever else. The difference for me is the recognition that the particular concpetion possesses the ability to affect everything you do, which I think God generally conveys, where as the universe and/or reality does not convey generally speaking of course.

The Ignostic position tends to be tedious and its a fruitless venture to go through each and every possible definition. Thats what I mean by fruitless. All of the fruitful conversation that happens usually happens afterwards. In some cases if we have a different conversation all together (which is defining god) then it can be a good conversation. However its usually a different one than the one we were having now.

 

[nash8]

Lack of belief means what it means. It is someone who lacks a belief in something. A disbelief or active belief in the opposite or belief that something is untrue is not the same thing as simply "lacking belief". If someone were to present evidence for god I would believe in god. However evidence has not been provided.

What would qualify as the active belief in the opposite of the existence of God? Would that not be the the belief that God does not exist? Not gonna lie, this whole athiesm thing confuses me just as much as thiesm does.

Agnostic merely means that you don't claim to "know". You can be agnostic about a lot of things but Agnostic doesn't mean some strange vague middle ground between theist and atheist.

I would agree, but my personal view is that agnosticism concerning the concept of God, does not constitute athiesm from my perspective.

That was a typo on my part. I meant *Set up* not Set aside. Another good word to use in the situation is Assign. "make sure that both parties understand the definition and context of the vocabulary". My bad.

I agree.

When someone says "NOPE. Can't; define it. So can't talk about it" is a rather fruitless and tedious conversation.

LOL, I would agree.

And I didn't say "no one" can deside definitions. I am merely saying that your personal definition of atheist doesn't match up with the rest of the world's and you will have to accept that people will not agree with you. Atheist doesn't have to mean a belief in no god. It can and often does mean lack of a belief.

I still don't understand the diffrence between lack of belief in God, and belief in no God. To me they mean the same thing. No = lack of = not existing in my opinion.

I already explained the context of my atheism. All god claims brought to me do not have ample evidence for acceptance. I don't go around making up god claims. However I can say that so far there has not been an acceptable definition of god presented to me that I can believe in.

You have explained the context of your athiesm, but not the context of the reasons for your athiesm. What qualities and/or apsects of God do we not have evidence for. What would be an acceptable definition for God for you? What qualities would that definition have for you, and not neccesarily that we have evidence that something possesses those qualities.

This is a semantics battle on the broadest and most absurd of terms. I understand where you are going with this but the same could be said with anything else. For example I could ask you "do you like hotdogs?" and you would assume I meant the general definition of hotdogs. However if I handed you a shoe and said "eat up" then you would look very confused.

Most definitely I agree. I would say the general definition of God is all knowing, sentinent, all powerful being.

Would I argue I try to argue that being exists. Most definitely not considering that we don't know what constitutes knowing, nor sentinence within our own being, as far as the last aspect, I would argue that the universe fits that bill nicely. As atleast one aspect of the universe affects you directly at all times. Then you throw in the theory of the holographic universe and things get really crazy.

We can muddle semantics of what "god" is or we can take the general definition of a supernatural being with different attributes depending on who is the claiment.

I agree, the different attributes is the key part in my opinion. Supernatural varies upon context and time. Flying would have been supernatural at one point in time, and still is in certain cultures even today. "Being" on the other hand, I don't neccesarily accept myself based upon human perspective.

I have seen a general consensus with the majority of people on a very base definiton of god. Usually it means supernatural entity that usually has inteligence. Again we can get into wild claims that aren't the norm but that is really beside the point all together. There has yet to be a claim of god (both serious and not serious) that has ample evidence. Ergo I am an atheist.

All hail Pan(en)diesm. Even though I personally am a Pan(en)thiest (why lie, I like the comfort ). I would argue that Pan(en)diesm is the most logical assertation of thiestic thought.

Agnostacism says god may or may not exist but it has no bearing on belief. If someone believes in god but doesn't believe its impossible then they are an agnostic atheist. Very simple.

Interesting, I understand this a little bit.

by what definiton of your "god" is different than the "universe". Are they interchangeable?

As long as the concept of the universe contains some aspect of affecting everything you do then most definitely they are interchangeable.

The Ignostic position tends to be tedious and its a fruitless venture to go through each and every possible definition. Thats what I mean by fruitless. All of the fruitful conversation that happens usually happens afterwards. In some cases if we have a different conversation all together (which is defining god) then it can be a good conversation. However its usually a different one than the one we were having now.

I would agree. I honestly think that ignosticism is the most logically fundamental position, but what's the fun in not embracing the power of being able to define what something is or isn't.

It's not fun to "possibly" agree with everything someone may or may not say concerning God. If everyone was like that we wouldn't have these 1000 page threads debating the existence of God that have veered into just about every subject known to man at some point or another lol.

 

[George-ananda]

- Eastern religion is simply irrelevant to the lives of many westerners. To criticize something, you first have to give it a second thought.

There’s some truth to that. But what are atheists arguing; that there is no God? or are they arguing against what they perceive to be conservative Christianity’s negative influence on society?

The OP is suggesting they spend a lot more energy on the second effort (arguing against conservative Christianity). And I was just agreeing with that.

To the dismay of many RF theists, the atheists only seem to want to mainly argue against the Christian (Abrahamic) God. They talk as if that’s the only God concept there is (and for many that may well be all they know).

- To many, unadulterated Vedic beliefs (as opposed to, say, the diluted, westernized version of them that's passed off as "yoga") come across as so ridiculous that they aren't seen as something that needs to be argued against.

Disagree. If we ask these ‘many’ to explain what they consider to be ‘unadulterated Vedic beliefs’ there would be a great admission of ignorance, not a pointing out of the ridiculousness of such things.

 

[Koldo]

There’s some truth to that. But what are atheists arguing; that there is no God? or are they arguing against what they perceive to be conservative Christianity’s negative influence on society?

The OP is suggesting they spend a lot more energy on the second effort (arguing against conservative Christianity). And I was just agreeing with that.

To the dismay of many RF theists, the atheists only seem to want to mainly argue against the Christian (Abrahamic) God. They talk as if that’s the only God concept there is (and for many that may well be all they know).

I, particularly, live in a society where christianity is by far the main religion. As a christian, the existence of other gods ( other than the christian one ) was always as probable as santa claus. I suspect most people in the western side of the globe feel the same way.

There is hardly any need to debate over the existence of a god when nearly everyone around you ( including yourself ) thinks of it as fictitious.

 

[InChrist]

My perspective is that the main focus of atheist's arguments is Christianity because Jesus Christ is the Creator God, to whom all are accountable, and the only one who can provide salvation and eternal life. I don't think Satan with his anti-Christ agenda is too interested in inspiring human minds against various religions, only the Savior of the world.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Have you ever practiced meditation? If so, what meditations have you practiced?

Yes, Jewish self seclusion (it's a direct tranlation, i really don't know what it's called in English)

As far as the chakras, I think future biophoton research would lend more prevelance to the ideas of chakras.
Biophoton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The body emits light within the spectrum of visible light, the question is, do certain areas of the body tend to emit certain frequencies more regularly than other areas? I think the lack of evidence for this particular phenomenon is due more to lack of research rather than lack of evidence.

I don't think the idea of chakras and the idea of biophotons (which is an interesting hypothesist but at this stage not even very clearly defined) are compatible.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Lack of belief means what it means. It is someone who lacks a belief in something. A disbelief or active belief in the opposite or belief that something is untrue is not the same thing as simply "lacking belief". If someone were to present evidence for god I would believe in god. However evidence has not been provided.

Agnostic merely means that you don't claim to "know". You can be agnostic about a lot of things but Agnostic doesn't mean some strange vague middle ground between theist and atheist.

Literally agnostic means: without knowledge [of god/s]

It's derived from the greek agnostos.

Literally atheist means: without [a belief in] god/s.

It's derived from the greek atheos.

 

[Quintessence]

I posted this recently on my wordpress blog and thought I would pose the question here as well.

"I notice that most (but not all) atheist podcasts, blogs, etc address christianity specifically. It has been a pretty rare occasion for me to hear them address budhhism, hinduism, paganism, etc.

IMHO, you're being too generous here. It drives me positively up the wall that atheist media acts like classical monotheist religions are the only ones out there.

But I don't blame them. It's a heck of a lot harder to justify lack belief or disbelieve in the gods when you look at the entire spectrum of what gods can mean amongst the various world religions. Many of the arguments railed against classical monotheism fail to apply to other theologies. Heck, even some responses I've seen in this thread already make the assumption that gods = supernatural. Nonsense. In fairness, this hardly a problem of atheists in particular. Theists in my country have the exact same problem. They use the word 'religion' as if it's synonymous with classical monotheisms and utterly ignore everything else. This reminds me I need to get back on that crusade I started a while ago and just haven't had time to work on lately.

I do an article for you, though, that flew across my radar recently: Religions of Practice: Someone Now Has a Problem With Them

I know I've seen a couple of others, but they're not coming to mind.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

IMHO, you're being too generous here. It drives me positively up the wall that atheist media acts like classical monotheist religions are the only ones out there.

But I don't blame them. It's a heck of a lot harder to justify lack belief or disbelieve in the gods when you look at the entire spectrum of what gods can mean amongst the various world religions. Many of the arguments railed against classical monotheism fail to apply to other theologies.

This is inherently false, the reason why people react against these religion is because of the believers attempts to institute their religious practices into society, education and law.

I have no problem with whatever it is you believe and no problem with anyone elses PERSONAL faith either.

There is only one argument really, lack of evidence and no, i don't mean the kind of evidence you'll twist into being something it's not, i mean real hard empirical evidence.

 

[Cephus]

Atheists BELIEVE there is no God. Can I be more plain than that? It is their principal doctrine.

You can repeat that until the cows come home, that doesn't make it so and you've been corrected on that misconception time and time again.

 

[ChristineES]

The only religious schools my tax dollars fund are Christian, not Buddhist. My head of state is the head of a Christian church, not a Pagan denomination. It's the Christians, not the Hindus, that picket my local abortion provider. For the most part, the groups that have stood in the way of recent gains in equality and freedom for the LGBT community have been Christian. The most recent outbreaks of serious but preventable diseases in my country have been traced back to anti-vaccination Christian groups, not Jewish communities.

I'll talk about other religions too, but I think it makes sense that Christianity would be the religion that causes me the most concern.

The Christians schools in my area are private schools. Christians aren't the only ones who picket- other people picket places, too. I remember a few years ago some people from PETA protesting the killing of turkeys for Thanksgiving.
People here in California are always finding a reason to protest and most of them are NOT for any religion. Why can't Christians protest, too? Why do you think it's more dangerous for religions to do it?

 

[Quintessence]

This is inherently false, the reason why people react against these religion is because of the believers attempts to institute their religious practices into society, education and law.

I have no problem with whatever it is you believe and no problem with anyone elses PERSONAL faith either.

I'm a little confused. How did we go from talking about specific theology (classical monotheism) to religion? I realize the two are related, but the above is not an issue of belief or knowledge of the gods, or of being a theist or atheist: it's a social issue. I don't quite follow your train of thought here with respect to how it applies to what I said.

 

[ChristineES]

You can repeat that until the cows come home, that doesn't make it so and you've been corrected on that misconception time and time again.

It shouldn't be a doctrine, as doctrines are supposed to be about religions. But I have observed that a small percentage of atheist talk about it like it is a doctrine, I am sure they don't really mean to. Atheists I have known and was friends with in the past didn't talk about atheism at all like it was a religion. The ones that seem to be almost "religious" (for lack of a better term) about it are anti-theists, some of them even "anti-proselytize"- they try to make us poor, delusional theists see reason. It's never happened to me in person and it is a pretty rare thing, but it does happen.

 

[Koldo]

IMHO, you're being too generous here. It drives me positively up the wall that atheist media acts like classical monotheist religions are the only ones out there.

But I don't blame them. It's a heck of a lot harder to justify lack belief or disbelieve in the gods when you look at the entire spectrum of what gods can mean amongst the various world religions. Many of the arguments railed against classical monotheism fail to apply to other theologies. Heck, even some responses I've seen in this thread already make the assumption that gods = supernatural. Nonsense. In fairness, this hardly a problem of atheists in particular. Theists in my country have the exact same problem. They use the word 'religion' as if it's synonymous with classical monotheisms and utterly ignore everything else.

This is more a matter of semantics than anything else.
Most of us have a rough idea of what we could properly call a god even if we can't properly define it with words ( and yes, each of us have different views on this ). When people call themselves atheists it is because they don't believe that anything they ( nor their surrouding society as a whole ) would call a god exists.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I'm a little confused. How did we go from talking about specific theology (classical monotheism) to religion? I realize the two are related, but the above is not an issue of belief or knowledge of the gods, or of being a theist or atheist: it's a social issue. I don't quite follow your train of thought here with respect to how it applies to what I said.

The original question was why Atheists are mainly jumping on Christianity, i gave an explanation of why it is so. You can say that "but that isn't the faith, its the followers" but the answer still stands.

The reason why we don't care about pagan religions or gods is because they are not doing their damnedest to make us.

 

[Quintessence]

This is more a matter of semantics than anything else.
Most of us have a rough idea of what could properly called a god even if we can't properly define it with words. When people call themselves atheists it is because they don't believe that anything they ( nor their surrouding society as a whole ) would call a god exists.

That's fair. I think our vocabulary for philosophy and religion in general is pretty poor; worse than our vocabulary in the sciences. I fault lack of education on that. I mean, my idea of what the word 'god' meant was stupidly narrow for most of my life due to lack of education. As the most diverse nation in the world (including and especially religious diversity), I just have a hard time excusing America's lack of multicultural awareness.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

It shouldn't be a doctrine, as doctrines are supposed to be about religions. But I have observed that a small percentage of atheist talk about it like it is a doctrine, I am sure they don't really mean to. Atheists I have known and was friends with in the past didn't talk about atheism at all like it was a religion. The ones that seem to be almost "religious" (for lack of a better term) about it are anti-theists, some of them even "anti-proselytize"- they try to make us poor, delusional theists see reason. It's never happened to me in person and it is a pretty rare thing, but it does happen.

Doctrines can be about anything, there is political doctrine and economical doctrine.

The whole problem is that people don't get that atheists are not people who deny the existence of god any more than we deny the existence of anything else that is fantastic in it's attributes and has absolutely no evidence for it. We simply don't believe in it.

If there is any doctrine to atheism it's in the workd atheos itself, "without belief in god/s".

What you see people do is actually not anti-theism, it's actually responding to claims made, usually with knowledge that is in evidence. I don't get how this would be anti- anything, it's simply debating.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

That's fair. I think our vocabulary for philosophy and religion in general is pretty poor; worse than our vocabulary in the sciences. I fault lack of education on that. I mean, my idea of what the word 'god' meant was stupidly narrow for most of my life due to lack of education. As the most diverse nation in the world (including and especially religious diversity), I just have a hard time excusing America's lack of multicultural awareness.

But if we are pantheists and rename nature god, does that make any difference?

Of course not, it's still nature no matter what name you apply to it.

 

[ChristineES]

The original question was why Atheists are mainly jumping on Christianity, i gave an explanation of why it is so. You can say that "but that isn't the faith, its the followers" but the answer still stands.

The reason why we don't care about pagan religions or gods is because they are not doing their damnedest to make us.

The way I see it, as a Christian, is that protesters see a small group of Christians or Muslims doing certain things and they then jump on all followers of the faith for it and even the entire faith for it. I don't think that is fair at all. An example might be that a few Christians in one town are trying to get the schools to teach creationism. Most Christians in most towns aren't doing this, but there are people blaming the entire religion for it (I don't think anyone here at RF is doing that, though).