Atheist Views.

[Polymath257]

Yes there is. They typically support homosexuality, abortion, lewdness, poor behaviour, using intoxicants and gambling, for example.

Do all atheists think that? No. But do all theists object to homosexuality? No. Do they all object to abortion? No. And so on.

And, in the case of homosexuality, that is moral *progress* over the religious views. For abortion, most see it as a necessary evil to allow the woman rights over her own body. The use of intoxicants and gambling aren't moral issues at all: while sad or stupid, the moral issue comes when they harm others, not themselves.

 

[stvdv]

Right start a poll see what results you get and then I will explain to you.

I need no explanation on this

 

[Polymath257]

That's one of the reactions. Some other prevalent reactions are insults, ridicule, sarcasm, derailing and bullying.

Rather mild compared to being declared immoral, non-citizens, and subject to the death penalty. Interesting how theists can dish it out, but when a small part comes back to them, they claim extreme harm.

 

[Justanatheist]

I need no explanation on this

 

[F1fan]

Religious people don't just get oppressed by atheists, but by other religious people as well.

When you refer to atheists oppressing theists are you referring to the Chinese and Soviet governments? If so the oppressions wasn't due to atheism, but that the dictatorship saw religion as a threat to their power. Dictators do not like other forms of authority or organization. You can blame the non-theism aspect of these governments as much as you can blame men.

 

[F1fan]

Yes there is. They typically support homosexuality, abortion, lewdness, poor behaviour, using intoxicants and gambling, for example.

Yes, they support Baptists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I understand what you mean. However, my conversation with you was more in regards to the Burden of Proof in a formal debate, without "special exceptions".

In any case, I think I'm starting to get the hang of some of these subjects being talked about in this thread.

I always look to the source of the burden of 'proof' for theists and it always comes from inside that persons head.

I have to respect the effort at least if anything else, as it's not particularly easy to prove what's cavorting around inside ones imagination.

 

[Justanatheist]

Yes there is. They typically support homosexuality, abortion, lewdness, poor behaviour, using intoxicants and gambling, for example.

Do all atheists think that? No. But do all theists object to homosexuality? No. Do they all object to abortion? No. And so on.

So they are not Atheist views they are the views of some atheists and it is not simply because they are atheists that they hold these views.

 

[leroy]

And sometimes it feels that to be part of the theist community you have to be against all that stuff, but that would be just as wrong.

agreed


I am theist and I am pro all that stuff (except for abortion)

Pro Evolution.
Pro Science.
Pro Abortion.
Pro LGBT.
Pro Birth Control.
Pro Vaccinations.
Pro Climate Change.


But I reject abortion because I think it´s wrong to kill innocent humans, this has nothing to do with religion, atheist in general accept this “moral rule” too.

Are you an atheist? Are you pro all that stuff?

 

[Heyo]

Other than lack of belief in gods we may not agree on one single point of our world view(well apart from the welsh rugby team obviously) this is the point that some theists cannot get.

In theory.
Practically atheists are a lot more united in their views than theists - even those of the same denomination.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think I may have bit off more than I can chew with the subject and accidentally gotten myself perceived an Abrahamic fundamentalist or something, when I'm not even Abrahamic. I guess I get what I deserve for not having a more nuanced/understanding view of atheism.

This is to your credit. I don't recall ever seeing any theist learn from atheists in these threads.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim.

Agreed, but I go a little further and add that there is no burden of proof even when making existential claims unless one is trying to convince, and one is dealing with a person willing and able to consider an argument dispassionately and willing and able to be convinced by a compelling argument. Often, we're dealing with people demanding proof, but who have a stake in not believing in what they demand be proved, like the creationists we typically deal with. There is no burden of proof with such a person, because proving is a cooperative effort that requires that both parties are interested in the truth and use reason applied to evidence to determine what that is. If one is dealing with a person who thinks that the way to learn the truth about the world is read and believe scripture, there is no hope of proving that they are wrong even with disproof, so there is no burden to even try.

I think it was just yesterday that I posted that the Christian god has already been ruled out to a creationist, but felt no duty to that person to explain further. I also asserted that the theory of evolution is correct to somebody saying otherwise, with no further explanation. If a critical thinker reading along wanted my argument, I would have provided it, but not to somebody who feigns interest in an argument that they won't even consider and aren't equipped to evaluate even if they did.

if they are not allowed to impose their views on us, then we are imposing our views on them. Their view is that they should be allowed to impose their view.

Exactly. Here are a few things I like on that topic:

“No, you can’t deny women their basic rights and pretend it’s about your ‘religious freedom’. If you don’t like birth control, don’t use it. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.” - President Barack Obama

"The problem with being privileged your whole life is that because you have had that privilege for so long, equality starts to look like oppression." - Mark Caddo

Spoiler: religious liberty quiz

How To Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened In Just 8 Quick Questions

Adapted from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html

Pick "A" or "B" for each question..


1. My religious liberty is at risk because:


A) I am not legally allowed to marry the person I love because of somebody else's religious preferences.

B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.


2. My religious liberty is at risk because:


A) I am being forced to use birth control.

B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.


3. My religious liberty is at risk because:


A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.

B) Public schools won't permit my faith to inject its creation myths into science classes.


4. My religious liberty is at risk because:


A) I am not allowed to pray privately.

B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.


5. My religious liberty is at risk because:


A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.

B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.


6. My religious liberty is at risk because:


A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.

B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not approve of.


7. My religious liberty is at risk because:


A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.

B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources to promote itself


8. My religious liberty is at risk because:


A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.

B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.


Scoring key:


If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little constitutional concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.


If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

Quite simply, if no one ever proposed the existence of any Gods then there would be no atheists, we would all essentially be such but not in name.

Are you familiar with the term retronym? It's similar to what you're describing. Before electric guitars, what we call acoustic guitars today were simply called guitars. Before water skiing, snow skiing was just skiing. Before digital clocks, analog clocks were just clocks.

Yes there is. They typically support homosexuality, abortion, lewdness, poor behaviour, using intoxicants and gambling, for example.

We support free choice where it doesn't harm others. We don't support homosexuality, but rather, the right to be homosexual and not be marginalized and demonized for it based on primitive, irrational bigotries.

We don't support abortion, but rather that the potential mother choose whether she'll bring the pregnancy to fruition rather than some religion deciding for her and imposing its will using the power of the state.

Atheists don't support what they consider lewd, which is not what the theist considers lewd. Their morals are not ours. I imagine that most zealous Abrahamic theists consider homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, abortion, and living as a transsexual immoral.

So, while the theist generally likes to declare that any morals but those in his book are immoral, the atheist understands that Abrahamic homophobia, not homosexuality, is immoral, as is attempting to make your religion the law and making kids pray or study creationism in public schools.

Who is more immoral than white evangelical Christians in America? They supported a president who was a liar, corrupt, vindictive, cruel, and serial adulterer and sexual predator.

 

[Justanatheist]

In theory.
Practically atheists are a lot more united in their views than theists - even those of the same denomination.

That might be so but for me at least your views on those subjects are much more important that whether you believe in a god or not, I would identify much more with a generally pro science theist for instance than an anti science atheist.

 

[Justanatheist]

Agreed, but I go a little further and add that there is no burden of proof even when making existential claims unless one is trying to convince, and one is dealing with a person willing and able to consider an argument dispassionately and willing and able to be convinced by a compelling argument. Often, we're dealing with people demanding proof, but who have a stake in not believing in what they demand be proved, like the creationists we typically deal with. There is no burden of proof with such a person, because proving is a cooperative effort that requires that both parties are interested in the truth and use reason applied to evidence to determine what that is. If one is dealing with a person who thinks that the way to learn the truth about the world is read and believe scripture, there is no hope of proving that they are wrong even with disproof, so there is no burden to even try.

Absolutely, what is the point of providing the burden of proof with someone with these views.

“Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”
— William Lane Craig

Other things that intrigue me are schools, universities and jobs that insist people sign a Declaration of Faith, it is tantamount to you will lie no matter what the evidence might be.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Religious people being oppressed by atheists? Well that is a new one. Unless you mean those who emigrate to countries not generally sharing their religious belief and expecting to change the established ethos as a right? It does tend to be the religious oppressing the non-religious, apart from the more industrialised countries, where freedom to practice whatever they believe (within constraints) exists, and some others where they tend to have less regard for religions. Much else is down to something other than religious beliefs.

So you're not that familiar with the history of the Soviet Union then? It's quite an interesting story actually, that of the Soviets and the Russian Orthodox Church.

In 1941, with the Nazi tanks at the gates of Moscow, Stalin the pragmatic atheist, was wise enough to recognise what a powerful weapon the Russian people's faith in God could be. So he revived the outlawed Orthodox Church; the sacrifice of the Russian people during WWII was extraordinary. It has been said that all people of faith have courage, but few nations have ever shown greater collective courage than Russia between 1941-5

After the war, faith in anything other than atheist political orthodoxy was actively discouraged once more. But religious faith in Russia remained strong.

 

[Shakeel]

So they are not Atheist views they are the views of some atheists and it is not simply because they are atheists that they hold these views.

I disagree.

 

[Shakeel]

When you refer to atheists oppressing theists are you referring to the Chinese and Soviet governments?

No. I'm talking about all oppression of religious people by the irreligious, among which the atheists are.

If so the oppressions wasn't due to atheism, but that the dictatorship saw religion as a threat to their power.

No, if they followed divine commands they wouldn't do what they do. The reason they do is that they have no proper morals.

 

[Justanatheist]

I disagree.

So explain why?

 

[Shakeel]

So explain why?

Because if they believed in God they wouldn't hold those views. Claiming there is no correlation between the views and the belief would be absurd.

 

[Justanatheist]

Because if they believed in God they wouldn't hold those views. Claiming there is no correlation between the views and the belief would be absurd.

But you said in your original post that theist god believers hold those views,

Yes there is. They typically support homosexuality, abortion, lewdness, poor behaviour, using intoxicants and gambling, for example.

Do all atheists think that? No. But do all theists object to homosexuality? No. Do they all object to abortion? No. And so on.

So there is no correlation between those views based on god belief.

 

[Justanatheist]

agreed


I am theist and I am pro all that stuff (except for abortion)

Pro Evolution.
Pro Science.
Pro Abortion.
Pro LGBT.
Pro Birth Control.
Pro Vaccinations.
Pro Climate Change.


But I reject abortion because I think it´s wrong to kill innocent humans, this has nothing to do with religion, atheist in general accept this “moral rule” too.

Are you an atheist? Are you pro all that stuff?

Pretty much. Abortion I am looking into at the moment, it is not as black and white as I used to believe.