Atheists: why the Christians?

[Looncall]

Perception and memory should not be given an much importance as Atheists claim they should be , because there is evidence that they are imperfect , limited and prone to distortion. They , along with reason and introspection should be used to verify axioms of all-perfect and all-knowing being. Since we don't have complete knowledge , we start with the words of the person who has complete knowledge and use the limited tools of perception , memory , reason and testimonies we have to verify those axioms.

Why would anyone take the existence of such a being as axiomatic? I would think such a notion would require very solid evidence to be believed. Otherwise, it is just so much superstition.

 

[Meow Mix]

If somebody ignores an evidence , even if anecdotal , that doesn't match his belief so as to keep the belief intact , makes him intellectually dishonest. A logical and an intellectually honest response should be to change the belief to confirm to the evidence. Actually , rather than ignoring , an intellectually inquisitive person will vigorously pursue any evidence which is against his belief.

Anecdotal evidence isn't ignored, it's just insufficient. A pulley is useless without a rope, in other words: a rope is the primary thing which holds the weight of some object; and the pulley just contributes to the effort. Likewise, some primary justifier is the "rope" whereas anecdote is the "pulley." It's secondary; it supports stronger forms of justification but isn't a strong enough source of justification in itself to carry any weight.

 

[Meow Mix]

Perception and memory should not be given an much importance as Atheists claim they should be , because there is evidence that they are imperfect , limited and prone to distortion. They , along with reason and introspection should be used to verify axioms of all-perfect and all-knowing being. Since we don't have complete knowledge , we start with the words of the person who has complete knowledge and use the limited tools of perception , memory , reason and testimonies we have to verify those axioms.

How do you propose knowing that there is an all-perfect and all-knowing being without first using perception to read its words, memory to remember them, introspection to digest them (from your memory), testimony from the being itself, and reason to determine that the being does in fact exist -- along with reason to determine whether the testimony is in fact that being's?

In other words, do you not realize that what you proposed is utterly self-refuting?

 

[Nooj]

Why should atheists attack religions in the first place? Most Christians don't attack Judaism or Islam or Buddhism. They've got more important things to do than to 'disprove' a religion.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Why should atheists attack religions in the first place?

Maybe because they are tired of living in societies in which certain groups are given special priveleges and are in a position to bully others around, all based on their belief in a thousands of years old fairy tale?

 

[Nooj]

You don't need to disprove a religion to remove it from your personal life or your nation's politics. Secularism =/= anti-theism or atheism.

Trying to disprove a religion is a fruitless task and it's not even a good idea.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You don't need to disprove a religion to remove it from your personal life or your nation's politics. Secularism =/= anti-theism or atheism.

Trying to disprove a religion is a fruitless task and it's not even a good idea.

I don't think anyone is out to necessarily 'disprove' any religions.
To do that one would have to disprove the existence of god(s), and seeing as disproving the existence of anything is logically impossible, that seems a fruitless endeavour.
However, showing the ridiculousness of religion is a different matter, and pointing out that it should have no say in how we run our schools, our judicial systems, our science and our societies in general is indeed a task that needs doing.
Norway and Sweden are good examples of places where secularism has won out over theism, but it still requires a watchful eye to make sure religion doesn't rear its head again, and these countries are more of the exception than the norm when compared to many countries in the world.

 

[Erebus]

Maybe because they are tired of living in societies in which certain groups are given special priveleges and are in a position to bully others around, all based on their belief in a thousands of years old fairy tale?

I hear this said a lot and I get the anger, but what's the point of bringing that anger here? Do something in your country to change it, use that anger somewhere it'll make a difference. All it does here is make people think "Oh great, somebody else has spotted a nasty Bible quote and devoted an entire thread to it."
I'm not going to name anybody (and you're not among them jarofthoughts, your quote just reminded me of my point is all) but there are a handful of atheists who do nothing more than make snarky comments about theists. I don't think any other group on this forum has ever out and out told me that they're right and I'm wrong. I've never been called stupid, lazy or deluded by any other group and I've never felt like somebody was actively trying to convert me other than a handful of hardcore anti-theists.
It's a small group, but they make a lot of noise. Furthermore the noise they make is a disturbing parallel of the rhetoric of the fundamentalist theists (who incidentally, usually get banned very quickly) they claim to oppose.

By all means, debate, criticise and even argue. Just stop spouting the same rhetoric, it's honestly as boring as seeing somebody spout scripture. This is a Religious Education forum, save the propaganda for somewhere it might be useful.

(Like I say jarofthoughts, I'm not talking about you here. Just a rant I thought pertinent to the thread)


*Edit* I will say that the boards have been infinitely better than they were a few months ago. This is an improvement that needs to be kept up though

 

[waitasec]

You don't need to disprove a religion to remove it from your personal life or your nation's politics. Secularism =/= anti-theism or atheism.

Trying to disprove a religion is a fruitless task and it's not even a good idea.

i don't think it that so much as it is to point out their hunger for control...and where that comes from.

 

[Meow Mix]

Why should atheists attack religions in the first place? Most Christians don't attack Judaism or Islam or Buddhism. They've got more important things to do than to 'disprove' a religion.

Since atheists aren't a group and I can't speak for them, I will speak for myself. I "attack" any sort of irrationality in the sense that I attempt to get people to try to justify their superstitions. Religion isn't any more special to "attack" (I prefer "critique") than astrology, alchemy, palm reading, etc. It does tend to justify more atrocities than regular superstitions; but jarofthoughts has already taken this line of argument.

You don't need to disprove a religion to remove it from your personal life or your nation's politics. Secularism =/= anti-theism or atheism.

Trying to disprove a religion is a fruitless task and it's not even a good idea.

Oh I certainly don't seek to remove religion altogether (though wouldn't mind if people chose to do that for themselves). I agree that a nation can be secular without being anti-theist. In fact I wouldn't support a nation that was anti-theist any more than I would support a theocracy because I believe in freedom and justice for all.

I disagree that critiquing religion is fruitless. It's my belief that religious thought is superstitious thought (i.e., epistemically unjustified) and that the world would be a vastly better place without such irrational behavior. Note that I don't equate religion per se to violence but rather superstitious thought (of which religion is a sub-form) to violence: I understand the argument that even if religion were wiped out that humans would find something else to fight about; but I think the tendancy would be much less apparent if humans were better at knowing how to think rationally rather than engaging in superstitious thought.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Just to expand a little on Meow's argument above, religious thought tends to focus around absolutes, such as perfect beings, absolute truths, deadly sins, absolute morality, perfect mindsets, heaven vs hell, good vs evil, and so on and so forth.
And while I am not in any way claiming that this is how all religious people think, it is nonetheless a very divisive way of thinking and well suited to conclusions of the 'us vs them' kind. And a lot of the problems we have today, and have had over the course of history, can be traced back some form of 'us vs them' mode of thinking.
When, as many religions do, one claims absolute authority on anything, that shuts the door on any other view, let alone criticism of the views one already hold, which can be a very dangerous thing.
Personally I find that it helps to temper one's views and opinions in friendly discourse with others and to never accept that I know all there is to know about any subject. Claiming access to absolute anything, be it morality, knowledge or whatnot, is a faulty and potentially catastrophic proposition.

 

[Meow Mix]

Claiming access to absolute anything, be it morality, knowledge or whatnot, is a faulty and potentially catastrophic proposition.

Is that absolutely the case?

Just kidding. But in seriousness, there are some knowable absolutes -- the difference between those and claimed religious absolutes is that some are justifiable (and infinitely so).

For instance, the efficacy of self-identity, that thought exists in the cogito ergo sum, etc.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Is that absolutely the case?

Just kidding. But in seriousness, there are some knowable absolutes -- the difference between those and claimed religious absolutes is that some are justifiable (and infinitely so).

For instance, the efficacy of self-identity, that thought exists in the cogito ergo sum, etc.

Fair enough.
But then again, if the religious people we're talking about here knew and understood the logical and philosophical basis for that statement, we probably wouldn't have all these problems.

Also, that statement is one of inclusion rather than exclusion.
The main point I was trying to make above was not so much whether such absolutes exist or not but what the notion of them are used for, which is a kind of black and white type of thinking that usually separates one group from another on rather arbitrary terms.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I focus on Christians because they're more of an immediate threat. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, New Agers, etc don't have strong political power in the United States (where I live), but Christians do, and are often very aggressive in trying to make America into a theocracy.

Wow, so much misunderstanding contained in one sentence. Which part of your life is "threatened" by Christianity and where did you come up with that bit of rubbish about Christians wanting to turn America into a theocracy? Do you know what a theocracy is?

 

[crystalonyx]

I can understand the reasoning for not believing in any sort of deity. However, it seems to me that most of the time atheists focus only on how wrong Christianity is, forgoing other religions. It isn't often that you see atheists saying how ridiculous Buddhism or Sikhism or Hinduism or whatever is. Why is that?
To clarify, this is TOTALLY not a "stop picking on the Christians" thread. D: I just noticed a pattern.

It probably depends upon what society the atheist was brought up in. In the U.S., the dominant religion is Christianity, so Christianity is more likely to come up in religious-atheist conversations.

 

[waitasec]

Wow, so much misunderstanding contained in one sentence. Which part of your life is "threatened" by Christianity and where did you come up with that bit of rubbish about Christians wanting to turn America into a theocracy?

from what i can tell we have issues with:
homosexuality:serving openly in the military
and same sex marriages

abortion:
right to choose
right to use contraceptives

creationism being taught as a science
euthanasia
a right to proclaim atheism on a bus ad or a billboard
there was a time an atheist couldn't testify in a court of law
and a politician who proclaims to be an atheist pretty much commits political suicide....

there's the the insertion of "under god" in the pledge between "one nation" and "indivisible", which interestingly enough divided the nation...because it became about liberty and justice for the majority and not for all.
and there's "one nation under god"
written in our currency

Do you know what a theocracy is?

theocracy
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

so really...we are not supposed to question or scrutinize the idea of god...why?
because you're not....


hope i clarified it for you...

 

[Meow Mix]

Fair enough.
But then again, if the religious people we're talking about here knew and understood the logical and philosophical basis for that statement, we probably wouldn't have all these problems.

Also, that statement is one of inclusion rather than exclusion.
The main point I was trying to make above was not so much whether such absolutes exist or not but what the notion of them are used for, which is a kind of black and white type of thinking that usually separates one group from another on rather arbitrary terms.

This I'll completely agree with. That is a huge problem with many forms of religion; though happily there are exceptions of course.

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

Yes, the Christian background of many Western societies would have to play a part in this. I kind of wish they would broaden their horizons and include other religions, though. It would certainly make debate much more interesting!

I think if you look close enough, you will see that Christianity has already broadened its horizons. I've conversed with some self proclaimed Christians who sounded an awful lot like atheists.

 

[Nooj]

I disagree that critiquing religion is fruitless. It's my belief that religious thought is superstitious thought (i.e., epistemically unjustified) and that the world would be a vastly better place without such irrational behavior. Note that I don't equate religion per se to violence but rather superstitious thought (of which religion is a sub-form) to violence: I understand the argument that even if religion were wiped out that humans would find something else to fight about; but I think the tendancy would be much less apparent if humans were better at knowing how to think rationally rather than engaging in superstitious thought.

I didn't mean fruitless in that way, although I don't think that the world would be a vastly better place without irrational behaviour, superstitions or religions. I say that it's fruitless because you're not likely to convert or deconvert anyone. Even if by some miracle you do convince someone to abandon their religion and take up yours or lack thereof, that's one person. You've hardly saved the world. I much prefer to spend that amount of time doing something else.

I don't think religion is necessarily harmful to the believer or non-believer, so I have no incentive to try to convince religious people that I'm right and they're wrong. What's more, I don't know if I'm right, so what am I going to tell them?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

from what i can tell we have issues with:
homosexuality:serving openly in the military
and same sex marriages

abortion:
right to choose
right to use contraceptives

creationism being taught as a science
euthanasia
a right to proclaim atheism on a bus ad or a billboard
there was a time an atheist couldn't testify in a court of law
and a politician who proclaims to be an atheist pretty much commits political suicide....

there's the the insertion of "under god" in the pledge between "one nation" and "indivisible", which interestingly enough divided the nation...because it became about liberty and justice for the majority and not for all.
and there's "one nation under god"
written in our currency

Ok, now, as I asked, which part of your life is threatened by these issues?

theocracy
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

Well, Merriam-Webster.com defines it as:
: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

Now, since no Christian is running for office that I know of who is claiming to be the "immediate divine guidance" then that doesn't apply.

If following Scriptural principles in making decisions that do not violate the Constitution, either Federal or local, then we have had that kind of "theocracy" since our beginning.

so really...we are not supposed to question or scrutinize the idea of god...why?
because you're not....

And what makes you assume that?

hope i clarified it for you...

Not one bit.