Atheists: why the Christians?

[waitasec]

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

you are kidding right?
if any of these reasons affects one person it affect all of us.

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

the·oc·ra·cy (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
theocracy [θɪˈɒkrəsɪ]
n pl -cies
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government by a deity or by a priesthood
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a community or political unit under such government
theocrat n
theocratic , theocratical adj
theocratically adv
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
theocracy
1. a system of government in which God or a deity is held to be the civil ruler; thearchy.
2. a system of government by priests; hagiarchy.
3. a state under such a form of rule.


theocracy - definition of theocracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Definition of THEOCRACY

1
: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2
: a state governed by a theocracy
See theocracy defined for English-language learners »

the·oc·ra·cy /θiˈɑ:krəsi/ noun
plural the·oc·ra·cies
1 [noncount] : a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders
2 [count] : a country that is ruled by religious leaders

Theocracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
i didn't know english was your second language...

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.

apparently you don't know how congress works...

And what makes you assume that?

well it's really interesting when someone voices their opinion that happens to challenge theology, it gets gets censored...
i mentioned there was a time an atheist couldn't testify in court...
and i recall bush senior calling atheists unpatriotic.

 

[tarasan]

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.

I would like to think its because the have a soft spot for us ole' christians

you know cause they love us an all.:hearts:

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

Really? If someone had, say, taught Timothy McVeigh's parents how to think rationally -- or even one of his grandparents, or something -- and they instilled that in his parents, and then his parents taught the same to him -- maybe he wouldn't have thought it was a good idea to park a truck full of fertilizer in front of a building full of people.

Irrational and superstitious thinking is dangerous. It ruins lives, it oppresses people, and it's the root of hatred and violence. Religion is just one subset of irrational and superstitious thought, but it's worth fighting -- even for an individual or a handful of people. You can disagree, of course, because this is just a value judgement: I think it's worth it to get even a handful of people to re-think engaging in superstitious thought, while you don't seem to. That's fine.

I just think it's worth it because individuals that spend less time on irrational things might contribute more meaningfully to society; but most of all hopefully they will encourage others to think rationally, including their children -- who will hopefully encourage even more to think ratioanlly, and so on, until it increases geometrically (or exponentially given that children teach their children).

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?

I agree, religion isn't necessarily harmful to believer or non-believer. In fact, most of the time it's not. Sometimes it's even beneficial. But that's just like throwing darts at a dartboard: sometimes you hit good spots, sometimes you hit bad spots, sometimes you hit someone's eye. The thing with superstitious, irrational, unjustified modes of thinking is that it's inherently random what their effects will be on social, moral, and other outcomes.

Normally when someone exhibits outright irrational behavior we either try to correct them or distance ourselves from them. I had a friend once who was saying constantly that she thought she had lice because she felt like bugs were crawling on her skull. She'd show me pictures of what she thought clearly depicted bugs on her head, but I sure didn't see any bugs (nor did the doctor, whom she didn't believe). I have to admit that it unsettled me a little bit, and I didn't hang out with this person nearly as much anymore because I was afraid she might do something harmful.

Now, the funny thing is that I feel like she was more justified in thinking there were bugs on her head because of some chemical imbalance than I think otherwise chemically healthy, otherwise completely normal human beings believe in bizarre and unjustified (as far as I can tell) things like gods and savior beings. Bugs on a person's head caused by an imbalance don't tend to cause people to, say, feel like they can tell me who I can marry... or to fly planes into buildings.

 

[Meow Mix]

I would like to think its because the have a soft spot for us ole' christians

you know cause they love us an all.:hearts:

I do love you guys! Round of drinks on me, and if you don't drink there's pepsi in the fridge!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I do love you guys! Round of drinks on me, and if you don't drink there's pepsi in the fridge!

If you don't drink?

I don't understand.

 

[Meow Mix]

If you don't drink?

I don't understand.

Neither do I -- I'm just trying to be an amicable hostess.

 

[averageJOE]

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

...without trying to derail the topic...they now can (not that it stopped them before).

 

[waitasec]

...without trying to derail the topic...they now can (not that it stopped them before).

yes you are right
i should have said; have or have had issues with...

 

[jarofthoughts]

I agree, religion isn't necessarily harmful to believer or non-believer. In fact, most of the time it's not. Sometimes it's even beneficial. But that's just like throwing darts at a dartboard: sometimes you hit good spots, sometimes you hit bad spots, sometimes you hit someone's eye. The thing with superstitious, irrational, unjustified modes of thinking is that it's inherently random what their effects will be on social, moral, and other outcomes.

Love this way of explaining it. :yes:

 

[tarasan]

I do love you guys! Round of drinks on me, and if you don't drink there's pepsi in the fridge!

Tarasan loves the lovely whiskey......

glad to see your still here!

 

[gnostic]

With regards to the OP. Though I see myself as agnostic, I will have to say the same thing as everyone else:

I was brought up and live in (Western) society that was largely Christians. So from acquainted and experiences, I know more about Christian teaching than all other religions. Although there are now more Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists now in Australia, it is still small percentages.

I was nearly baptised, twice. And I have also had some people who had told me that I would burn in hell for not converting or have different view to theirs, so it has affected me in a way. Also I am more familiar with the Bible than any other religious scriptures.

 

[Jacksnyte]

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.

In the U.S. athiests talk more about Christianity because it is the dominant religion, and has had a large influence in making our culture the way it is.

 

[Commoner]

As a Hindu, I've noticed as well. It's usually, God doesn't exist because Christianity is wrong for this and that reason. So annoying!
But I think it's because most atheists you are talking to come from a Christian background or culture and are most familiar with it and also because it is the dominant world religion.

Oh, if you feel you've not been given the arguments against the belief in your deity, I'll be happy to oblige. I wouldn't want you to feel left out.

 

[Commoner]

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.

Because Buddhism, Sikhism or Hinduism simply aren't as ridiculous as Christianity is.

 

[Nooj]

What do you know of those religions?

 

[Nooj]

Really? If someone had, say, taught Timothy McVeigh's parents how to think rationally -- or even one of his grandparents, or something -- and they instilled that in his parents, and then his parents taught the same to him -- maybe he wouldn't have thought it was a good idea to park a truck full of fertilizer in front of a building full of people.

That may have helped. It may not have helped.

I don't think Timothy McVeigh was irrational. To clarify, I don't believe there is one thing called rationality, and that people can only be rational in one way. Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden had their own views, and I'm almost certain that they came to those views by rationalising their way to those views. I don't believe they used faith to believe that the American government was evil for example.

 

[Meow Mix]

That may have helped. It may not have helped.

I don't think Timothy McVeigh was irrational. To clarify, I don't believe there is one thing called rationality, and that people can only be rational in one way. Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden had their own views, and I'm almost certain that they came to those views by rationalising their way to those views. I don't believe they used faith to believe that the American government was evil for example.

There is one rationality in the same sense that there is one reality. What is rational for a person, though, does depend on their limited circumstances. For instance, consider the Gettier problems with knowledge and justification: we can sometimes be justified in believing incorrect things for the right reasons (such as a brain in a vat that believes it's existing in an external world based on its perceptual justifications) or correct things for the wrong reasons.

There is one reality: one state of affairs is true. Whether or not we can understand that, approach it reliably, or believe it correctly is an entirely different matter.

It helps, though, to be able to understand fallacious and superstitious thought. The ability to recognize and avoid irrationality will bring a person closer to the truth than engaging in superstition and fallacy. This is because rational thought is directional whereas superstition and fallacy are somewhat randomized.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That may have helped. It may not have helped.

I don't think Timothy McVeigh was irrational. To clarify, I don't believe there is one thing called rationality, and that people can only be rational in one way. Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden had their own views, and I'm almost certain that they came to those views by rationalising their way to those views. I don't believe they used faith to believe that the American government was evil for example.

It is entirely possible to come to rational conclusions based on the wrong facts or faulty information.
As Meow has pointed out in other treads, logic is not so much invented as it is discovered and a logical conclusion will always be true as long as the premises that are put into it are true.
Take the Norwegian terrorist for instance: Given what I have read about his view of reality, it may well be that for him the only rational solution was to do what he did, however, his view of reality is provably wrong on so many levels that it is staggering.
This could perhaps have been avoided if he had exposed his opinions to those of an opposing view and engaged in rational discussion, but alas, like so many before him, he succumbed to what we call confirmation bias and only took into account those pieces of information that confirmed his already messed up view of reality.

In my book: If your rationality and logic leads you to the conclusion that you have to murder a lot of innocent people in cold blood, you should probably rethink that conclusion.
Chances are, you've ****ed up somewhere along the line.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

A single delusional man believes in a personal great man in the sky.
A single delusional man believes this great man in the sky inseminated a woman down here on Earth and gave birth to his son.
A single delusional man believes this son grew up to bodily ascend to this great man in the sky to save all of mankind.
A single delusional man believes if you do not believes in the great man in the sky he will punish you and you will suffer an eternity in a very hot dungeon beneath the earth.
Just because he is the only person that believes this we assume there is something wrong with him but if billions of people share and equally ridiculous delusion many people view that as being alright.

 

[Nooj]

It is entirely possible to come to rational conclusions based on the wrong facts or faulty information.
As Meow has pointed out in other treads, logic is not so much invented as it is discovered and a logical conclusion will always be true as long as the premises that are put into it are true.
Take the Norwegian terrorist for instance: Given what I have read about his view of reality, it may well be that for him the only rational solution was to do what he did, however, his view of reality is provably wrong on so many levels that it is staggering.
This could perhaps have been avoided if he had exposed his opinions to those of an opposing view and engaged in rational discussion, but alas, like so many before him, he succumbed to what we call confirmation bias and only took into account those pieces of information that confirmed his already messed up view of reality.

In my book: If your rationality and logic leads you to the conclusion that you have to murder a lot of innocent people in cold blood, you should probably rethink that conclusion.
Chances are, you've ****ed up somewhere along the line.

You've explained it better than I could have. It's also why I believe that dogmatism can be harmful. By dogmatism, I mean holding to some sort of belief strongly. As you can probably tell, I think skepticism is very useful.

There is one rationality in the same sense that there is one reality. What is rational for a person, though, does depend on their limited circumstances.

There is one reality: one state of affairs is true. Whether or not we can understand that, approach it reliably, or believe it correctly is an entirely different matter.

It helps, though, to be able to understand fallacious and superstitious thought. The ability to recognize and avoid irrationality will bring a person closer to the truth than engaging in superstition and fallacy.

Maybe there is one rationality, in the sense of 'true description of reality' or 'true way of thinking about reality'. But I don't believe that we're able to attain that sort of insight. Humans are constrained by limited circumstances all the time, it's inherent in our nature as limited beings. So can any of us really claim to be more rational than another? How do you know you're rational and someone else is irrational, and not the other way around?

This is because rational thought is directional whereas superstition and fallacy are somewhat randomized.

Some of my best moments have come from randomness. I try to maintain both in equal measure.