Question mostly to Atheists (not a mocking)

[SomeRandom]

I have noticed that many (not all) Atheists mocking or harras the believers of any religion/ spiritual path.
But also some of the Atheists are well versed in the religious text. So my question is.

Why do you "as an Atheist", take your time to read especially the bible, then when you know a little, you go about making sick critique and wrong claims about the religion you do not believe in? Do you find it fun to mock those who believe what you do not believe in? What is your purpose to try to drag down the religions?

To be fair, there are religious people who often act like total douche bags under the guise of religion or “spreading the word.”
My country have even banned certain preachers because their hellfire sermons are literal hate speech under our laws.

If someone came up to me and called me a sinning heathen deserving of hell, I certainly won’t politely thank them. Unless I’m at work and have to act professional, I suppose.
Cause and affect. If one antagonises people, don’t come crying to me when those people react.

Oh and homophobia should not be tolerated as religious belief. Insofar as whilst a person is perfectly free to hold such beliefs, those beliefs should absolutely be mocked and I say that as a theist. Loving God unless it’s them icky gayz, give me a break.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have noticed that many (not all) Atheists mocking or harras the believers of any religion/ spiritual path.
But also some of the Atheists are well versed in the religious text. So my question is.

Why do you "as an Atheist", take your time to read especially the bible, then when you know a little, you go about making sick critique and wrong claims about the religion you do not believe in? Do you find it fun to mock those who believe what you do not believe in? What is your purpose to try to drag down the religions?

By the way, I can't help but notice that you go to some effort to title this thread "not mocking," and then promptly fling accusations of "sick critique" and "wrong claims." Are you sure you weren't mocking?

 

[dianaiad]

They were going after ALL religion?
(No)

Yeah, they were going after ALL theism.
As in...no religion or religious observances allowed, and anti-theism was taught in schools.

Can one (say, a christian or muslim)
be against all of the thousands of
other religions without being
anti-theist- minus-one?

That minus one makes all the
difference and is so much better,
and, more, like, godly!
Right!!??

The difference, Audie, is in what is done, and the sheer numbers involved.

One can be a theist and be 'against'...or rather, not a believer in...every OTHER religion without attempting to destroy them all. In fact, most of the religious wars fought were a matter of the adherents of one specific religion going after the adherents of one other specific religion. I know of none where war was declared against EVERY other religion.

It was mostly an excuse, anyway; the adherents of one religion decided they wanted the land or the trade routes or whatever, and decided to use religion as an excuse.

In the case of Stalin, Mao, et.al, the 'war' was declared against ALL religion. Not as an excuse to get something else; they were specifically going after theistic belief systems. All of 'em. As in "you will not practice any religion within the boundaries of this nation."

Any who actually went to church...even to the Russian Orthodox churches which were still, sorta, allowed, were not allowed to be in the government, the communist party, get decent jobs (or any job at all, come to think) or government services...like, you know, school. Or health care.

Did these guys only kill theists? Why, no....not even close...but then the crusaders didn't ONLY kill Muslims, either. Those people are still dead...and the atheistic government was responsible.

The facts are inarguable, Audie. You can wiggle around them all you want to, and get picky about precise wording all you want to...but the body count is still there.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

If someone has personal beliefs or would like to share their beliefs, or practice or speak certain rituals or anything harmless inwardly or outwardly.... go for it.

When people are controlling or attempting to control the vulnerable through doctrines of fear, guilt, coercion, making them feel indebted, false blame/guilting/gaslighting for karma or free will or whatever doctrine, exploiting someone’s ignorance or other weaknesses/ vulnerabilities....there is a problem and some people won’t be silent.

Just as well as anything else that is attempting to harm anyone physically or psychologically, or treat others with disrespect, inequality.... then there is a problem and some people won’t be silent.

Sometimes though...polite discussions or reasoning, or being creative with others having different views or similar views seem harmless.
I can see what you mean though in ways, some do get pretty extreme with their character and become quite hostile.

 

[Audie]

By the way, I can't help but notice that you go to some effort to title this thread "not mocking," and then promptly fling accusations of "sick critique" and "wrong claims." Are you sure you weren't mocking?

See post #42.

I agree with the opster, he is not mocking.


Of course to noted is thay anyone
flinging scurrilous calumny under guise of
thoughtful inquisitve neutrality is actually
low down and contemptible.

 

[Audie]

To be fair, there are religious people who often act like total douche bags under the guise of religion or “spreading the word.”
My country have even banned certain preachers because their hellfire sermons are literal hate speech under our laws.

If someone came up to me and called me a sinning heathen deserving of hell, I certainly won’t politely thank them. Unless I’m at work and have to act professional, I suppose.
Cause and affect. If one antagonises people, don’t come crying to me when those people react.

Oh and homophobia should not be tolerated as religious belief. Insofar as whilst a person is perfectly free to hold such beliefs, those beliefs should absolutely be mocked and I say that as a theist. Loving God unless it’s them icky gayz, give me a break.

Someone here had a thread about how dteadful those
Chinese are for banning some such from spewing their
poison.

 

[Skwim]

Genesis 1:26-28 The Message (MSG)
God spoke: “Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the cattle, And, yes, Earth itself, and every animal that moves on the face of Earth.” God created human beings; he created them godlike, Reflecting God’s nature. He created them male and female. God blessed them: “Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge! Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air, for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth.”

Hardly convincing. Consider:

Genesis 1:26-28(KJV)
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.​

One could just as well argue that god created man and woman just so they could subdue the earth.

Or, he created man and woman just so they could have dominion over the fish.

Or he created man and woman just so they could have dominion over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Point being, god created man so he could do a lot of things, but the Bible never says he singled out any one of them as more important than another, the implication of your assertion. God did create man and woman so that by having heterosexual sex they would reproduce, but he never implied this was the sole reason he created them. As for man and woman, he simply said "Be fruitful, and multiply," and do a lot of other things. "Go do this, that, and the other thing," which certainly doesn't imply this, OR that, OR the other thing was the special reason for creating man and woman. AND it certainly does not say having sex with someone of the same sex invalidated his wish that people have sex with those of the opposite sex.

I asked you "Chapter and verse please saying the reason god created man and woman was so they could procreate and populate the earth," The implication being this was his sole reason for creating man and woman, and so far you've failed. All you've shown is that god created man and woman to do a lot of things, of which procreating is merely one.

.

 

[Nimos]

I have noticed that many (not all) Atheists mocking or harras the believers of any religion/ spiritual path.
But also some of the Atheists are well versed in the religious text. So my question is.

Why do you "as an Atheist", take your time to read especially the bible, then when you know a little, you go about making sick critique and wrong claims about the religion you do not believe in? Do you find it fun to mock those who believe what you do not believe in? What is your purpose to try to drag down the religions?

I think you raise an important question and would assume that there are lots of different answers to it. Im an atheist so will just share my own personal view on this, just so you don't think I speak for all atheists

First of all, lets be honest and start by saying that some people are idiots so regardless of what topic you might discuss, there will always be people which approach is to make personal attacks and mockeries, simply because they can. And most likely these people know very little about the topic and is probably not interested in it anyway, but merely because they disagree they will say whatever to provoke and annoy those that they disagree with. So if these are the ones you talk about, I wouldn't spend to much time on them as its not worth it.

But I think its as difficult for an atheist to explain how one sees the world to a religious person as it is for a religious person to explain their faith in a God to an atheist. But hopefully, starting by briefly telling my own story of how I got interested in religion might help explain it a bit. I have never been interested in religion and all that, to the point where I wouldn't even call my self an atheist as I probably would really know what the word meant at that point, it have never played a part in my life. Im raised in a Christian country, but have never done anything or discussed anything regarding religion during my childhood, no one in my family are interested in religion and not even sure if my parents or brother believe in anything, except my mother she is an atheist, but simply because she have an attitude that its nonsense, she knows pretty much nothing about it except some of the stories etc.

So for me it started when all this terrorism got serious and suddenly you had people shooting and blowing stuff up, that I sort of thought to my self, "What the hell is wrong with these people?". Which led me to become very interested in the idea of believing, not only in religious stuff, but in general. Why when we have access to the same information do we believe in different things? So at that point I wanted to figure out more about it and since I knew a lot of people believe in God, the bible and Jesus, I thought the bible would be a perfect place to start to try to see what exactly people believe in, at this point I only knew all the basic stuff, like who Jesus were, Moses, Noa, Adam and Eve etc. Which I have always thought people that believed in God, thought were just stories and nothing they took serious. But as I examined more and more about it, it quickly became clear that at least some people actually believe these things to be true.

For my self, I were convinced that I were an atheist after just a couple of pages in the bible, but decided to read on. So if you look at it from my perspective, I read the bible which have convinced million of people, you have priests, churches and huge ceremonies all around the world of people worth shipping something that to me is utter nonsense. You have abortion doctors being murdered because religious people disagree with what they are doing. People dressing a certain way because some book tells them to, you have circumcision of children, people being treated like trash or killed, because of their sexuality, people having their family turn their back to them because of this, Aids spreading in places like Africa because some religious people think its a sin to use protection, people shooting and blowing up others because of these things and the list go on.... Now as an atheist, I have to read about and look at these things on daily basis, knowing that all these things happens because of some stuff that were written thousand of years ago, which can't be validated as being true, talking about things that have never been proven to be possible, knowing that from the history of humans there have been thousands of religions and Gods through the times which have all been shown to be false. Yet people still believe in these things and causes harm to others, while we as atheist can life our lives with a chance of being killed or blown up by people believing in, what most of us consider utter nonsense. And many places in the world you are not even allowed to criticize these things for fear of getting killed or thrown to jail. So if you look at it from my point of view, its like living in a world gone mad, with people believing and acting on things as if they had read them in a fantasy book like Lord of the rings or something. I don't expect any religious person to understand that, but that is pretty much how I feel whenever I read or hear about some of the things people do because of their believe in God. This is obviously not all religious people, but simply thinking about what is going on in the world, when you don't believe any of it to be true, you really see how insane the world is, when observed from the view of an atheist.

So the main reason I like to discuss religion is mainly because of my interest in beliefs as mentioned above. How some people can reach the conclusion that all these things are true, while im convinced only after a few pages that its not. To me, this is what shape us as humans and individuals, our beliefs make us act according to them, which is why it interests me and also why figuring out the best way to validate ones beliefs is important to me, it seems to be the only defense against the insanity of bad ideas in the world in which we live and where people are so easily manipulated to believing in whatever they are told.
So I don't personally mock religious people, but I do see it as important to fight these ideas, whenever they cause harm to people, especially since these are based on nothing more than the ideas of people that think they know better than the rest. Yet these people can't present any evidence for why any rational thinking person should follow or believe in what they are saying. A person has to be true to one self and the only way to do that, is to know and demand evidence whenever someone makes a claim, which could affect their life. It they can't, such claim is worth absolutely nothing and as long as people don't realize that, the madness will continue.

 

[dianaiad]

If someone has personal beliefs or would like to share their beliefs, or practice or speak certain rituals or anything harmless inwardly or outwardly.... go for it.

When people are controlling or attempting to control the vulnerable through doctrines of fear, guilt, coercion, making them feel indebted, false blame/guilting/gaslighting for karma or free will or whatever doctrine, exploiting someone’s ignorance or other weaknesses/ vulnerabilities....there is a problem and some people won’t be silent.

Just as well as anything else that is attempting to harm anyone physically or psychologically, or treat others with disrespect, inequality.... then there is a problem and some people won’t be silent.

OK...here's a question for you.

You have group A...which has beliefs B and C.

Then you have group D, which believes that it can force group A to violate beliefs B and C because Group D doesn't share them, and indeed has beliefs that directly oppose beliefs B and C.

So, Group D takes group A to court, demonstrates against them, blocks the entrance to group A's business, throws mud at them when members of group A goes out in public, accuses them of being disrespectful and discriminatory...all because group A believes B and C, and group D doesn't.

Which group is guilty of harming the other one?

Or....

(and this is entirely apocryphal, because I'll sell a scarf to anybody who pays me enough, and I don't make scarves and shawls specifically for anybody unless they pay me FIRST)

Suppose I knit prayer shawls with specific religious symbols on them. I design and make them only for those people who believe what those symbols 'stand for.' I refuse to sell one to someone who has shown that s/he will, once s/he buys it, stamp on it, urinate on it or otherwise mess with it. I mean, really. nobody should treat cashmere that way.

Someone comes along who tells me that this is precisely what s/he will do, I refuse to sell the shawl, and s/he sues me.

Which one of us is harming the other?

Suppose that A is a devout member of a group that believes that same sex marriage is not marriage 'in the eyes of God.' A is also a wedding photographer who ONLY shoots the weddings of those who share those beliefs (like Jewish caterers who only 'do' Jewish orthodox weddings and/or bar/bat mitsvahs). A gay couple wants A to 'shoot' their wedding. A says no. Gay couple sues and pretty much destroys the business.

Who is harming whom?

A bunch of people...atheists (not so many of them) and fundamentalist Christian types stand outside the gates of the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City, singing songs (loudly) and waving temple garments in the air. Some of them are wearing those garments outside their clothes. Some wear Temple clothing. They block the entrance to the temple grounds. One of them goes toe to toe with a temple guide, literally stepping on his toes and spitting in his face, in an effort to force a confrontation he can claim was begun by the guide. The guide calls the cops, and every protester is moved away from the gate. Eventually a specific space is set up for protesters, beyond which they are, by law, not allowed.

Those protesters sue the city, the church....

Who is harming whom?

I have a real problem with this business of privileging other people's religious beliefs simply because THEY are politically correct and someone else's is not.

 

[Dell]

I have noticed that many (not all) Atheists mocking or harras the believers of any religion/ spiritual path.
But also some of the Atheists are well versed in the religious text. So my question is.

Why do you "as an Atheist", take your time to read especially the bible, then when you know a little, you go about making sick critique and wrong claims about the religion you do not believe in? Do you find it fun to mock those who believe what you do not believe in? What is your purpose to try to drag down the religions?

A debate should be two open minded people presenting their case for the point of view they think is correct. Close minded debating is simply an argument.

I have 30 years of Bible reading and church attendance and know the passion believers have for Christ. I don't want to mock or belittle someone's genuine heart felt faith. Sometimes I inject some humor.. but at RF nobody should wear the feelings... to many sharp people here on all sides of the religious spectrum that can shoot holes in any post. You have to have a solid case to survive here or flame like a zero....

 

[SomeRandom]

Someone here had a thread about how dteadful those
Chinese are for banning some such from spewing their
poison.

Well aren’t the Chinese a lot more strict with freedom of speech laws than the West? So there maybe an argument to be made there, I don’t know.
I do not personally advocate a ban (unless someone is literally inciting violence) on hate speech. If only so we know who to keep an eye on and avoid them like the plague they are.

 

[ChristineM]

It is believed he was Jewish.

Nope that was believed to be Lenin.

 

[Kenny]

Nope that was believed to be Lenin.

Maybe we will never know.

"There was increasing suspicion that Stalin himself was Jewish. He had always been considered a Semitic-Mongoloid mixture, perhaps non-Jewish. MANY JEWS, HOWEVER, BELIEVED HIM TO BE ONE OF THEM, and a columnist in the Los Angeles B'nai B'rith Messenger, March 3, 1950, col. 2, p. 5 wrote: "A FORMER SOVIET GENERAL CLAIMS THAT JOSEPH STALIN ES OF JEWISH ANCESTRY.""

Was Stalin Jewish

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe we will never know.

"There was increasing suspicion that Stalin himself was Jewish. He had always been considered a Semitic-Mongoloid mixture, perhaps non-Jewish. MANY JEWS, HOWEVER, BELIEVED HIM TO BE ONE OF THEM, and a columnist in the Los Angeles B'nai B'rith Messenger, March 3, 1950, col. 2, p. 5 wrote: "A FORMER SOVIET GENERAL CLAIMS THAT JOSEPH STALIN ES OF JEWISH ANCESTRY.""

Was Stalin Jewish

His ancestry? Possible, after all, by ancestry i i am a Viking. However i am talking if his life.

Raised orthodox Christian, attended christian seminary, some rumour has it they he did attain priesthood. Following the revolution he reopened seminaries and 20,000 church's. He donated millions of rubles to the church, is said to have been the only christian in the kremlin and had not one, not two but three archpriests officiate at his funeral. That sounds pretty christian to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, don't be silly. If they were prohibiting religion (and they were) and killing people BECAUSE they were religious (and they did) then they were doing it 'in the name of anti-theism" which happens to be a subset of atheism. One cannot be anti-all theism unless one IS an atheist, after all.

And you can't be a theocrat without being a theist.

Should we try to link theocracy to every theist?

The reality is that the system in Russia under Stalin, for instance, has much more in common with authoritarian versions of religion than it has in common with the secular humanism and freethought expressed by most of the people who call themselves "atheist" today.

Edit: I should also add that the sheer religious chauvinism involved in linking Stalin and the like to atheists in general always astounds me: "neither of them believe in the thing that *I* think is most important, so their belief systems may as well be the same." Give me a break. It's ridiculously self-centered to define other people's worldviews in terms of whether they agree with *you*.

 

[Audie]

Well aren’t the Chinese a lot more strict with freedom of speech laws than the West? So there maybe an argument to be made there, I don’t know.
I do not personally advocate a ban (unless someone is literally inciting violence) on hate speech. If only so we know who to keep an eye on and avoid them like the plague they are.

They are strict all right. I'd not care to live under
Beijing's thumb, I am too American now.

I was just pointing out that while they go to
excesses, such limits as they put on foreign
preachers are only sane.

 

[Kenny]

His ancestry? Possible, after all, by ancestry i i am a Viking. However i am talking if his life.

Raised orthodox Christian, attended christian seminary, some rumour has it they he did attain priesthood. Following the revolution he reopened seminaries and 20,000 church's. He donated millions of rubles to the church, is said to have been the only christian in the kremlin and had not one, not two but three archpriests officiate at his funeral. That sounds pretty christian to me.

I guess we will never know.

There are Jews that are atheist, Hindu, Buddhists, Hasidic, reformed and Christian.

If it helps you to put Lenin instead of Stalin to fit what I was saying - please do so.

 

[ChristineM]

I guess we will never know.

There are Jews that are atheist, Hindu, Buddhists, Hasidic, reformed and Christian.

If it helps you to put Lenin instead of Stalin to fit what I was saying - please do so.

It appears Lenin's maternal grandfather was Jewish.

As far as i csn ascertain Stalin did not have any recent(ish) Jewish ancestry

 

[loverofhumanity]

I have noticed that many (not all) Atheists mocking or harras the believers of any religion/ spiritual path.
But also some of the Atheists are well versed in the religious text. So my question is.

Why do you "as an Atheist", take your time to read especially the bible, then when you know a little, you go about making sick critique and wrong claims about the religion you do not believe in? Do you find it fun to mock those who believe what you do not believe in? What is your purpose to try to drag down the religions?

That is sometimes the path one must tread to find truth. I found God and truth from having a very critical view of religion and extreme questioning. I had to be absolutely sure and if anyone I felt could beat my arguments I would give my loyalty to such a person.

That just happened to be Baha’u’llah. But before that I was an avowed atheist and mocked Baha’is for many years.

 

[dianaiad]

And you can't be a theocrat without being a theist.

Should we try to link theocracy to every theist?

What has that got to do with anything? I'm not attempting to claim that all atheists are anti-theist and out to kill people. Why are you trying to imply that I am? I'm simply pointing out a fact...one that you can check yourself. There hasn't been a single anti-theist government that was NOT murderous, to an incredible extent.

The only government model that actually works is a secular one; a government that pretty much ignores religion and opinions about religion. A secular government allows freedom of religion; freedom to worship...or not worship...as one pleases.

The reality is that the system in Russia under Stalin, for instance, has much more in common with authoritarian versions of religion than it has in common with the secular humanism and freethought expressed by most of the people who call themselves "atheist" today.

Of course. That's because anti-theism is as much a 'religion' as any religion is. The biggest difference is that the anti-theists were so much more efficient at killing people.

Edit: I should also add that the sheer religious chauvinism involved in linking Stalin and the like to atheists in general always astounds me: "neither of them believe in the thing that *I* think is most important, so their belief systems may as well be the same." Give me a break. It's ridiculously self-centered to define other people's worldviews in terms of whether they agree with *you*.

Except that YOU are the only one here who is linking 'Stalin and the like' to all atheists. I certainly don't. I AM saying that those who say that the world would be better off without religion and then go about trying to get rid of religion tend to be nasty, when given the power to do so.

At least, there has never been an anti-theist (again, that's a subset of atheism, whether you like that or not, just as the Westboro folks and the Inquisition are subsets of religion, whether I like it or not) nation that was not democidal. There HAVE been theocracies that were not. In fact, not a single theocracy that has ever been created killed as many people as the least of the anti-theist ones. OK, perhaps more than Albania....

The point to this is that yes, it is a Bad Thing to have a theocracy that holds power over religion and religious thought. Usually.
It is an EQUALLY bad idea to have a government that outlaws all religion. The biggest difference seems to be only in the body count. Unfortunately for you, that difference is rather large.