• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question mostly to Atheists (not a mocking)

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
See post #84 above.
Still don't agree. The very foundation of "I don't care if I kill because there is no God" is being atheist. (Not that if you are atheist, you kill". I think your viewpoint is a whitewash effort.

But, if you want to spin it that way, religious people kill, not because of their religion but because of power and control.

Works both ways.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
If you followed the different threads the last few days you would see a new member saying so much evil about Christianity and Islam.
And a big topic against Christianity and maybe other religions are the view of Homosexuality, There is a perfect reason why religions teach what they do, But many (not all) Atheists seem to think it is evil of the religion to have this teaching that has been there for many thousands of years.
A God or Buddha has a clear reason to why something like Homosexuality is looked at as a sin or morally negative action But many Atheists get angry, But what they do not think of is the Christian God made those rules for Christian people, not for the atheists.

Atheists i not in the count of what God look at, because why would He care for someone who do not belive in him? or want to follow the teaching given to enter heaven

Your "arguments" against homosexuality entirely depend on these gods actually existing in the first place.

Since nobody has ever managed to do that?

Their claims of "god don't like it and we don't either" are simple bigotry.

If this god really doesn't like it? Have this god show up and say so directly.

The fact that there are millions of different religions -- heck, there are more than 45,000 different flavors of "christian" alone-- tells me that gods either don't care, or are delighted at the cacophony, or simply don't exist.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
For those who follow the Christian teaching the situation is like this
God said he created man and woman so they could procreate and populate the earth, but two men or two women can not procreate
It is not a direct sin to be homosexual, it is the act of it that i seen a sin, specially in Christianity.
To follow Gods teaching one can not then act out the homosexual act but if one chose not to follow the teaching God will leave you alone and not look your way

blah-blah-blah-- LET GOD SPEAK FOR GOD'S SELF, please.

The spreading of anti-LGBT hate is bigotry.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Your "arguments" against homosexuality entirely depend on these gods actually existing in the first place.

Since nobody has ever managed to do that?

Their claims of "god don't like it and we don't either" are simple bigotry.

If this god really doesn't like it? Have this god show up and say so directly.

The fact that there are millions of different religions -- heck, there are more than 45,000 different flavors of "christian" alone-- tells me that gods either don't care, or are delighted at the cacophony, or simply don't exist.
We disagree but thats ok, You can feel the way you do about religion if you like
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
It's not a simple matter of disagreement, is it?

Until (if ever) you can get these gods to speak for themselves?

You cannot claim "god commanded" in any sort of honesty.
The Christian God spoke to the christians, not to those who do not believe. IF you do not have a religious belief no God or Buddha stop you from doing what you want.
But religious people have guidelines to follow
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Christian God spoke to the christians, not to those who do not believe. IF you do not have a religious belief no God or Buddha stop you from doing what you want.
But religious people have guidelines to follow
No doubt, others have brought this up.....
A great many Christians believe that their morality applies to us too.
Some are OK, eg, the one about having no other gods before him.
That's an easy one.
But others, some disagreement between fellow Christians notwithstanding,
are forced upon the unwilling, eg, banning abortion, making homosexuality
illegal, various covetings, keeping Sunday holy. We must resist those.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
No doubt, others have brought this up.....
A great many Christians believe that their morality applies to us too.
Some are OK, eg, the one about having no other gods before him.
That's an easy one.
But some, disagreement between even fellow Christians notwithstanding,
are forced upon the unwilling, eg, banning abortion, making homosexuality
illegal.
a none religious person are not judged by any god or buddha
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Oh, don't be silly. If they were prohibiting The Press (and they were) and killing people BECAUSE they were members of The Press (and they did) then they were doing it 'in the name of anti-Pressism" which happens to be a subset of a-FreeSpeech. One cannot be anti-all Free Press unless one IS anti Free Speech, after all.​


This is true. So? How does being one prohibit being the other?

Oh, don't be silly. If they were prohibiting Higher Education (and they were) and killing people BECAUSE they were members of the intellectual elite (and they did) then they were doing it 'in the name of anti-intellectualism...

Indeed. I fail to see how being one precludes being any one of the others.
Those sound ridiculous because they are ridiculous. So is your comment regarding religion.

But they are not ridiculous. You are quite correct; if a government kills people BECAUSE they are of the intellectually elite...or because they are members of 'the Press,' then they are indeed 'doing it in the name of ' anti-intellectualism or anti free speech." What's your problem with this idea?

If they are killing people BECAUSE of something they are, then they are anti-whatever that is, and killing them is 'in the name of' anti-whatever that is. One doesn't need to actually use that phrase. It's pretty obvious.


Dictators and revolutionaries remove, or try to remove, anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.

Of course. and if one of those things is religion...or higher education or free speech, then they are doing it because they are anti-religion, higher education and free speech. They are doing it 'in the name of' anti religion, higher education or free speech.

There have been many dictators and revolutionaries who were NOT anti-religion or anti-higher education. I don't know any who were not anti-free speech...

If intellectuals can rouse the rabble, get rid of them.
If the Free Press can rouse the rabble, get rid of them.
If religious leaders can rouse the rabble, get rid of them.

Uh huh. This is true...but not all dictators WERE/are anti intellectuals or anti religion. Some of 'em made 'higher education' and religion serve them. As I mentioned, however, I don't know of any who were not anti-free speech.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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?

I think I first read Revelations because it was the "cool" part of the bible that got the most attention from popular culture. :D I read the first few pages of Genesis to understand the creation story- and also to enjoy the beauty of the language and the words itself. Beyond that, I have barely read the bible although I did hear bible stories when I was in Primary school. I did try to read some of the Qu'ran but didn't get very far.

There is an element of the criticism of religion which is necessary to protect freedom from those who would deny it in the name of serving god, particularly in denying the right of people to pursue pleasure, as well as challenging those ideas in religion which have been outdated by scientific discoveries.

However, the relationship between science and religion is more complex than a simple conflict or collision of worldviews, and religion and philosophy have as much to say about science as science has to say about religion. So there is a give-and-take in the relationship between science and religion. The same can also be said for religion and freedom, as religions are diverse in the interpretations of their scriptures and in how believers they apply them in their daily life and affairs.

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?

No. I am open in admitting I did have sympathy for "State Atheism" a while back, but came to realise how wrong it was as an attack on the rights and dignity of religious believers. Spending time on RF did really bring home the humanity of religious believers and the importance in understanding and respecting their convictions, especially when you disagree.

As an Ex-Communist, I'm not really in a position to claim moral superiority over anyone else as I clearly supported a system responsible for great evil, even if it wasn't actually evil in itself. That has been strangely liberating and humanising in that you have to forgive others to forgive yourself for making that kind of error. The inner experience of being a Communist is virtually identical with religious belief and conversion as far as I can tell, so that has made it easier for me to relate to religious believers even if I may find such comparisons admittedly uncomfortable.

People who tend to mock religious belief typically are not those who have invested themselves in their beliefs or had to confront seriously the possibility they are wrong and what it means to lose "faith" and the identity that comes with it. Without that experience of pain and loss, or the passion of believing yourself to be a follower in the path of truth and justice only to realise you are in error, it does make it easier to be cruel and short-sighted in condemning those things which we may well be capable of if we only paid attention at our own reflection.

Atheists are not without their share of flaws, but they have them for the same reasons as religious believers; because we're all imperfect and our imperfection and our limitations is part of what makes us human. Recognising it takes time, effort and sacrifice.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Some people feel it is necessary to "make a point".

In reality, Gay couples would generally prefer to pay a wedding photographer who empathizes with their views. Hiring a God-fearing holy roller to film a Gay wedding is a good way to get lousy pictures.

Yes it is...and that's not necessarily the result of intentional sabotage. My daughter is a professional photographer (with a degree in fine arts and everything) and when a friend asked her to shoot their wedding (and I did the cake, btw) we both had to go ask some photographers in San Francisco about the best way to do it. Turns out that shooting a gay wedding the way one would do a straight one ends up as a disaster. While there are many similarities, there are traditional poses one does NOT want to do for same sex weddings, and other photographic opportunities that one would not find in a straight wedding. My daughter got some great hints and ideas, and she absolutely does not 'do' a gay wedding the way she would 'do' a straight one. So getting someone who only does straight weddings is as stupid as, say...asking the bread maker to decorate the cake. The skill sets are not quite the same, even though they both work in a bakery.

Re bakers. For an atheist hiring a God-fearing holy roller to bake the wedding cake would probably be a sure way of getting a cake containing some God-fearing holy roller urine.

A God Fearing holy roller wouldn't bake the cake. S/he would take the lawsuit. I would bake the cake. I have 'baked the cake..." and I'm pretty conservative politically and religiously. And no, I didn't pee in it.

I worked hard and wished the couple well.

But that's me. I don't think that anybody has the right to force someone else to violate his or her religious beliefs because THEY think that THEIR situation is 'special,' and more important than someone else's freedom of religion.

Not to mention that it's downright irritating...as in 'what the..????" to see that gay couples can force, by law, someone to violate their religious principles (something that is firmly forbidden in the first amendment) when I couldn't get a Baptist baker to make MY wedding cake because, well, I'm a Mormon. THAT lawsuit would have been laughed out of court forty years ago, and would be laughed out of court today.

Why do you think I learned how to make, and decorate, wedding cakes? None of MY family has to go buy one from some snooty baker.
 
Last edited:

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Oh now, YOUR the one being silly. They were prohibiting ANYTHING that competed with worshiping the state. The fact that such groups happened to be religious was just secondary.

the FACT that they were against many other groups does not mean that they were NOT against religion. There have been, as I have pointed out, many dictators who were not anti-religion. That is not required to be a dictator, y'know.

I mean, really....suppose someone is anti-Trump. Does that mean he cannot, then, be against Mitch McConnell? If he is against stamp collecting, does that mean that he can't then be against turning bottles in for cash?

How about...if a dictator is against religion, does that mean he can't be against free speech?

Your objection is illogical.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
So it is ok for atheists to make critique of religion/religious people, but not the other way?
I did not say that. I said nothing to imply that.
You really need to stop trying to make up stuff that you think furthers your agenda.

People criticize atheists and atheism all the time. Your OP is an excellent example.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Oh, don't be silly. If they were prohibiting The Press (and they were) and killing people BECAUSE they were members of The Press (and they did) then they were doing it 'in the name of anti-Pressism" which happens to be a subset of a-FreeSpeech. One cannot be anti-all Free Press unless one IS anti Free Speech, after all.

Oh, don't be silly. If they were prohibiting Higher Education (and they were) and killing people BECAUSE they were members of the intellectual elite (and they did) then they were doing it 'in the name of anti-intellectualism...
Those sound ridiculous because they are ridiculous. So is your comment regarding religion.


Dictators and revolutionaries remove, or try to remove, anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.

If intellectuals can rouse the rabble, get rid of them.
If the Free Press can rouse the rabble, get rid of them.
If religious leaders can rouse the rabble, get rid of them.


Still don't agree. The very foundation of "I don't care if I kill because there is no God" is being atheist. (Not that if you are atheist, you kill".

So what are you trying to say? That atheists think it's OK to kill because we don't have to answer to an imaginary man in the sky. Maybe you need to do a quick check of how many atheists are on death row compared to Christians and Muslims.


But, if you want to spin it that way, religious people kill, not because of their religion but because of power and control.

Works both ways.

Yep. Power and control. One thing that all religions want is power and control. That's why Protestant and Catholic church leaders kept influencing the monarchs of Europe. They didn't do it for the good of the Country. They didn't do it for the good of the people. They did it for their (version of) God.

The religious leaders are the ones who convinced monarchs to raise and pay for armies to rid the world of the evils of Islam.

Every group that invaded the Americas had people carrying crosses.
exploration-of-north-america-hero.jpg


We took Native American children from their parents and put them in Christian orphanages.

CoPPOh_UkAA6YKx.jpg


Carlisle became the model for 26 Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding schools in 15 states and territories, plus hundreds of private boarding schools sponsored by religious denominations.​


Makes you proud of your Christian heritage, doesn't it?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
But they are not ridiculous. You are quite correct; if a government kills people BECAUSE they are of the intellectually elite...or because they are members of 'the Press,' then they are indeed 'doing it in the name of ' anti-intellectualism or anti free speech." What's your problem with this idea?

If they are killing people BECAUSE of something they are, then they are anti-whatever that is, and killing them is 'in the name of' anti-whatever that is. One doesn't need to actually use that phrase. It's pretty obvious.

The obvious sarcasm of my post went right over your head.


They are killing people who are opposed to their regime. It doesn't matter why they are opposed.

Communist leaders killed prominent communists because the leader was paranoid about their possible opposition, not because they were communists. Does that make the communist leaders anti-commnist?

Hitler killed prominent Nazis because he was paranoid about their possible opposition, not because they were Nazis. Does that make Hitler anti-Nazi?

If you still don't get it, then I really have nothing more to say on the subject.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
Perhaps.
My country tends to be more strict than America. Insofar as we offer less tolerance to preaching hate. You can do it, but perhaps not with as much fervour as the States allow. We have even barred certain American preachers from entering.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't expect judgment by deities.
Tis my fellow man (& gal) who poses the danger.
I agree. All I see is (some) Christians throwing tantrums like spoilt toddlers because they can’t hurt people anymore. The oppressed are fighting back and calling out the “privilege.” Not baking wedding cakes and stomping their feet over gay marriage or whatever tantrum is this week’s news. Give me a break.
Of course I do not advocate for discourse to be mean or rude. But the way I see it, the religious are getting what they project into the world.

Some are caught in the crossfire. I mean the Christians of my own family are often embarrassed by such displays by their brethren. But where there’s smoke there’s fire.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
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?

Most atheists were raised Christian, so I can understand why they would talk about the problems with the religion. Some atheists rag on supernaturalist religions but I don't know many who rage on sensible religions like Buddhism or Taoism.
 
Top