The most visible form of atheists' activism is probably arguing against the value of religion and theism. More and more atheists are standing up to not only publicly admit that they are atheists, but also to say that neither religion nor theism have anything to offer which makes them very necessary or attractive. People can not only lead good, interesting, and meaningful lives without them, but might in fact be better off if they try. Does arguing against religion mean atheism is a religion?
Read Article: Myth: Atheists Argue Against Religion, Therefore They Have a Religion
In this article it was stated, ‘People can lead not only good, interesting, and meaningful lives without them,(refering to religion and theism) but might in fact be better off if they try’. The main goal of Christianity is not to learn lead a good, happy life and follow a few man-made rules. The number 1 concern is that people realize that Jesus willingly gave his life in atonement for all who have sinned and come short of God’s glory, He was the ultimante sinless sacrifice. He was raised by the power of the Holy Spirit 3 days later to sit at the Father’s right hand. By this sacrifice and ascension, we have hope that we will 1 day live in Heaven. The central focus is to understand what Jesus said,’I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes unto the Father but by Me.’ Our sin separates us from fellowship with God, which we were designed for. If we all look at the 10 Commandments, and compare our lives to them to see if we’ve broken any, we’ll see that we have and do. Jesus said that if a man look at a woman with lust, he has commited adultery. We’ve all done that. God also said that if we break 1 Commandment then we’ve broken them all. For most people it’s easier to say that there’s no God, than to face the fact that they are a blatant sinner.
Which is why Christianity can be such an anti-human ideology.
Lauding such an event is immoral.
Only if we regard them as authoritative. And if we can choose which of the three versions to use.
This arrogantly assumes that everyone believes in your god, in Jesus, and in your notion of sin. Not all do, and those who don’t will not say any such thing.
Ashley, most of us realize all that, but many religous folk claim that people who don’t follow their religion (or at least SOME religion) can’t lead moral lives at all. It’s true we’re not aiming for holiness, we’re just claiming for basic decency, and doing a good job of living by that standard, in the main.
No he didn’t. That’s the central facepalm of Christianity. Christians keep talking about how Jesus “sacrificed his life”, but that only makes any kind of sense if most of the central claims of Christianity are false.
The sacrifice that Jesus made only means anything if he was an outspoken human man who was willing for his principles and was tragically made to, like many others have been before and since.
But look at what Christianity actually teaches us. This life is a “vale of tears”, something nasty and corrupted that is simply to be endured correctly before the real, eternal life begins after we die. So is it really a sacrifice to end your tenure in this corrupted world over which Satan is the true lord a little early? And Jesus wasn’t just any faithful believer, he was the one true god incarnate.
He had a really, really bad weekend and was then able to depart this hideously despoiled vale of tears much earlier than his natural time, and to top it all off he got to be god forever. He’s supposedly still god now, up there hating fags, supporting offshore oil drilling and making sure the right team wins in sporting events.
Where is the sacrifice for him in this? Sure, the tortures he is said to have gone through are horrendous, but after the first trillion years back being god surely it would no longer sting, and many, many people went through similar tortures without getting to be god afterwards.
Ahem. Willing to die for his principles.
Let’s look at what atheism teaches. Atheism says that there is no God. That as long as you believe what you’re doing is right and if you can get enough people to agree it’s moral. Then it’s moral. The whole term of “morality” is completely and totally relative to the culture and upbringing of the person in question. If Hitler had won WW2 and used his power to spread his message yes there would be rebellions but this would be VERY hard place to live for people who aren’t blue eyed and blonde haired. Everyone else would be hunted and persecuted and after a century or so with enough backing. it would be moral.
Forget being a veil of tears. Atheism teaches that this world is a cosmic accident. There really is no ultimate meaning to life and we’re all just enjoying (or not enjoying) the ride. When the ride finally stops it just stops. There is no pain or happiness. There is nothing. So why continue going through ups and downs when you can just stop the ride and get it over with? Why do people insist on telling people to keep living no matter how much they are suffering?
By the way. Jesus didn’t WANT to die. He begged the Father for another way and was told that it was the only way. At that point he was resigned to his fate. He could have denounced everything he was and claimed and have lived but he refused to turn away from the Father.
How many religions teach that it’s better to die for your beliefs than take a life defending them and how many wars have those religions started?
Nothing at all.
Gee, that was easy.
No, it doesn’t. Atheism doesn’t “say” anything. Atheists lack belief in gods. Some atheists say that no gods exists; some don’t bother.
No, atheism doesn’t teach this. Some atheists believe that there is an objective morality with objective moral facts. Some don’t.
No, atheism doesn’t teach this. Atheists have a variety of beliefs about the world. To know what those beliefs are, you actually have to ask them — it isn’t enough to have simply read an apologetics book written by some bigoted evangelist.
All religions have been intimately involved in wars — starting them, providing ideological justification for them, making atrocities easier, etc.
Whether it’s better to allow yourself to be killed than to fight to defend yourself and your beliefs is debatable. However, the fact that you yourself are not above misrepresenting atheism and atheists while defined your beliefs doesn’t put you in a superior moral position. If you’ll engage in fear and hate mongering to defend your beliefs, you’re not above killing for them.
<>
And of course, Hitler was a Christian…
Atheism teaches nothing at all? So one would be hard pressed to find an atheist trying to convince others how logic proves there’s no God? It would be difficult to find an atheist singing the praises of science while talking down on anyone who believes in God? What exactly is the point of this little section? It’s absolutely not to say nothing.
No, it doesn’t. Atheism doesn’t “say” anything. Atheists lack belief in gods. Some atheists say that no gods exists; some don’t bother.
But the bottom line is there are 2 types of atheists. The ones who will say they don’t believe a God exists and the ones who will just say nothing and avoid the topic. When I say “Atheism says” It’s meant as “The following is a very common belief by this faction of people”
No, atheism doesn’t teach this. Some atheists believe that there is an objective morality with objective moral facts. Some don’t.
Your entire rebuttal seems to revolve around “but some don’t” Yet when you generalize about theists you lump us all in together without the honesty of admitting the good of religion. As if religion is the cause of all evil known to mankind. How can you run something like this and be so biased? By the way in the case of objective morality. Who decides what’s right and who has final say so in gray areas between right and wrong and what credentials are needed to make this determination?
No, atheism doesn’t teach this. Atheists have a variety of beliefs about the world. To know what those beliefs are, you actually have to ask them — it isn’t enough to have simply read an apologetics book written by some bigoted evangelist.
First off, Atheists don’t have beliefs and if you ask them what they believe they will say nothing. Well SOME won’t. The others will all give you one of 2 stories. One is the universe is an accident. The other is aliens. Which is crazy for obvious reasons
All religions have been intimately involved in wars — starting them, providing ideological justification for them, making atrocities easier, etc.
To borrow your line. Some wars have been tied to religion while just because there is a war doesn’t mean religion has any part of it. Great example being civil wars, revolutions and political up risings.
Whether it’s better to allow yourself to be killed than to fight to defend yourself and your beliefs is debatable. However, the fact that you yourself are not above misrepresenting atheism and atheists while defined your beliefs doesn’t put you in a superior moral position. If you’ll engage in fear and hate mongering to defend your beliefs, you’re not above killing for them.
So now you attack me? You can do nothing but make assumptions about me. You yourself have said that there is a list a portion of atheists who are exactly as I described. The only debate is the percentage and unless you have running tab on every atheist in the world you can’t say with certainty that the ones I describe aren’t the majority. I don’t recall ever telling anyone to be afraid of anything or hate anything. So who’s misrepresenting whom? Here’s a nice tidbit. I don’t CARE about being morally superior and I will NEVER kill someone simply because they don’t believe what I do. If I’m gonna kill someone it will be in defense of my life or someone elses and nothing else.
Who needs all the drama and nonsense of religions? It’s very simple:
1. Evidence rules. Lack of evidence means we don’t know, and is not, in and of itself, “evidence” for some other hypothesis that has no SUPPORTING evidence of its own. “Negative” evidence for my theory is not “positive” evidence for yours.
2. Those who make extraordinary claims are the ones who have to provide the extraordinary evidence. (See #1)
3. Be nice to each other, i.e. “The Golden Rule” (which predates Christianity by thousands of years.)
That’s pretty much it…
Correct.
Arguing against theism does not entail that atheism has any particular teachings.
By the same token, arguing against belief in elves doesn’t mean that disbelief in elves is a philosophy with its own teachings.
No, when you say “atheism says” you say “atheism says.” If you mean “most atheists think something in particular” that’s what you actually have to write. You can’t make false generalizations then excuse them by insisting that you didn’t really mean what your words unambiguously communicate.
Feel free to point out where I generalize about theists as you claim I do.
I never claimed this. Quite the opposite is the case — atheists have lots of beliefs, just as any human being does.
Furthermore, “atheism” is not a proper noun and thus shouldn’t be capitalized. When you capitalized it like this, you send the message that you think atheism is an ideology or philosophy and thus that you have no idea what atheism actually is.
I never claimed that every war had religion in it.
It’s not the case that no civil war, revolution, or political uprising had religion as an important part of it.
If pointing out your unethical behavior is an “attack,” then so be it.
Point to one.
You don’t have to. When you paint all atheists in negative but false ways as you did, you engage in fear mongering and hate mongering.
Yet you manage so well to depict yourself as a person who is desperately trying to paint atheists as morally inferior to you. I shudder to think of how you would behave if you ever did “care” about being “morally superior.”
Arguing against theism does not entail that atheism has any particular teachings.
I like how you avoided this part. “It would be difficult to find an atheist singing the praises of science while talking down on anyone who believes in God? What exactly is the point of this little section? It’s absolutely not to say nothing.”
Do you not understand the fundamentals of knowledge and how it’s a prime example of the power of suggestion?
You don’t need to have classes, you don’t need textbooks or study groups to teach something. All you need is someone with authority and an impressionable person. It’s the very basis of knowledge. So yes arguing against theism, especially with way atheists in general are so fond of implying that anyone who believes in God is less intelligent than they are, does entail teachings. If the person you are arguing with decides that there is no God based on your arguments then you have essentially put a certainty into a persons mind who is going to treat that notion as simple fact. Is that not teaching? Don’t try and twist words with me. I’m too globally minded to ever get lost in that particular maze.
No, when you say “atheism says” you say “atheism says.” If you mean “most atheists think something in particular” that’s what you actually have to write. You can’t make false generalizations then excuse them by insisting that you didn’t really mean what your words unambiguously communicate.
Dodging around the central issue again. I notice that you very pointedly didn’t deny my revision. Only that it wasn’t what I said originally.
Feel free to point out where I generalize about theists as you claim I do.
“Conservative Christians are frequently regarded as among the most anti-scientific and even anti-intellectual members of society. It’s understandable that conservative Christians would object to such a characterization, but the unfortunate fact is that it’s a characterization based on reality and experience, not simple prejudice” SO this isn’t saying that conservative Christians are anti-scientific and anti-intellectual based on “reality” of all things? So it’s just the simple nature of the conservative christian to be unintelligent? Way to not generalize there buddy. Great job of saying “of course I have no way of proving that those who personify these qualities are the majority”
I never claimed this. Quite the opposite is the case — atheists have lots of beliefs, just as any human being does.
The definition of religion is a system of beliefs and practices concerning the nature of the universe. So you just said that atheists have beliefs and you certainly have practices. You people have to protest and enlighten everyone you see every time you see something that COULD be religious in a public place. Even a army hospital symbol isn’t safe and its not even a cross. Just looks like one. Even if you eliminated the practice. How is an atheist who (remember you said you have beliefs) who doesn’t do anything different from a christian who never prays or goes to church? and lets not forget the atheistic religions. How would you define religions that do not worship a heavenly creator? So it seems safe to say that atheists absolutely have religions the only difference is they don’t believe in God. Which makes them guilty of everything you say a theist is guilty of.
If pointing out your unethical behavior is an “attack,” then so be
How is my behavior “unethical”? I have not insulted anyone. I hate no one I yet to harm in any shape, form or fashion….So what was it EXACTLY that I said that was unethical?
You can do nothing but make assumptions about me.
Point to one.
Yet you manage so well to depict yourself as a person who is desperately trying to paint atheists as morally inferior to you.
If I never said that I was morally superior to anyone then how is this NOT an assumption?
You don’t have to. When you paint all atheists in negative but false ways as you did, you engage in fear mongering and hate mongering.
When did I say something negative about atheists? Even if something I said was negative how can it be seen as fear mongering? Fear mongering is the use of fear to influence people. Who am I trying to scare? What am I trying to scare them into doing? Hate monger is defined by yourdictionary.com “as a propagandist who seeks to provoke hatred and prejudice, esp. against a minority group or groups” If I’m trying to provoke hatred shouldn’t I be on a christian site? Where have I shown that I hate atheists? I would never sink so low as to hate someone for what the believe or don’t. I’d rather hate people for the things they do to themselves and others and this group includes every religion, race and nationality under the sun. Seems to me that you have an inferiority complex. From what YOU write you seem to be the type who thinks the whole world is against you. Like you’re actually important enough for people to conspire against instead of just another inconsequential oxygen thief who will live and die and not be missed by more than a decimal point percentage of humanity.
It’s not grammatical. I can’t make sense of it.
This is grammatical, but it still makes no sense.
This isn’t relevant to the fact that atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods and, as such, “teaches” nothing.
Arguing against theism entails having beliefs and ideas, but it doesn’t entail that atheism itself has teachings. People with brown hair also argue against theism, but this doesn’t entail that having brown hair has teachings.
No, it’s not. If I convince you to buy a Mac instead of a Dell, or to wear a certain type of shoe, that isn’t necessarily a “teaching” of some philosophy.
Oh, I can tell.
So, pointing out the meaning of the actual words you use is “dodging” and “issue”? I guess you don’t consider your own words to be important.
You didn’t make a revision. I revision would be something like: “you are correct, I made a mistake in how I worded that… here is the proposition I meant to put forward.”
No, it’s not. Quite the contrary: it assumes that there are conservative Christians who aren’t and who should focus their concerns on the ones who are instead of the people who complain about this problem. Of course, it would help to understand that if you quoted the rest of the passage: “The characterization must therefore be fought by targeting the Christians who hold exactly those sorts of anti-scientific and anti-intellectual beliefs.” But maybe using a full quote with full context is too much to expect from you?
According to whom?
Not in common.
Really? Prove it. You just made a generalization about all atheists and I expect you to provide support for it.
Simple: an atheist lacks belief in gods. That’s the sole defining characteristic of atheism. A Christian does believe in a god. Ergo, there’s a difference.
You’re the only one who has forgotten them: if you remember that there are “atheistic religions,” then you know that atheism alone isn’t a religion.
Actually, an atheistic religion is a religion without any gods. A religion with gods, but where none of the gods is a “heavenly creator,” isn’t an atheistic religion it’s a theistic religion. You have an awfully narrow understanding of theism for a person who is so “globally minded.”
Some atheists have a religion. Most don’t.
And what exactly do I “say a theist is guilty of”?
Hate mongering and fear mongering are unethical.
I’m sure you believe that — if you don’t view atheists as equally human, nothing you’ve written about them could possibly be perceived as insulting.
Simple: I’m describing how you depict yourself. That’s not an assumption about your character, it’s a description of your behavior. You can choose to consider that maybe your behavior appears very differently to atheists from how you intend it or you can assume that your infallible and that if anyone perceives your behavior any differently from how you intended it, then that must simply be their fault.
Pretty much all the gross generalizations you made in your original comment. Indeed, you come very close to admitting this when you half-way admit that you were wrong and shouldn’t have been generalizing. Of course, if your generalizations were positive then making them would hardly be a problem. No one complains about positive, generous, kind generalizations, do they? The primary motive to change your original claims from broad generalizations to narrower claims is that they were not positive.
But let’s look at specifics now. It was your contention that, according to atheists and atheists’ view of morality, “If Hitler had won WW2 and used his power to spread his message yes there would be rebellions but this would be VERY hard place to live for people who aren’t blue eyed and blonde haired. Everyone else would be hunted and persecuted and after a century or so with enough backing. it would be moral.” Put more simply, it is your contention that atheists have no sound basis for raising moral objections to Hitler, fascism, and genocide — that atheists must accept a victory of Hitler as legitimately moral.
Do explain to me, in detail, how that is not a negative statement about atheists. Any comment from you which does not include such an explanation will be deleted because if you can’t speak on that specific matter, then you literally have nothing worth sharing with anyone else here. It’s bad enough to engage in that sort of hate mongering, but then to deny it and refuse to defend it when challenged just won’t be tolerated.
More specifically, in cases like this it is encouraging people to fear some group in order to further ostracize that group and thereby promoting bigotry, discrimination, and even violence. When Antisemites go on about Jews are trying to take over the world, that’s fear mongering. When evangelical Christians go on about how gays are trying to destroy religious liberty, that’s fear mongering.
No. Bigots spread their bile wherever they go.
You may have long thought that of yourself, but when you were paying close enough attention you sank down up to your neck in it. You should have been looking where you were stepping instead of patting yourself on the back for how morally righteous you are.
Yeah, you never attack atheists.
You seem to be unaware of the fact that atheists are the most despised and distrusted minority in America. And who is doing all the despising and distrusting? Christians who probably assume that they are too moral and decent to ever hate anyone.
Yeah, you never say anything negative about atheists. You would never sink so low.
As expected, Michael didn’t even try to explain how his comments weren’t negative. Instead he whined about atheists fighting for church/state separation and wondered why I care what he thinks of me.
We know that the Christers abhor science, but no one calls forwards, sideways, upside down or on the bias, from Friday afternoon until sun up Sunday morning is just not going to be the third day.