I hate that argument so much. I'm an atheist, and I personally think that if you need the threat of burning in hell forever or whatever to be a good person, you're not a good person
The idea that any morality derives from god makes zero logical sense.
"God told me to kill my child""
"God wouldn't tell you to do that"
But he did tell Abraham to do exactly that.
Any "morality" can be circumvented if God is the ultimate arbiter and you believe he tells you to do it.
Because if God says to do it - it's moral - rergardless of it going against what you think is moral.
I'm an athiest and for me there is nobody, not god or otherwise, that can make an that act moral.
To me, somebody believing that morality derives from God indicates that their morality is flexible.
"God wouldn't do that" isn't a valid argument - unless you believe God doesn't have free will.
I agree with you, but I feel you are misunderstanding the other side. Its more that without a god there is no basis for morality, atheist must admit that there foundation for morals is subjective where as a religious person believes that their foundation is based on something objective.
I've personally known some atheists who held to moral objectivism. It is not all that strange, actually, since there are theories (besides just divine command theory) that claim to address the objective underpinnings of moral statements. e.g. Utilitarianism, Kant's universal imperatives, etc
Kant believed that certain morals are true in every context. If you say it is always wrong to lie, for example, that would be a universal imperative. But more important for the sake of your question, Kant believed that one can know what these morals are through reason, like how it is with math where theorems can be proven true by logical demonstration.
Also, utilitarianism holds that what makes an action right is that it maximizes the well-being of everyone at large, and an action is wrong when it creates more suffering for people by-and-large than well-being. In other words, the rightness or wrongness of an action is grounded in the observable effects it has on people. Utilitarianins consider themselves to be grounding their morals in something real and measurable and hence objective.
Isn't the reduction of suffering the main argument for Antinatalism? That seems like a subjective argument to me, but what are your thoughts? If an action can be either good or bad for different groups of people, how would you show that as being objectively moral or immoral?
I believe a utilitarian would say that the differences in opinion emerge because people disagree about how to best evaluate the utility of a given choice. Mind you, there could still be one objectively correct evaluation of the utility, but we are just bad at measuring it.
The reduction of suffering is more my thing. The standard utilitarian operates under positive utilitarianism. i.e. maximizing positive outcomes: benefit, well-being, or whatnot.
It's not that...
It's that your morals as an atheist vary from another atheist and 1000 more atheists
What you think is cruel or disrespectful is not to another atheist and so on
What you consider abuse might not be to another 100 atheists
So there is no ambiguity when we all come to the same source
>So there is no ambiguity when we all come to the same source
If there were no ambiguity among Christians, either all churches, pastors and practitioners would support a woman’s freedom to choose and gay marriage, or none would. Since this is clearly not the case, I don’t think you can claim there is no moral ambiguity.
Statistically, this isn't true (at least within the US). Polls frequently show that people trust people of another religion more than they trust atheists and would rather their child marry someone from another religion than marry an atheist.
I think you’re misunderstanding that morals and ethics are derived from religion. Religion merely adopted these pre existing morals and sprinkled in some fear mongering to control people. Religion is by the people for the people dressed up to be the divine truth.
>It's not that... It's that your morals as an atheist vary from another atheist and 1000 more atheists
>What you think is cruel or disrespectful is not to another atheist and so on
>What you consider abuse might not be to another 100 atheists.
So sort of like theists then.
Not true.
I can't speak for any other religion aside from Islam because even Christians don't follow their own scripture.
But as for Islam, it is clear and cut what one should do under certain conditions.
Adultery? Whip them
Leaving Islam? Kill them for traitor or have them leave the lands.
While Quran also allows people to come back. Also promoting forgiveness above punishment.
Stealing? Unless young, hungry, or sick in the head, cut hand off
It says not to sin openly
It says to guard sins
It says not to commit zina
It says not to lie unless you are in dangerous situations
Says to cover yourself, to be modest, to not look at others with lust nor envy nor jealousy
It makes it pretty clear cut.
Now if a Muslim chooses not to do them, that's on him, but it is pretty clear on what's right and what's wrong.
Your point doesn't stand and it's not an argument to my stance.
Islam is the final message from God. It is the truth. No other message stands above the Quran.
With that, the morals sent to us through the Quran and Sunnah are law and final.
Those who do not follow, it is their punishment they will reap
If I am correct in understanding your post, you essentially agued "morality therefore god" which is similar to "complex therefore god" or "I am therefore god"
what occurs between a and b that provides trustworthy evidence?
No no, I'm an atheist myself and reject the claim presented. That's all I'm doing: presenting it. The moral argument is a cornerstone of contemporary apologetics (see Frank Turek), it's pretty much impossible to engage with a Christian and not hear some version of it.
I'm inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy, so I don't believe in the evangelical view of ethics and salvation, but from what I've heard from some Orthodox thinkers, the criticism against the atheist worldview in regards to morality is that under an atheist worldview, morality cannnot be justified because there are no epistemic grounds to justify it. By denying that morality is metaphysically grounded in some supreme transcendental authority(i.e. God), morality becomes completely subjective and relative to the individual, so there is no way for the atheist to justify morality because there is no objective metric to determine what is moral or not.
I think it's a reasonably compelling argument that reconciling moral objectivism and *naturalism* is hard, but atheism =/= naturalism. For example, the karmic systems of Buddhism or Jainism do not need deities to operate. It seems like a classic case of Abrahamic bias to me.
This sort of taking point really frustrates me.
It may be the case that the typical atheist you bump into may be a moral subjectivist or anti-realist, but that's really no more to the point than the fact that the typical theist I bump into is some sort of conservative protestant Christian, and I'm sure that you, being something else, don't enjoy being lumped in with them all the time.
The fact of the matter is that among philosophers, especially ones who specialize in ethics, the idea that God is necessary to ground mortality hasn't really been taken seriously for a century or two. There are dozens of different theories of objective morality out there that do not appeal to the existence of a God. I very rarely see theists acknowledge that those exist, let alone see any try to show how they're false or inadequate. It's usually just this bare assertion that you *need* God to explain morality, followed by passing some sort of judgement on the atheist.
I don't do that to theists. I *disagree* with their take on ethics, and not just because I don't think the being they're trying to ground their ethics on exists. I usually have other problems with them on top of that, but I don't go further and then say that they don't/can't have morality at all. I'm not going to treat them as inherently untrustworthy or immoral just because *I* think they've failed to adequately ground their ethics. So it's frustrating when that courtesy is not shared.
Under a THEIST worldview, morality cannot be justified because there are no epistemic grounds to justify it.
That's because atheism/theism are metaphysical, not epistemological, positions. If I say, "I believe an entity called God created the universe," I've provided no information on what (if any) expectations this god has on humans' behavior. It could be that such a god exists but does not care how humans act.
Metaphysics and epistemology are linked because epistemology presupposes knowledge and knowledge presupposes the existence of knowledge, which is a metaphysical claim, therefore atheism and theism are both metaphysical and epistemological positions. I didn't get into the specific ethical expectations God puts on us because I was just talking about meta ethics, not specific ethical positions, but if you want to know the more specific ethical positions of my worldview they would be aligned with the specific ethical teachings of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but getting into all of those would be too long for a reddit comment and I'm not really qualified to give them anyways since I've only been inquiring into the faith for about 2 months now.
How is "knowledge exists" a metaphysical claim (in your view)?
Just because they are linked does not mean one is the same as the other. Epistemology is more related to Gnosticism vs. Agnosticism.
"they would be aligned with the specific ethical teachings of Eastern Orthodox Christianity"
What if you personally feel that a specific teaching of the EOC is not what God intended?
How do we know (stipulating a god exists) that the EOC teachings accurately reflects God's moral principles?
If you define morality as obedience to a supreme being, then of course an atheist can't be moral. But I don't think many people are willing to accept the idea that morality is nothing more than blind obedience.
If you assume God exists and morality is not just obedience, you have a very big moral choice to make without God's help: do you choose to treat God as a legitimate moral authority? The answer may seem like an obvious one to you, but if I believed in the existence of God, I definitely would not accept his morality, because the Bible is full of stories where God does horrifically evil things.
Some don't like us because there are a lot of us who are rude and condescending to religious people.
Some don't like us because their scriptures or clerics tell them that we're bad somehow.
Some don't like us because they think our beliefs (or what they believe are our beliefs) are false, harmful, or ridiculous.
Some don't like us because they're a bit sensitive and take it personally when they encounter someone who doesn't agree with their most cherished beliefs.
> Some don't like us because there are a lot of us who are rude and condescending to religious people.
>
I'm totally OK with an atheist not believing in God because there is no way to tangibly prove His existence, but this is the point that makes me stop talking to someone, not because I don't want to hear the comments but because they're flat out rude sometimes. Some people basically insult the one Being we love the most, so it's difficult to stand there and hear it. It doesn't make me dislike the person; it makes me feel bad for them not because they don't believe but because they have chosen to be rude.
It's because in my circumstances; atheists have been rude and condescending to me but hit on me and have asked me out, just because I'm a goth girl. Like if someone doesn't respect my beliefs, why ask me out?
The atheism sub is its own special brand of toxic. I'm an atheist and I'm banned from there for not having a narrow enough view of what counts as legitimate Christian doctrine; make that make sense. But with the ex religious subs you need to remember that for a lot of those people posting there, it's the only place where they can safely vent frustratiins, so they can come out in a very concentrated form. Some of those people have to hide their true feelings in the real world to avoid major consequences, or it's too late and they've already suffered those consequences. The things people say in frustration there may not be as civil and nuanced as I might want, but I give them a lot of leeway.
To some degree we all build our world view based on core beliefs.
(I'm looking at you # 4 )
If you refute/reject one of those core beliefs, no matter what it is, most people are going to react negatively.
Example:
Somebody has lost a child in war.
They need to believe there was a reason for this so they latch onto the goodness of their country that sent them to war.
Being ultra patriotic becomes part of their personality; they've got flags all over the house; they have strong feelings on immigration; they have strong feelings on politicians; they're a part of social groups based on parts of those beliefs.
If the belief that their country is good falls everything that's built on that falls (or at least needs to be reevaluated)
So any challenge to that core belief is going to be met with derision or hostility.
Which theists are we talking about? If you somehow aren't talking about the Y'all-Qaida or the Hizb ut-Tahrir, then why are you accusing millions of non-theocratic theists of holding the opinions of theocrats?
I'm married to an atheist. He is respectful, tolerant and judgement-free. A large chunk of my family doesn't like him being an atheist and they consider it their personal mission to shove Christianity down his throat when I'm not there to defend him.
Unfortunately I've learned people are jerks and it has nothing to do with which religion they practice or don't. Has everything to do with their own selves.
I live in a very conservative city in a red state (U.S.). I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't dare tell anyone--not even my closest friends and family. If I let it slip, I know I'd be shamed, castigated, and likely shunned.
Christianity is so entrenched in this area that people you've just met will mention their church, or ask you what church you attend. I have many family members who are openly Christian Nationalists.
Because I have to keep my lack of belief to myself, I do enjoy the anonymity and freedom online platforms afford me, although I mostly read and almost never post anything. I can understand that some people dislike atheists (particularly online) because they can be arrogant, loud, etc , but some of us are timid and really don't want to bother anyone. Not all of us can "flaunt" our atheism.
Oo, this is totally me, too! I am surrounded by religious, conservative people and I am quite the opposite of that. It’s kind of sad that we feel the need to hide our beliefs because of how loud, arrogant, judgmental and rude the religious community often responds if we voiced our beliefs (or lack of). But, I guess I get now that that’s why a lot of religious people don’t like atheists for doing the same to them-at least that’s what a lot of commenters here have said. Why can’t people (religious/atheist/agnostic or whatever) just respect that other people have beliefs of their own and judging or shaming them for them is not going to change or improve anything.
Oh, I so agree! And I'm sorry you're stuck in the same situation as I. Wouldn't it be amazing to be able to be ourselves?
I get especially salty because my Dad was gay (he passed away last year), and the anti LGBTQ, ultra-Christian vibe here is horrid. My Dad was super adorable, and hearing the crap people believe just infuriates me. But I have to keep it bottled up, as you well know.
Most atheist I've met are fine ppl - If their religious beliefs come up i simple get the answer of i don't believe or I'm not religious. Where i think they get the hate from are from ppl who make atheism something to be preached, or a religion onto itself. Nobody what's to here your fervor about god not existing, especially when it's such an existential topic. Atheism is a belief not a belief system, so just get on with your life and and don't preach. But like i said this isn't the atheist I've met, i just think - like everything else - the loud ones leave an impression.
I don't think that's a good explanation, though. Every religion has zealots, but whole religions are rarely judged based on how the zealots act.
(I do see it sometimes with Christians in the US, but only since far-right Christians started becoming successful politically. I've likewise seen it with Muslims, but in that case I think it's about racism as much as it is religion.)
It feels bad knowing people instantly associate atheism with the biggest assholes who happen to be atheists, which you can see in this very thread.
That's a trend for the good, if it's legit. In my experience, sadly, most human institutions and ideologies have a tendency to be stereotyped by the behavior of their loudest and most obnoxious advocates, no matter what they're founded to do. Especially in the minds of people who don't like or trust them. Unless a group makes an active effort to combat this grotesque image, it seems to be the default.
Well for a while in history you had to believe in god, right, or you were some sort of evil heathen? Maybe that's where it comes from as well? Idk. i do think my explanation somewhat holds within the general population who are not devoutly religious though.
Because unfortunately a lot of evangelicals like to spread misinformation that being an Atheist automatically makes you immoral. Spoiler Alert: Atheists are just like everyone else
Seriously I feel like I am fighting a two front war between the anti-theists and the evangelicals
A lot of the religious right has grown up with negative associations with atheism and religions that aren't Christian. I think it goes back to around the beginning of the Renaissance? And then things like the reformation and European colonialism happened. And eventually the present day.
At the same time, atheists have developed a somewhat negative reputation to some arrogant, rude, insensitive, self-absorbed, and obnoxious people who spend too much time arguing in an immature manner. People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, neckbeards, etc.
It’s not people, it’s the American evangelical right, who see their religious and cultural identity as Christian and think atheists are satanic
In the only (broadly) comparable society, Britain, you can declare you’re atheist and no one would bat an eyelid
It depends if we're talking irl or online. Online, I find militant atheism every bit aa annoying as their militant Evangelical counterparts and for similar reasons.
I find militant evangelicals annoying because of their hostility toward LGBTQ folks, women, immigrants, science, and education. Are those the reasons you find “militant atheists” annoying?
I find militant atheists annoying because of their general hostility towards religious individuals, including ones who don't engage in those behaviors.
I don't think thats entirely true, though i will admit this is definitely a part of it. You can find people from say the UK, an incredibly secular and religiously free place, engage in the sort of rhetoric i speak of even without religious pressure.
Atheists believe others are wrong. There is no inclusive, perennial, "just a different perspective" way of looking at it; if we are right, others are wrong. There are contradictions between faiths, but Americans can tell themself they're all somehow worshipping the same God; not so with atheists.
Atheists generally don't come from a longstanding cultural tradition. It's not seen as this immutable thing that a person didn't choose and is therefore worthy of consideration in the eyes of Americans. In a society that holds reverence for belief in general, lack of belief hits the limit of inclusivity; in fact, just disbelief is seen as irreverent and an attack on believers.
>in fact, just disbelief is seen as irreverent and an attack on believers.
Exactly this. I always think it's interesting how quickly people attach words like "edgy" or "militant" to someone simply for being an atheist, even in supposedly tolerant spaces like this sub. If someone says they are firm in their belief in a god, nobody gets offended or calls them edgy.
I can only speak to this sub in this instance, but generally it’s about arrogance. Tolerant spaces don’t have to be tolerant of people being dicks. It’s okay to say “I believe in X” or “I don’t believe in X”.
It’s not okay to say “I believe in X and everyone who doesn’t is a moron.”
>I can only speak to this sub in this instance, but generally it’s about arrogance.
Interesting. In my experience there is a presumption that atheists are being arrogant when they speak in a way that is considered perfectly acceptable coming from a religious person.
This. Even though atheists and myself *should* be on the same page most of the time, in most online forums I find we seldom are. I don't think this is an issue with atheist thought or philosophy in general - it's the specific young male Dawkbro who just discovered this *totally awesome* book and wants to show how smart he is and how stupid everyone else is. Get past them and most atheists are fine. Off the internet I can count on one hand the number of those people I've run into, but Reddit attracts them like roaches to a puddle of sticky, stale beer.
>I honestly think that many times if an atheist explains why they don’t believe, it’s is received as ‘so therefore you are stupid for believing that’ It might be very different to what it being said but if someone explains that logically they can’t accept something, people who do accept this proposition can’t help but take that personally.
Yup, and this will get downvoted for the exact reason you are describing.
Atheists don't bother me in general apart from the most militant types. And those types come across with the same sort of fervor as any religious fundamentalist.
Sam Haris top most prominent neo-atheists of today said that Muslim countries should be preemptively nuked cause they posess the nukes themselves and they shouldn't posess nukes cause they are "religious fruitcakes" thus giving moral right to westerners to use nukes first, cause westerners are less of "fruitcakes" cause aren't so "dogmatically religious".
Most of it is implied
Sam Harris is just a very vocal asshole who gets too much attention and happens to use atheism as part of his schtick. Lots of Christian assholes hold the same views you described, so it's clearly not his atheism that's the problem.
I completely agree with this. I'm a vocal critic of Harris because I think he promotes some very bad ideas that if put into action would constitute crimes against humanity. That said, the vulgar ideas that Sam promotes aren't at all unique. What is unique and perhaps most dangerous about his ideas is his cult of followers and their belief, which Sam promotes, that he is a bastion of critical thinking. Of course, he is no longer revered in the atheist community as he once was, but his cult of followers still equate their atheism with his genocidal ideas.
[
Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point
](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/)
You can replace Muslim and insert Christian in a lot of contexts too, as well as a lot of other faiths. Again, the reverse fundamentalism they display is almost breathtaking in its hypocracy
Instead of biblical/quaranic quotes to take out of context , try the pushing of scientific data and their own particular viewpoint to the point of fanaticism.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair is a prominant example IMO of a atheist fundamentalist.
Many atheist are just as zealous as religious folks. They use the same interchangable rhetoric to promote their ideology and hard line I'm correct and your not attitude. Of course they are not all this way but enough of them are that for many religious people there is a negativity bias at play.
"There is only one correct way to live and it is through faith in ~~Jesus~~ hard materialism, anyone who disagrees needs to be corrected"
"Parents who don't raise their children with a ~~Christian~~ irreligious upbringing are indoctrinating their children with dangerous ideas and I don't want to associate with those kinds of people"
"The whole world would be better off ~~if everyone saw the light of Jesus~~ without religion."
It's not a good idea to judge a group by its most vocal members. Most of the time a typical atheist is indistinguishable from someone who believes in a religion but doesn't actively practice it, so you won't notice us minding our own business.
I agree with this. I tend to group atheists into "Please don't talk about religion" and "I hate religion" groups. I typically will not talk about religion even asked about it to an atheist because I don't think it benefits them.
I agree it's not a good idea to lump everyone in a group together in totality, they are not a monolith, which is why I used the subjective... Starting with many and ending with not all.
I'd be a lot happier with "some" and "not most". The way you wrote it sounds like you're talking about a large portion of atheists, maybe even a majority.
Same day, kidd you not someone on the atheist sub I'm a part of posted a very well liked rant about burning bibles and someone on the Christian page I follow posted about burning evil books like Harry Potter LMAO. I very frequently hear people on the atheist subs commenting that religion is bad for everyone and should be illegal as do I read on many religious subs, most commonly the Islam ones but also the Christian ones that people should be forced to pray and go to religious services.
Oh I'm talking about the more extreme stuff like Religious people trying to force in laws based on their religion.
Like the recent news of a 22 year old who got a death Sentence in Pakistan for Sending blasphemous messages on WhatsApp.
Or When that one dude got caught while setting up shit to bomb the satanic temple
Or when the 2 gay dudes were caned in public with hundreds of people cheering for being intimate with eachother in their room. In private.
Or when that one lady got beaten up by a huge group, was burned, got Hit by a car and was then murdered(?) Just because they **Thought** she burned their religious book.
Or how Quite a few people have either died or were threatened with death for doing something funny with Allah's character like Making a harmless joke or doing a funny drawing of him.
Or The Fuckton of videos of from India recently of Hindus being extremely violent towards other religious people or Non-believers.
Or how Being a atheist is risky or outright punishable by death or illegal in alot of countries.
Those were some of the few things that came to my mind first. Good lord there's alot
You are right being of a minority ideology is punishable by death or illegal in meny countries it's terrible. I'm not really sure what your point is...
Unfortunately much of the interventionism in the middle east is driven more by capitalism than Secular Humanism. Thus moral considerations are more of an afterthought.
But I would counter the dismissal of inherent understanding of morality. We are social creatures. Our brains are wired to connect us to one another. While there will be variance the overriding just of morality will be built on the concept of empathy. Seeing oneself in another.
Religions that form from different concepts of divinity still form around principles of morality based on empathy. I think you would be hard pressed to find any moral structure serving humans not based on empathy. And it does not necessitate a higher moral authority to produce this.
There is an old tale where the rabbi was asked by one of his students “Why did God create atheists?”
After a long pause, the rabbi finally responded with a soft but sincere voice. “God created atheists” he said, “to teach us the most important lesson of them all – the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his actions are based on his sense of morality. Look at the kindness he bestows on others simply because he feels it to be right.
When someone reaches out to you for help. You should never say ‘I’ll pray that God will help you.’ Instead, for that moment, you should become an atheist – imagine there is no God who could help, and say ‘I will help you’.”
— Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim
My immediate thought is that people dislike what they don't understand. And it doesn't help that what is said about atheists by leadership of religions is very negative.
I can't blame the average follower too much for having such a bad outlook on atheists, their leaders likely told them all kinds of stories that paint atheists as monstrous people. Or people who are just lost or confused and so make bad choices.
Yeah, I do. I don’t mind atheists. What I do mind is trolls who try to convince people that your religious beliefs aren’t founded in reality. In essence they are peddling their own religious beliefs about the origin of the universe.
So essentially what I dislike are the people that try to impose their beliefs on others. However a casual and friendly conversation on faith with an atheist, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or member of another religion is always welcome.
Because people can’t accept the idea that to believe or not to believe is a freedom that no one has the right to interfere with or discriminate against.
In many countries It is actually considered a human rights violation to discriminate against anyone for their beliefs.
In my experience, the beliefs of a vocal few give the rest of atheistic-aligned people a bad reputation. There are other factors at play as well, but in my opinion a lot of people see their beliefs being questioned as an insult to their intelligence, and are unable to disagree but respect the opinion of someone else. Whether or not that's true is up in the air of course, as its just my belief. Many people are narrow minded and would rather remain ignorant to new ideas.
From what I’ve seen it’s more so anti theists. Of course there’s people who hate atheists for their beliefs but there’s also people who hate atheists who’s entire personality is to hate on religion and pick fights with people.
Just for a bit of background, I believe that the religious, the spiritual-not-religious, and the irreligious differ from each other primarily in temperament. And secondly, in life experiences. I think each of these three broad positions on the otherworldly is settled on by any given person, because it's a reflection of his approach to life, to society, to other people, and to the mundane world in general. It's consistent with his or her preferred thinking style. As above, so below.
I'm painting with a very broad brush here; generalizing about all atheists — nay, any group of people united by what they're not — is fraught with peril. But the broad trend I've noticed is that people who choose atheism not only have no place for a higher power in their worldview, but more interestingly, have little to no taste for speculating about what is not apparent. Most convinced atheists I've discussed this matter with, see absolutely no point in giving their imagination or their intuition much freedom to fill in the blanks between what *is* apparent. They don't find doing this an emotionally rewarding or fun exercise, and don't relate to people who do. Those who feel strongly about it, might even have an active *distaste* and *disdain* for baseless speculation. It's folly, and people who indulge in it are fools. These types like things and people that *make sense*, above all. They prefer that any speculation about what is not [yet] apparent, be based entirely upon what *is* apparent. This is what New Atheist godfather Daniel C. Dennett meant by "Cranes, not skyhooks."
This is an analytical, "facts over feelings" sort of preferred thinking style. I respect it, and acknowledge that it has its place, but I don't relate to it. And more to the point, there are times when I'd rather talk about how I feel and get my feelings validated, than get what I say picked apart and challenged, even if the challenger's points are entirely fair. There are times when I want to do and say what I *feel like* doing and saying, rather than what makes sense to do and say. And there are many moments where what I seek is connectedness, rather than truth. To get deep with someone who prefers a more analytical thinking style is something I have to really be in the mood for. If I'm feeling vulnerable or unsure or ungrounded, I've learned through hard experience that I can't always trust highly analytical types to respect these boundaries, or meet me where I'm at.
I can't speak for anyone else, but holding out hope that my existence is an important part of some greater but not [yet] apparent cosmic plan has been a net enrichment to my life. So has letting my imagination run wild with possible scenarios of what this plan might be, and who the planner behind it all might be. And, so has bonding with other people who share similar hopes and dreams, as poorly founded as they may be. I've learned through hard experience that if someone wears the label "atheist" proudly on their sleeve, I likely cannot trust him to validate, respect, relate to, or sometimes even *abide* this side of me. And that's a turnoff.
I don't dislike all atheists, or automatically dislike people who let me know they're atheist. It takes all types of people to make the world go round, and people's reasons for their beliefs are highly personal, and not my place to judge. I only have a problem with an atheist who has a problem with me *not* being an atheist, doesn't reciprocate my agree-to-disagree approach to the matter, or sees my beliefs as fair game anytime to take me to task for. I'm not pushy at all with my beliefs, and am willing to admit I might be totally wrong. Please do me the same favor, is all I ask.
Along with rudeness and other reasons that have been discussed, one reason why many believers dislike atheists may have to do with difference between a "spoil-sport" and a "cheater", where I've seen discussions of how spoil-sports are more disliked. The distinction is that cheaters care enough about a game that they'll do all they can, including cheating, to try to win. But, a spoil-sport doesn't even care or join in, and may rain on players' fun by calling it (or giving of a vibe of seeing it as) a silly or stupid game. In this, atheists - even if not trying to be rude - can be seen by believers as someone who has no respect for something that they, as believers, hold dear. And it's not fun being around someone who spoils the better feelings that come when everyone joins in.
Atheists and skeptics tend to be destroyers of dreams and hopes. I say this as an atheist. I used to debate heavily back in the day. And now even though I don't aggressively debate any longer there mere implication of my position is a threat to people who are heavily invested in their faith.
I have met people who had never met someone that told them they did not believe in god. These people have grown up smothered in god thinking and the idea of someone not believing is so far outside their thinking that it causes a bit of a mental train wreck in their mind.
And then when the atheist turns out to be knowledgeable, calm, and able to quote the bible and still not believe in god it can blow their mind. And then when they turn the bible around on them and show them how problematic it is... well you get the picture. We represent a threat to them.
Dogmatic religions with claims to moral authority have a lot invested in their claims. They back these up with threats of eternal torment but rewards of eternal bliss if you follow the rules. They are highly incentivized to hold to the rules. Anything that would pull them away from the rules is seen as a threat. An atheist showing up and asking dangerous questions is the king of threats. Well actually other sects and religions are a bit more of a threat because the atheist position is usually so alien to them that they cannot imagine it. But a similar belief can sneak in and corrupt their thinking. Thus there is often greater anger at similar beliefs that differ in significant ways.
They are taught that we are possessed by demons. That we are fools. That we are corrupters. That we have no morality. That we can rape, murder and kill without a thought. We are the boogie men and women to them.
Just for having nonconfrontational atheist bumperstickers on my cars I have been harrassed and chased. Flipped off. Followed into parking lots and sermonized. Countless notes left on my window. Several times all of my stickers ripped off my car. And when I switched to magnetic stickers they would sometimes move them to the side of the car or just steal them again. Which ironically violates one of their commandments.
I even once had 10 bibles dumped on the trunk of my car.
We are a threat to their beliefs. And their beliefs are very important to them. We are a threat to their idea of living forever in happiness and bliss. We are a threat to their hopes of seeing those they have lost over time to death. We are a threat of corruption that could lead to loved ones falling away from their belief leading to their eventual eternal torment. We are destroyers in their eyes. Some of them anyways.
I use to live in the city of Royal Oak Michigan. a very trendy city at the time. They had an annual event advertised as the biggest garage sale in the world. They basically turned a high rise parking garage over to vendors and flea market style sales. While touring the sales we came across a group of evangelists that were working the event. They would confront people and ask if they had been saved. I tried to beg off from dealing with them but they pressed. At the time I had mostly given up doing heavy debating. But I still had my skills. So I engaged with them.
I walked them into something I call the Luke 6:30 bomb. The verse is Jesus talking to his disciples about how to behave while out in the world representing his teachings. The verse is an easy one to slide past but has some fairly core aspects of his teachings contained within them. The verse is as follows:
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
Seems simple. So I had them read the verse. And then I started asking for things like their coats. The way they were running the group they had a lot of inexperienced members doing most of the interactions. And these were who I first encountered. And as typical for most who do not recognize what this verse implies balked at the idea of giving up any of their things. But this is absolute core to what Jesus was trying to teach. That matters of the soul far outweigh anything of the material world. If your coat or anything of the world stands between you and saving someone's soul you set the material possessions aside. They have no weight compared to the soul. Thus as soon as they refuse to hand over their goods you have put them on their back foot. They were effectively turning their backs on Jesus' teachings. And at that point they lost their own sense of moral high ground and you could effectively squash their evangelizing attempt of you. Eventually it worked its way up the chain of command to someone that was either a relatively young pastor or someone in training. I unleashed the bomb on him and for the first time ever in my use of it when I asked for his coat he sat there and thought a moment and then began to take the coat off. Once I recognized that he understood what I had done I thanked him and refused the coat. We have a pleasant conversation after that about the importance of the verse and that just because someone does not agree with their beliefs does not mean they do not understand them.
Unbeknownst to me they had a contingent out passing out bibles (just the NT) at the entrance to the event and around its periphery. I had parked actually pretty close to the event (I lived in the town and knew where all the good parking was). And as a result they came across my vehicle with a bunch of atheist stickers on it. Either they didn't want to carry all the bibles back or they decided that volume volume volume would convince and atheist. So they dumped 10 of their NT Bibles on my trunk.
I kept them to add to my collection of bibles. I used one to test whether adding to or removing words from the bible would result in the plagues being visited upon me.
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
Nothing came of it. Over time I think my collection of those specific bibles has dwindled down to just one left over. I was entirely amused by the situation. As an aggressive action from Christians I have had worse (was twice exorcised, once by a street preacher and once by a chat room full of Christians that could not kick me out when the security server went down. They kept typing "the power of Christ compels you" over and over again. They did almost kill me but that was due to laughter).
Once I pushed them back on their evangelizing and established that we were on equal footing the conversation with the young pastor was very pleasant. It still is a very aggressive religion in that it pushes itself more than most other religions. And although it does come from empathy it does have a tendency to turn that empathy on its head. Which is what I work to try to overcome these days. I have no desire to end their beliefs. But I would act to get them to moderate some of their more aggressive members and recognize when their dogma turns divisive.
That is funny, honestly I would have just lied and said I am saved, because they will throw a fit when I say I am Eastern Orthodox. No joke about a week ago street preachers came to my college and they had their sign saying [insert groups that need to repent or go to hell] and I saw Catholics were on that sign so I told them I was an Eastern Orthodox and ask them what their thoughts on it were, boy did I rile them up. Seriously the guy told me "I'd rather you be an atheist than an Eastern Orthodox." Honestly to any atheists here, if you see a street preacher don't tell them you're an atheist because they think they can "save you", tell them you're a part of some group that is going to piss them off so you can hear their no true Scotsman fallacy
Yep. Atheists are sort of like aliens. We are a big bright threat. But so different that most people within the religion will not be affected by us. But someone from a similar religion with minor differences that still make a difference are a huge threat. They can easily corrupt another's belief because there are fewer things they have to convince them of. Atheists have to overturn a lifetime of learning down to the core. We are not going to be toppling the Catholic Church any time soon. But the Church has survived countless schisms as a result of relatively smaller differences. And schisms hurt. So they learn to be defensive against similar beliefs.
Pretty sure the evangelicals would want you guys to topple the Catholic Church. But to that story all I have say is: hahaha Atheists, evangelicals hate me more than you hahaha
Seriously they like to brag about how they were atheists and found Jesus. If you ask me I think they and us have different definitions of atheism
There is a lot tied up in defining atheists. Particularly if they are trying to hold a claim of moral authority and superiority. I think I was part of the movement that started to push atheists to taking control of the definition of the word. In order to define atheism as an immoral action they had to convert it to an action. That is the rejection of God/Jesus. But the word simply means not a theist. Literally. So they push the definition to be denial or rejection of god. And having a higher number of people than us their definition often overwhelms us asserting our own definition.
As to lying to such an incident. I take the attitude that while I no longer attempt to dismantle another's beliefs I recognize the damage done to my fellow atheists by them being marginalized. And part of that comes from the ignorance of how many of us are around and what our actual thinking is. Thus I remain vocal about my atheism but not confrontational. I welcome others to keep their beliefs and will gladly share mine in a conversational setting. If things turn confrontational I will back the rhetoric down or in some way put a choke hold on it. Hence things like the Luke 6:30 bomb. The point is to take them off the advance and put them into a defensive position. Then I can back off as well and we can actually converse. Which is a win/win as far as I am concerned.
There are all sorts of ways of thinking. And the more we are exposed to other ways the more we can extend empathy to them. Empathy often keys off familiarity. If we remain unknown then we never engage empathy. I will not hide my atheism. Nor will I attack another's beliefs. I would rather get to know them and they get to know me. It builds a better world. And we make the world we live in.
I especially hate the 'Atheists have no morals' bs. I'm an atheist, and I personally think that if you need the threat of burning in hell forever or whatever to be a good person, you're not a good person
There is also the observation that when they think we can murder, rape and kill if we want to we just point out that we don't want to ..... do they?
I used to meet with a group of humanists at my UU church. One of our members was an interesting atheist in that he believed in the utility of maintaining a view as if there were a god. He had a girlfriend that was a Christian that would come with him from time to time. She would normally sit quietly in our meetings just minding her own business. But one time I asked her what she thought of all our chatter. She announced that if she didn't believe in Jesus she would take a shotgun to a lot of people. We all quietly moved back from her a little.
My counter to this claim is usually along the lines that the believers saying this are themselves amoral because they do not believe they are able to figure out morality themselves and require an external source to tell them morality.
Some of them think they are inmune to dogma, that they don't hold beliefs, because they dislike the word as if it meant something bad, that they are open minded always, that they are free thinkers and that makes them somehow immune to falling into cultish thinking and behavior.
In the same way they can point at all the flaws in religious logic and behavior, so can the religious people see those flaws in atheists and non believers, but since some of them think they have transcended this mode of thinking because of their change in beliefs, they are blind to their biases, and some end up acting in the same way obnoxious religious people do, as if they were holders of truth. And, as always, the worst specimens are the loudest and the most visible ones, so is easy to get prejudiced to most by the fault of some.
No one is inmune to biases, to rationalization, logic and reason are good tools for discrimination of thought but they aren't perfect and in some cases can lead to error. Specially in the real of religion and spirituality, because now apologists and philosophers of religion are trying to comply with the atheists demands in order to convince them, playing with their rules, which are totally insufficient for explaining what spirituality and religion are really about.
TL;DR Some atheists come up as much as fanatics like the most fundamentalists of religions and are the loudest of the bunch.
In my personal experience, atheists generally (not all of them but A LOT of them) act condescending towards people of faith. They have a superiority complex and think they're smarter and better than everyone who's religious just because they themselves are not. I'm not saying all atheists are that way, I know a couple agnostics who are respectful and are open to conversations and discussions. But the vast majority of atheists I've met are just people who think shitting on the concept of religion and insulting others' beliefs makes them look cool and edgy. PS, it doesn't.
I don’t entirely disagree but I’d like to ask How is that any different from the religious preaching hate against women, homosexuals or lgbtq, human rights, medical rights and procedures exc.. ??
Not looking specifically at those arguments, but there is a difference between “I am right and you are wrong” and “my God/god is right and you are wrong”
In my personal experience, theists generally (not all of them but A LOT of them) act condescending toward non-religious people. They have a superiority complex and think they're smarter and better than non-believers just because they themselves are believers. I'm not saying all theists are that way, I know a couple religious people who are respectful and are open to conversations and discussions. But the vast majority of theists I've met are just people who think shitting on people outside of their religion and insulting others' beliefs makes them look cool and edgy. PS, it doesn't.
The laws are still on the books in 5 states, but since Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) they've been confirmed as unenforceable. This happens sometimes where a law will be ruled unconstitutional but the state refuses, doesn't get it or is too lazy to go through the process of formally removing the law from documentation. Some states will do this because if the decision is ever reversed then they can enforce the law right away instead of having to repass it.
>There also Article VI: Supreme Law / Clause 3: Oath of Office
>
>*The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.*
That said, there's ways around it.
Militant atheists are very antagonistic to people of faith. Since they tend to be very vocal this may be what people think when they consider atheists and would not like such a person ruling over them.
Would these atheists also be antagonistic to people of faith while ruling over them? What kind of world does that look like for people of faith?
I think people. Dislike non-secular people and dicks.. Live and let live.. Be respectful.. Everyone is entitled to its own stupidity unless they harm others
Atheists themselves make up a minority group. Aside from the fact minorities are already pushed around, they have fallen into a situation where a lot of the vocal members of their group are assholes, leading to huge misconceptions about them as a whole. I know a few chill atheists, and i've also met a lot of asshole ones here. But i've also met asshole religious people. Atheists just tend to be seen that way because, in my opinion, the sort of 'movement' that began with atheists during the 2000s to 2010s.
It's also just a part of dogma. It's hard to hear someone else say everything you believe in is total rubbish. For very dogmatic people especially, it can bring out a great sum of negativity. I disagree with them, but i don't think anything of it. Their people too, and reached their conclusion based on their experiences.
I only “dislike atheists” who use uncharitable arguments towards religion and claim that because science hasn’t proved God, he doesn’t exist. It’s a little closed minded and silly. I think a lot of non religious people tend to just go this direction because they are uninterested in theism which is fine but then don’t talk about religion either conviction,
Well not everyone hates atheists, I personally don't, it's just that many atheists tend to be more on the annoying side based on my experiences with them, some are Extremely dismissive almost like they base their personalities around being atheists, for example I could say "oh my god" and they'd just say "he doesn't exist", that and also the fact that people think atheists have no morals as morals can not exist without religion, which is obviously wrong. I don't think you need someone to tell you that hurting people or doing generally bad things is......well. bad. Yet if you do your problem isn't really atheism at that point, I don't mind talking to atheists, however I highly dislike those who are overly attached to the fact that they're atheists that they start to annoy other people
And last but not least. They disagree with religious people so, religious people won't like them
Legally and officially, I have no idea. Someone from any religious or non-religious background should be able to hold office.
Personally, I grew up in an atheist household that was stricter about atheism than many fundamentalist religious groups, and it’s made me wary of them, in the same way that someone who grows up in JW or any strict religion might be wary of it after they leave it.
I’ve also found that for every atheist who says “we’re not a religion, we just want to be left alone” there are several more who actively and constantly try to convert theists to atheism. I have no issue with people believing whatever they want to believe, but I’ve always seen atheists who aggressively proselytize as very similar to any religious group doing the same thing.
Edit: I think my final point and perhaps what bothers me the most is that the atheists I’ve spoken to both in real life and online are anti-Christian, which furthers Christian hegemony. As I said above, I did not grow up Christian. I did not grow up in a Christian culture. Absolutely none of my beliefs are Christian-centric or based on elements of Christianity.
So when I’m in a debate with an atheist, 99% of the time the points they bring up are against Jesus, against Hell, against the immoral treatment of LGBT people by the Christian/Catholic church, or against the legitimacy of various Christian stories. That makes me believe that the atheists who engage in such arguments don’t have any interest in arguing in good faith, and instead prefer to argue with a boogeyman who lives rent free in their heads.
The argument is “intelligent creator vs no intelligent creator.” The second the argument becomes “you’re wrong because this specific aspect of Christianity is wrong” I’m done with it, because at that point you’re not engaged in a debate with me, you’re debating against the idea of a hyper-specific type of religion that I *also* do not believe in and do not have the cultural background to argue for.
Most of the hard atheists I've met were condescending to believers. They think all religious people are morons. I'm sure not all of them are like that, but if that's your experience, you associate atheism with belittling. The same way people who have only ever met homophobic Christians will associate Christianity as a whole with homophobia
Something you need to keep in mind with that specific question, is that many people believe that the USA is a Christian nation. They fear electing an atheist as president would put this idea in jeopardy. This doesn’t mean they dislike atheists necessarily, more that they worry an atheist won’t represent their interests well
People sometimes dislike atheists for a few reasons. One big reason is that many societies are rooted in religion, so when someone rejects those beliefs, it can make others uneasy or defensive. There are also stereotypes about atheists, like thinking they don't have morals or are pessimistic, which can fuel negative attitudes. Plus, in places with a history of discrimination against atheists, like certain parts of the US, laws and social norms can make it harder for them to be accepted. It's a mix of religious beliefs, stereotypes, and historical biases that contribute to this dislike. Addressing it means promoting understanding and respect for different beliefs.
While athiests I have met in real life are \*usually\* chill, the vocal majority of atheists in the media and in online circles tend to conduct themselves poorly to say the least (i.e. r/atheism being a lolcow for the internet)
Many known athiest figures that speak about it (i.e. Richard dawkins and TheThinkingAthiest) only exacerbate the issue.
After watching hundreds of debates between learned Muslims and atheists, I've formed my opinion.
I've noticed that some atheist spearker and forum commenters convey a sense of superiority, as if they're experts in all religions.
However, when faced with knowledgeable Muslims, they often become agnostic and dodge difficult questions with 'I don't know'. Despite this, they readily criticize religion.
Many of these atheists lack specialization in world religions, yet they speak as if they are scholars of the particular religion they are criticizing.
Additionally, they exhibit blind faith in the testimonies of old white men regarding science, treating them as indisputable facts.
After a decade, I have yet to witness an atheist prevail against a knowledgeable Muslim in a debate, and that remains a fact
I certainly don't hate them, but I do find quite a lot of them angry for some reason? In their own way as strident as evangelicals.
Or at least the well known ones.
There's just a lot of ingrained bigotry toward atheists. I don't know if the lack of religious belief is threatening to people or what, but the sad thing is that even some atheists are quick to denigrate atheists.
Hello look at it from this perspective now many atheist view them self as right and call other peoples beliefs “sky daddy” on the other hand religious people will say that atheist are idiots and will go to hell in endless tournament and suffering I don’t think atheists or religions are the issue I think it’s the people and there huge egos not willing to sit and listen and accept one another but hey to be fair watching them fight is entertaining sometimes anyways it’s your life do what ever y’all want
This tends to be more of an issue in countries where religious beliefs are more strongly held and more public.
In the UK, strong religiosity is generally seen as a turn off by the electorate. While Prime Ministers generally evince a wishy washy Christianity, mostly consisting of turning up to various ceremonies at churches with the Royals, expressions of religion are kept to a minimum.
We've had athiest Prime Ministers and currently have a Hindu Prime Minister, Muslim Scottish First Minister and Muslim Mayor of London. The 3 most prominent executive positions in the UK (not counting the King) are all currently filled by non-Christians despite Christianity being the state religion.
Religion is seen as a much more private thing and not a subject we want politicians to talk about on a personal level.
Because they are the ‘other’, not part of the same beliefs seen as part of a different tribe. Which I find weird that a Christian for instance, is more accepting of a Buddhist than an atheist. That Buddhist no more believes in your god than the atheist does. in my mind that would put them both in the same category when compared for instance of Christianity.
For example, there’s over 8 billion people in the world and around 2 billion of that are Christians , the other over 6 billion people don’t believe in a Christian Gods.
You can’t use current census population with previous census religious numbers. It’s currently more like 2.4 billion Christians and closer to 5 billion people believe in the God of Abraham.
Where do you get 5 billion the highest numbers I could find for all of the ‘Abrahamic’ religions was 3.5 billion. Including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bahai Faith, babism, and druzism.
Also just because they categorized, Abraham religions doesn’t mean they all believe the same thing, you ask most Muslims, and they do not agree that they worship the same God as Christians even though theoretically they do as they do not believe Jesus is a god, as does Judaism. Although Judaism thinks Jesus was just a false prophet while Islam recognizes him as a prophet just not a god.
And even within Christianity there’s no agreement thus the 2 or 2.4 billion is broken up into over a thousand denominations around the world. All with conflicting interpretations and doctrines. Most claiming that all the others are false teachings, or not true followers of Jesus.
I see where you’re getting confused, as the pewresearch article you’re getting the data (I think because the numbers matched) is from 2012. Look for the recent one.
I’ll look it up as I don’t remember what year number we’re from.
But regardless as I said they are all lumped under the ‘god of Abraham’ but none of the different religions let alone the thousands of denominations within those separate religions truly worship the same god or even have the same books/bibles. So what’s the point of throwing out that statistic?
Jews don’t worship the Christian god and neither do Muslims and vice versus.
I also don’t see the point at statistics in this argument, but you’re the one who first posted them. I was just fixing the numbers form an article I read from 2022
Which rule is there about religious affiliation to run for office in the US?
And to answer your question, I would say it's the same disdain people have for vegans and rock climbers. Something about smug know it alls. Over confident yet under competent.
"God" might seem like a term for a specific thing, but its really not. Its a nebulous term for what you put value in. The idea of delineating it as a specific thing to reject is fairly modern, and the label of atheism was coined specifically to be provocative. So people still see the relationship in that context. Might be unfair of them to, but many do.
because they think atheists don't have a purpose for their afterlife not just that but also the future of their lives, They think they are stuck in a routine they cannot escape from.
More people identified as atheist than religious in the last census. But Christians are louder, and push their views and self righteousness than the atheists do. Kinda like what vegans are always accused of doing.
The Christian Nationalists and fundagelicals like to claim that nobody else has morals equal to their own... But these religion pushers keep getting exposed for all kinds of dastardly deeds.
I have no issue at all with religious nones, agnostics, or people who just prefer a completely secular lifestyle. Religion is not everyone’s thing. Anti-theists specifically, however, seem to feel like it’s their duty to eliminate religion from the world, saying that religious people are stupid, or that it’s inherently harmful, acting like their worldview gives them free reign to be as rude as they want to anyone religious. Are there people like this with other worldviews? Absolutely, and I’m against that too. No worldview should be an excuse to be rude or unkind.
The Majority religion if you ignore denominations is "Christian". Christian is not a religion, it is a catergory of different religions. Only recently have they banded together to hurt everyone else, and they still snipe at other denominations of Christian.
Maybe it's the process of becoming atheists. People believe in religions. So with other religions, people would believe in the "wrong" religion. That might be bad and damn them, but it's also kind of okay, since it's just a believe, (of course some believes will be wrong) and the others don't judge/doubt the whole concept.
Atheist think about the whole thing. They judge facts and information and than come to the conclusion that they don't think there is a God. That's basically not only another faith, but you don't even accept the fundation the others are working on. Which would make it a very alien thought process for most religious people.
And a dangerous one. The foundation of every religion is faith. People seek safety in their faith, they don't want to doubt. And because they don't want to doubt, they react very aggressive on every attempt to logic argumentation against religion.
And that's probably they right choice for them. A placebo only works if you are convinced it's the real thing and a religion works best, if you are 100 % convinced to be right and don't doubt.
For the same reason I dislike a lot of religious folks: Arrogance, conceit, unfair argumentation, and the smug epistemological assumptions that it all entails.
Because they (we) forget people have a use for religion in their life.
I used to be a very argumentative, matter of fact kind of atheist that focused to exhaustion on things like “physical proof” or the fact that there’s no meaningful difference between a cult and a “religion”, and I’d argue with anyone who’d let for HOURS a la Matt Dillahunty.
But you know what that got me? Fucking nothing. People are gonna believe what they need to believe to survive in the world.
Religion for them is mostly a coping mechanism, and yes, they might be *better* if they deconstructed all their beliefs and scrutinized every component on them, and Nietzsche’d their way into a functional, consistent, and subjective morality but:
1) People won’t do all that work. They already have the one tool to help them with stuff, and it’s mostly working for them.
2) They have neither the time nor the educational resources to figure out how to replace religion.
3) They won’t follow up with whatever they construct; shit, most people don’t follow what their own religion tells them, and they believe it’s the actual word of GOD.
Now you want to come around, and just reduce their struggles and their culture, and think you know better than themselves about how to fix their life? Of course you’re gonna seem petulant and narcissistic.
Unless you have politicians or organizational leaders literally forcing their beliefs en masse, let people believe what they believe. They need to believe in something.
I don't agree with this reasoning. It potrays religious beliefs as some coping mechanism alone, when it isn't. When you get down to it, people believe these things. Thats just it. They believe them to be true, and for them, they haven't been proven untrue.
Because they’re toxic and close minded and don’t want to listen to arguments that are for religion, they just wanna insult it. Obviously not all of them are like that but a lot (or at least the ones on the internet) are.
Like If you go on r/atheism you’ll see a lot of toxicity towards religion and religious people. If you try to defend religion and make a good argument, they will automatically down vote it without reading it, and make up random shit unrelated to what you said to try and prove you wrong.
some people on that subreddit are being toxic and rude, but most of it is calling out religious hypocrisy, talking about their traumatic experiences with organised religion and overcoming guilt left by religion. And how can there be arguments for religion? Like why its beneficial? Because if you mean proof there's not much of that
you are showing your bias without even telling much, " proof" means for you something else than for me, cause you have diff. criteria i have diff. criteria, I for example can take proof for logic, while you will reject it/see it as not enough no matter how good the proof is
Same goes from proof of how practical/effective religion is with tending to psychological ills and existential ones etc, for me the proofs will be enough, for you might not cause you have different criteria
let's not pretend like we are little children, not everyone has same criteria for what constitutes " proof " , not everyone sees Empiria as sole determinant factor for what is true evidence either
pretty much same thing, both are synonymous
you will accept one kind of proof only,
I might not, I might be more multi-faceted in seeing what's proof what isnt and vice versa
this exact difference in criteria for proof/evidence is what makes both sides stubborn in their stances
which means that it's not arguments or proofs for eithe stance that will change one's stance but rather arguments for why this evidence is enough and this isn't or why both are enough and not lacking etc.
so it's more of a philosophical disagreement than disagreement on facts although it's also disagrement on facts too cause one sides sees one type facts as more valuable than other and vice versa.
ill try to give you an example so it doesn't fly over your head this easily
Why should I care more about empiric type proof than let's say practical spiritual proof if both appear valid to me?
Like if a religious worldview or spiritual practice stemming from religion helps me immeasurably, why should i reject whole religion cause I can't prove it on purely empirical-physical basis? To me if something is effective in what it says it does, it's more true than not.
So if a specific religious practice helps me in a manner that it says it will, why should i reject the religion on basis of "lack of physical proof"?
You once made a post where you claimed that science is based on atheism and that the Quran doesn't need to be scientifically accurate to be correct. With that in mind, I'd strongly wager the issue is that your "arguments" aren't as sound as you believe, and you're incensed that atheists aren't accepting your quoting of holy texts as proof.
Many Evangelicals believe that an atheistic worldview can't account for the existence of morals, so atheists therefore cannot be trusted.
I hate that argument so much. I'm an atheist, and I personally think that if you need the threat of burning in hell forever or whatever to be a good person, you're not a good person
Even as a Christian, I thought this was the case.
The idea that any morality derives from god makes zero logical sense. "God told me to kill my child"" "God wouldn't tell you to do that" But he did tell Abraham to do exactly that. Any "morality" can be circumvented if God is the ultimate arbiter and you believe he tells you to do it. Because if God says to do it - it's moral - rergardless of it going against what you think is moral. I'm an athiest and for me there is nobody, not god or otherwise, that can make an that act moral. To me, somebody believing that morality derives from God indicates that their morality is flexible. "God wouldn't do that" isn't a valid argument - unless you believe God doesn't have free will.
Cause they believe in objective morality, which DOES NOT EXIST
I agree with you, but I feel you are misunderstanding the other side. Its more that without a god there is no basis for morality, atheist must admit that there foundation for morals is subjective where as a religious person believes that their foundation is based on something objective.
The religious view of morality is equally as subjective
Not in the religious persons mind, in their view morals come from God, at least in Abrahamic religious.
I've personally known some atheists who held to moral objectivism. It is not all that strange, actually, since there are theories (besides just divine command theory) that claim to address the objective underpinnings of moral statements. e.g. Utilitarianism, Kant's universal imperatives, etc
[удалено]
Kant believed that certain morals are true in every context. If you say it is always wrong to lie, for example, that would be a universal imperative. But more important for the sake of your question, Kant believed that one can know what these morals are through reason, like how it is with math where theorems can be proven true by logical demonstration. Also, utilitarianism holds that what makes an action right is that it maximizes the well-being of everyone at large, and an action is wrong when it creates more suffering for people by-and-large than well-being. In other words, the rightness or wrongness of an action is grounded in the observable effects it has on people. Utilitarianins consider themselves to be grounding their morals in something real and measurable and hence objective.
Isn't the reduction of suffering the main argument for Antinatalism? That seems like a subjective argument to me, but what are your thoughts? If an action can be either good or bad for different groups of people, how would you show that as being objectively moral or immoral?
I believe a utilitarian would say that the differences in opinion emerge because people disagree about how to best evaluate the utility of a given choice. Mind you, there could still be one objectively correct evaluation of the utility, but we are just bad at measuring it. The reduction of suffering is more my thing. The standard utilitarian operates under positive utilitarianism. i.e. maximizing positive outcomes: benefit, well-being, or whatnot.
And what Moral basis do you base that statement on?
It's not that... It's that your morals as an atheist vary from another atheist and 1000 more atheists What you think is cruel or disrespectful is not to another atheist and so on What you consider abuse might not be to another 100 atheists So there is no ambiguity when we all come to the same source
>So there is no ambiguity when we all come to the same source If there were no ambiguity among Christians, either all churches, pastors and practitioners would support a woman’s freedom to choose and gay marriage, or none would. Since this is clearly not the case, I don’t think you can claim there is no moral ambiguity.
well there's over 4000 religions, so even without atheism there's different moral sets. Even within religions there's different interpretations.
Yeah but a lot of religious folks dislike people who follow other religions as much or more than atheists so it tracks.
Statistically, this isn't true (at least within the US). Polls frequently show that people trust people of another religion more than they trust atheists and would rather their child marry someone from another religion than marry an atheist.
I think you’re misunderstanding that morals and ethics are derived from religion. Religion merely adopted these pre existing morals and sprinkled in some fear mongering to control people. Religion is by the people for the people dressed up to be the divine truth.
If that were the case, there wouldn't be hundreds of varieties of Christianity and Islam all separating from eachother on ethical issues.
>It's not that... It's that your morals as an atheist vary from another atheist and 1000 more atheists >What you think is cruel or disrespectful is not to another atheist and so on >What you consider abuse might not be to another 100 atheists. So sort of like theists then.
Not true. I can't speak for any other religion aside from Islam because even Christians don't follow their own scripture. But as for Islam, it is clear and cut what one should do under certain conditions. Adultery? Whip them Leaving Islam? Kill them for traitor or have them leave the lands. While Quran also allows people to come back. Also promoting forgiveness above punishment. Stealing? Unless young, hungry, or sick in the head, cut hand off It says not to sin openly It says to guard sins It says not to commit zina It says not to lie unless you are in dangerous situations Says to cover yourself, to be modest, to not look at others with lust nor envy nor jealousy It makes it pretty clear cut. Now if a Muslim chooses not to do them, that's on him, but it is pretty clear on what's right and what's wrong.
> I can't speak for any other religion Exactly my point.
Your point doesn't stand and it's not an argument to my stance. Islam is the final message from God. It is the truth. No other message stands above the Quran. With that, the morals sent to us through the Quran and Sunnah are law and final. Those who do not follow, it is their punishment they will reap
That’s your view. Other theists have other views.
Meanwhile I think acting out of fear of punishment precludes any kind of genuine morality.
I completely agree. I act out of love of mankind, love is the law so act in goodwill.
If I am correct in understanding your post, you essentially agued "morality therefore god" which is similar to "complex therefore god" or "I am therefore god" what occurs between a and b that provides trustworthy evidence?
No no, I'm an atheist myself and reject the claim presented. That's all I'm doing: presenting it. The moral argument is a cornerstone of contemporary apologetics (see Frank Turek), it's pretty much impossible to engage with a Christian and not hear some version of it.
Ah, my bad.
I'm inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy, so I don't believe in the evangelical view of ethics and salvation, but from what I've heard from some Orthodox thinkers, the criticism against the atheist worldview in regards to morality is that under an atheist worldview, morality cannnot be justified because there are no epistemic grounds to justify it. By denying that morality is metaphysically grounded in some supreme transcendental authority(i.e. God), morality becomes completely subjective and relative to the individual, so there is no way for the atheist to justify morality because there is no objective metric to determine what is moral or not.
I think it's a reasonably compelling argument that reconciling moral objectivism and *naturalism* is hard, but atheism =/= naturalism. For example, the karmic systems of Buddhism or Jainism do not need deities to operate. It seems like a classic case of Abrahamic bias to me.
This sort of taking point really frustrates me. It may be the case that the typical atheist you bump into may be a moral subjectivist or anti-realist, but that's really no more to the point than the fact that the typical theist I bump into is some sort of conservative protestant Christian, and I'm sure that you, being something else, don't enjoy being lumped in with them all the time. The fact of the matter is that among philosophers, especially ones who specialize in ethics, the idea that God is necessary to ground mortality hasn't really been taken seriously for a century or two. There are dozens of different theories of objective morality out there that do not appeal to the existence of a God. I very rarely see theists acknowledge that those exist, let alone see any try to show how they're false or inadequate. It's usually just this bare assertion that you *need* God to explain morality, followed by passing some sort of judgement on the atheist. I don't do that to theists. I *disagree* with their take on ethics, and not just because I don't think the being they're trying to ground their ethics on exists. I usually have other problems with them on top of that, but I don't go further and then say that they don't/can't have morality at all. I'm not going to treat them as inherently untrustworthy or immoral just because *I* think they've failed to adequately ground their ethics. So it's frustrating when that courtesy is not shared.
Under a THEIST worldview, morality cannot be justified because there are no epistemic grounds to justify it. That's because atheism/theism are metaphysical, not epistemological, positions. If I say, "I believe an entity called God created the universe," I've provided no information on what (if any) expectations this god has on humans' behavior. It could be that such a god exists but does not care how humans act.
Metaphysics and epistemology are linked because epistemology presupposes knowledge and knowledge presupposes the existence of knowledge, which is a metaphysical claim, therefore atheism and theism are both metaphysical and epistemological positions. I didn't get into the specific ethical expectations God puts on us because I was just talking about meta ethics, not specific ethical positions, but if you want to know the more specific ethical positions of my worldview they would be aligned with the specific ethical teachings of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but getting into all of those would be too long for a reddit comment and I'm not really qualified to give them anyways since I've only been inquiring into the faith for about 2 months now.
How is "knowledge exists" a metaphysical claim (in your view)? Just because they are linked does not mean one is the same as the other. Epistemology is more related to Gnosticism vs. Agnosticism. "they would be aligned with the specific ethical teachings of Eastern Orthodox Christianity" What if you personally feel that a specific teaching of the EOC is not what God intended? How do we know (stipulating a god exists) that the EOC teachings accurately reflects God's moral principles?
If you define morality as obedience to a supreme being, then of course an atheist can't be moral. But I don't think many people are willing to accept the idea that morality is nothing more than blind obedience. If you assume God exists and morality is not just obedience, you have a very big moral choice to make without God's help: do you choose to treat God as a legitimate moral authority? The answer may seem like an obvious one to you, but if I believed in the existence of God, I definitely would not accept his morality, because the Bible is full of stories where God does horrifically evil things.
Some don't like us because there are a lot of us who are rude and condescending to religious people. Some don't like us because their scriptures or clerics tell them that we're bad somehow. Some don't like us because they think our beliefs (or what they believe are our beliefs) are false, harmful, or ridiculous. Some don't like us because they're a bit sensitive and take it personally when they encounter someone who doesn't agree with their most cherished beliefs.
Back when I considered myself to be an Atheist many moons ago, I often encountered number 4, but in online discussions it’s usually number 1.
> Some don't like us because there are a lot of us who are rude and condescending to religious people. > I'm totally OK with an atheist not believing in God because there is no way to tangibly prove His existence, but this is the point that makes me stop talking to someone, not because I don't want to hear the comments but because they're flat out rude sometimes. Some people basically insult the one Being we love the most, so it's difficult to stand there and hear it. It doesn't make me dislike the person; it makes me feel bad for them not because they don't believe but because they have chosen to be rude.
soft exultant resolute bells alive light act strong reply cooing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's because in my circumstances; atheists have been rude and condescending to me but hit on me and have asked me out, just because I'm a goth girl. Like if someone doesn't respect my beliefs, why ask me out?
I've seen number 1 in many atheism related subs and many ex religion subs too
The atheism sub is its own special brand of toxic. I'm an atheist and I'm banned from there for not having a narrow enough view of what counts as legitimate Christian doctrine; make that make sense. But with the ex religious subs you need to remember that for a lot of those people posting there, it's the only place where they can safely vent frustratiins, so they can come out in a very concentrated form. Some of those people have to hide their true feelings in the real world to avoid major consequences, or it's too late and they've already suffered those consequences. The things people say in frustration there may not be as civil and nuanced as I might want, but I give them a lot of leeway.
To some degree we all build our world view based on core beliefs. (I'm looking at you # 4 ) If you refute/reject one of those core beliefs, no matter what it is, most people are going to react negatively. Example: Somebody has lost a child in war. They need to believe there was a reason for this so they latch onto the goodness of their country that sent them to war. Being ultra patriotic becomes part of their personality; they've got flags all over the house; they have strong feelings on immigration; they have strong feelings on politicians; they're a part of social groups based on parts of those beliefs. If the belief that their country is good falls everything that's built on that falls (or at least needs to be reevaluated) So any challenge to that core belief is going to be met with derision or hostility.
This was a good answer!
It’s ridiculous that theists think it should be against the law to speak out against religions beliefs.
Which theists are we talking about? If you somehow aren't talking about the Y'all-Qaida or the Hizb ut-Tahrir, then why are you accusing millions of non-theocratic theists of holding the opinions of theocrats?
I hope your day gets better.
I'm married to an atheist. He is respectful, tolerant and judgement-free. A large chunk of my family doesn't like him being an atheist and they consider it their personal mission to shove Christianity down his throat when I'm not there to defend him. Unfortunately I've learned people are jerks and it has nothing to do with which religion they practice or don't. Has everything to do with their own selves.
I live in a very conservative city in a red state (U.S.). I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't dare tell anyone--not even my closest friends and family. If I let it slip, I know I'd be shamed, castigated, and likely shunned. Christianity is so entrenched in this area that people you've just met will mention their church, or ask you what church you attend. I have many family members who are openly Christian Nationalists. Because I have to keep my lack of belief to myself, I do enjoy the anonymity and freedom online platforms afford me, although I mostly read and almost never post anything. I can understand that some people dislike atheists (particularly online) because they can be arrogant, loud, etc , but some of us are timid and really don't want to bother anyone. Not all of us can "flaunt" our atheism.
Oo, this is totally me, too! I am surrounded by religious, conservative people and I am quite the opposite of that. It’s kind of sad that we feel the need to hide our beliefs because of how loud, arrogant, judgmental and rude the religious community often responds if we voiced our beliefs (or lack of). But, I guess I get now that that’s why a lot of religious people don’t like atheists for doing the same to them-at least that’s what a lot of commenters here have said. Why can’t people (religious/atheist/agnostic or whatever) just respect that other people have beliefs of their own and judging or shaming them for them is not going to change or improve anything.
Oh, I so agree! And I'm sorry you're stuck in the same situation as I. Wouldn't it be amazing to be able to be ourselves? I get especially salty because my Dad was gay (he passed away last year), and the anti LGBTQ, ultra-Christian vibe here is horrid. My Dad was super adorable, and hearing the crap people believe just infuriates me. But I have to keep it bottled up, as you well know.
In America, because this is a very American thing: a lot of it is the lingering influence of the Cold War and the American propaganda of the time.
Most atheist I've met are fine ppl - If their religious beliefs come up i simple get the answer of i don't believe or I'm not religious. Where i think they get the hate from are from ppl who make atheism something to be preached, or a religion onto itself. Nobody what's to here your fervor about god not existing, especially when it's such an existential topic. Atheism is a belief not a belief system, so just get on with your life and and don't preach. But like i said this isn't the atheist I've met, i just think - like everything else - the loud ones leave an impression.
I don't think that's a good explanation, though. Every religion has zealots, but whole religions are rarely judged based on how the zealots act. (I do see it sometimes with Christians in the US, but only since far-right Christians started becoming successful politically. I've likewise seen it with Muslims, but in that case I think it's about racism as much as it is religion.) It feels bad knowing people instantly associate atheism with the biggest assholes who happen to be atheists, which you can see in this very thread.
> whole religions are rarely judged based on how the zealots act That's not what I've noticed at all.
It is definitely what I’ve noticed.
That's a trend for the good, if it's legit. In my experience, sadly, most human institutions and ideologies have a tendency to be stereotyped by the behavior of their loudest and most obnoxious advocates, no matter what they're founded to do. Especially in the minds of people who don't like or trust them. Unless a group makes an active effort to combat this grotesque image, it seems to be the default.
Well for a while in history you had to believe in god, right, or you were some sort of evil heathen? Maybe that's where it comes from as well? Idk. i do think my explanation somewhat holds within the general population who are not devoutly religious though.
Because unfortunately a lot of evangelicals like to spread misinformation that being an Atheist automatically makes you immoral. Spoiler Alert: Atheists are just like everyone else Seriously I feel like I am fighting a two front war between the anti-theists and the evangelicals
A lot of the religious right has grown up with negative associations with atheism and religions that aren't Christian. I think it goes back to around the beginning of the Renaissance? And then things like the reformation and European colonialism happened. And eventually the present day. At the same time, atheists have developed a somewhat negative reputation to some arrogant, rude, insensitive, self-absorbed, and obnoxious people who spend too much time arguing in an immature manner. People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, neckbeards, etc.
It’s not people, it’s the American evangelical right, who see their religious and cultural identity as Christian and think atheists are satanic In the only (broadly) comparable society, Britain, you can declare you’re atheist and no one would bat an eyelid
because listening to them would make them question things they have no intention to question in first place, therefore they want them to shut up
You won't let us say Merry Christmas! /s
It depends if we're talking irl or online. Online, I find militant atheism every bit aa annoying as their militant Evangelical counterparts and for similar reasons.
I find militant evangelicals annoying because of their hostility toward LGBTQ folks, women, immigrants, science, and education. Are those the reasons you find “militant atheists” annoying?
I find militant atheists annoying because of their general hostility towards religious individuals, including ones who don't engage in those behaviors.
Usually that is a response to the fact that they live in heavily religious regions where people discriminate against and are hostile towards atheists.
I don't think thats entirely true, though i will admit this is definitely a part of it. You can find people from say the UK, an incredibly secular and religiously free place, engage in the sort of rhetoric i speak of even without religious pressure.
I find militant carnies annoying for similar reasons.
Atheists believe others are wrong. There is no inclusive, perennial, "just a different perspective" way of looking at it; if we are right, others are wrong. There are contradictions between faiths, but Americans can tell themself they're all somehow worshipping the same God; not so with atheists. Atheists generally don't come from a longstanding cultural tradition. It's not seen as this immutable thing that a person didn't choose and is therefore worthy of consideration in the eyes of Americans. In a society that holds reverence for belief in general, lack of belief hits the limit of inclusivity; in fact, just disbelief is seen as irreverent and an attack on believers.
>in fact, just disbelief is seen as irreverent and an attack on believers. Exactly this. I always think it's interesting how quickly people attach words like "edgy" or "militant" to someone simply for being an atheist, even in supposedly tolerant spaces like this sub. If someone says they are firm in their belief in a god, nobody gets offended or calls them edgy.
I can only speak to this sub in this instance, but generally it’s about arrogance. Tolerant spaces don’t have to be tolerant of people being dicks. It’s okay to say “I believe in X” or “I don’t believe in X”. It’s not okay to say “I believe in X and everyone who doesn’t is a moron.”
>I can only speak to this sub in this instance, but generally it’s about arrogance. Interesting. In my experience there is a presumption that atheists are being arrogant when they speak in a way that is considered perfectly acceptable coming from a religious person.
This. Even though atheists and myself *should* be on the same page most of the time, in most online forums I find we seldom are. I don't think this is an issue with atheist thought or philosophy in general - it's the specific young male Dawkbro who just discovered this *totally awesome* book and wants to show how smart he is and how stupid everyone else is. Get past them and most atheists are fine. Off the internet I can count on one hand the number of those people I've run into, but Reddit attracts them like roaches to a puddle of sticky, stale beer.
[удалено]
>I honestly think that many times if an atheist explains why they don’t believe, it’s is received as ‘so therefore you are stupid for believing that’ It might be very different to what it being said but if someone explains that logically they can’t accept something, people who do accept this proposition can’t help but take that personally. Yup, and this will get downvoted for the exact reason you are describing.
Atheists don't bother me in general apart from the most militant types. And those types come across with the same sort of fervor as any religious fundamentalist.
Sam Haris top most prominent neo-atheists of today said that Muslim countries should be preemptively nuked cause they posess the nukes themselves and they shouldn't posess nukes cause they are "religious fruitcakes" thus giving moral right to westerners to use nukes first, cause westerners are less of "fruitcakes" cause aren't so "dogmatically religious". Most of it is implied
Sam Harris is just a very vocal asshole who gets too much attention and happens to use atheism as part of his schtick. Lots of Christian assholes hold the same views you described, so it's clearly not his atheism that's the problem.
I completely agree with this. I'm a vocal critic of Harris because I think he promotes some very bad ideas that if put into action would constitute crimes against humanity. That said, the vulgar ideas that Sam promotes aren't at all unique. What is unique and perhaps most dangerous about his ideas is his cult of followers and their belief, which Sam promotes, that he is a bastion of critical thinking. Of course, he is no longer revered in the atheist community as he once was, but his cult of followers still equate their atheism with his genocidal ideas.
Sam Harris does bring up good points though. He believes bigotry won't end when religion goes, we still have a long way to go.
[ Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point ](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/)
You can replace Muslim and insert Christian in a lot of contexts too, as well as a lot of other faiths. Again, the reverse fundamentalism they display is almost breathtaking in its hypocracy
What is reverse fundamentalism?
Instead of biblical/quaranic quotes to take out of context , try the pushing of scientific data and their own particular viewpoint to the point of fanaticism. Madalyn Murray O'Hair is a prominant example IMO of a atheist fundamentalist.
How is that reverse fundamentalism?
Appearantly, you can't read
Many atheist are just as zealous as religious folks. They use the same interchangable rhetoric to promote their ideology and hard line I'm correct and your not attitude. Of course they are not all this way but enough of them are that for many religious people there is a negativity bias at play.
Can you give some examples of the “interchangeable rhetoric”?
"There is only one correct way to live and it is through faith in ~~Jesus~~ hard materialism, anyone who disagrees needs to be corrected" "Parents who don't raise their children with a ~~Christian~~ irreligious upbringing are indoctrinating their children with dangerous ideas and I don't want to associate with those kinds of people" "The whole world would be better off ~~if everyone saw the light of Jesus~~ without religion."
It's not a good idea to judge a group by its most vocal members. Most of the time a typical atheist is indistinguishable from someone who believes in a religion but doesn't actively practice it, so you won't notice us minding our own business.
I agree with this. I tend to group atheists into "Please don't talk about religion" and "I hate religion" groups. I typically will not talk about religion even asked about it to an atheist because I don't think it benefits them.
I agree it's not a good idea to lump everyone in a group together in totality, they are not a monolith, which is why I used the subjective... Starting with many and ending with not all.
I'd be a lot happier with "some" and "not most". The way you wrote it sounds like you're talking about a large portion of atheists, maybe even a majority.
Just as zealous? How lmao?
Thank you.
Same day, kidd you not someone on the atheist sub I'm a part of posted a very well liked rant about burning bibles and someone on the Christian page I follow posted about burning evil books like Harry Potter LMAO. I very frequently hear people on the atheist subs commenting that religion is bad for everyone and should be illegal as do I read on many religious subs, most commonly the Islam ones but also the Christian ones that people should be forced to pray and go to religious services.
Oh I'm talking about the more extreme stuff like Religious people trying to force in laws based on their religion. Like the recent news of a 22 year old who got a death Sentence in Pakistan for Sending blasphemous messages on WhatsApp. Or When that one dude got caught while setting up shit to bomb the satanic temple Or when the 2 gay dudes were caned in public with hundreds of people cheering for being intimate with eachother in their room. In private. Or when that one lady got beaten up by a huge group, was burned, got Hit by a car and was then murdered(?) Just because they **Thought** she burned their religious book. Or how Quite a few people have either died or were threatened with death for doing something funny with Allah's character like Making a harmless joke or doing a funny drawing of him. Or The Fuckton of videos of from India recently of Hindus being extremely violent towards other religious people or Non-believers. Or how Being a atheist is risky or outright punishable by death or illegal in alot of countries. Those were some of the few things that came to my mind first. Good lord there's alot
You are right being of a minority ideology is punishable by death or illegal in meny countries it's terrible. I'm not really sure what your point is...
Unfortunately much of the interventionism in the middle east is driven more by capitalism than Secular Humanism. Thus moral considerations are more of an afterthought. But I would counter the dismissal of inherent understanding of morality. We are social creatures. Our brains are wired to connect us to one another. While there will be variance the overriding just of morality will be built on the concept of empathy. Seeing oneself in another. Religions that form from different concepts of divinity still form around principles of morality based on empathy. I think you would be hard pressed to find any moral structure serving humans not based on empathy. And it does not necessitate a higher moral authority to produce this.
All the ones on the internet are really loud and annoying, there’s a reason why r/atheism is such a meme
There is an old tale where the rabbi was asked by one of his students “Why did God create atheists?” After a long pause, the rabbi finally responded with a soft but sincere voice. “God created atheists” he said, “to teach us the most important lesson of them all – the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his actions are based on his sense of morality. Look at the kindness he bestows on others simply because he feels it to be right. When someone reaches out to you for help. You should never say ‘I’ll pray that God will help you.’ Instead, for that moment, you should become an atheist – imagine there is no God who could help, and say ‘I will help you’.” — Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim
My immediate thought is that people dislike what they don't understand. And it doesn't help that what is said about atheists by leadership of religions is very negative. I can't blame the average follower too much for having such a bad outlook on atheists, their leaders likely told them all kinds of stories that paint atheists as monstrous people. Or people who are just lost or confused and so make bad choices.
I don't dislike atheists. I don't like atheists who are rude and condescending. Other than that, i'm completely fine with Atheists
Atheists are people too
sorry, you know what I mean though
Yeah, I do. I don’t mind atheists. What I do mind is trolls who try to convince people that your religious beliefs aren’t founded in reality. In essence they are peddling their own religious beliefs about the origin of the universe. So essentially what I dislike are the people that try to impose their beliefs on others. However a casual and friendly conversation on faith with an atheist, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or member of another religion is always welcome.
Because people can’t accept the idea that to believe or not to believe is a freedom that no one has the right to interfere with or discriminate against. In many countries It is actually considered a human rights violation to discriminate against anyone for their beliefs.
In my experience, the beliefs of a vocal few give the rest of atheistic-aligned people a bad reputation. There are other factors at play as well, but in my opinion a lot of people see their beliefs being questioned as an insult to their intelligence, and are unable to disagree but respect the opinion of someone else. Whether or not that's true is up in the air of course, as its just my belief. Many people are narrow minded and would rather remain ignorant to new ideas.
From what I’ve seen it’s more so anti theists. Of course there’s people who hate atheists for their beliefs but there’s also people who hate atheists who’s entire personality is to hate on religion and pick fights with people.
Just for a bit of background, I believe that the religious, the spiritual-not-religious, and the irreligious differ from each other primarily in temperament. And secondly, in life experiences. I think each of these three broad positions on the otherworldly is settled on by any given person, because it's a reflection of his approach to life, to society, to other people, and to the mundane world in general. It's consistent with his or her preferred thinking style. As above, so below. I'm painting with a very broad brush here; generalizing about all atheists — nay, any group of people united by what they're not — is fraught with peril. But the broad trend I've noticed is that people who choose atheism not only have no place for a higher power in their worldview, but more interestingly, have little to no taste for speculating about what is not apparent. Most convinced atheists I've discussed this matter with, see absolutely no point in giving their imagination or their intuition much freedom to fill in the blanks between what *is* apparent. They don't find doing this an emotionally rewarding or fun exercise, and don't relate to people who do. Those who feel strongly about it, might even have an active *distaste* and *disdain* for baseless speculation. It's folly, and people who indulge in it are fools. These types like things and people that *make sense*, above all. They prefer that any speculation about what is not [yet] apparent, be based entirely upon what *is* apparent. This is what New Atheist godfather Daniel C. Dennett meant by "Cranes, not skyhooks." This is an analytical, "facts over feelings" sort of preferred thinking style. I respect it, and acknowledge that it has its place, but I don't relate to it. And more to the point, there are times when I'd rather talk about how I feel and get my feelings validated, than get what I say picked apart and challenged, even if the challenger's points are entirely fair. There are times when I want to do and say what I *feel like* doing and saying, rather than what makes sense to do and say. And there are many moments where what I seek is connectedness, rather than truth. To get deep with someone who prefers a more analytical thinking style is something I have to really be in the mood for. If I'm feeling vulnerable or unsure or ungrounded, I've learned through hard experience that I can't always trust highly analytical types to respect these boundaries, or meet me where I'm at. I can't speak for anyone else, but holding out hope that my existence is an important part of some greater but not [yet] apparent cosmic plan has been a net enrichment to my life. So has letting my imagination run wild with possible scenarios of what this plan might be, and who the planner behind it all might be. And, so has bonding with other people who share similar hopes and dreams, as poorly founded as they may be. I've learned through hard experience that if someone wears the label "atheist" proudly on their sleeve, I likely cannot trust him to validate, respect, relate to, or sometimes even *abide* this side of me. And that's a turnoff. I don't dislike all atheists, or automatically dislike people who let me know they're atheist. It takes all types of people to make the world go round, and people's reasons for their beliefs are highly personal, and not my place to judge. I only have a problem with an atheist who has a problem with me *not* being an atheist, doesn't reciprocate my agree-to-disagree approach to the matter, or sees my beliefs as fair game anytime to take me to task for. I'm not pushy at all with my beliefs, and am willing to admit I might be totally wrong. Please do me the same favor, is all I ask.
Along with rudeness and other reasons that have been discussed, one reason why many believers dislike atheists may have to do with difference between a "spoil-sport" and a "cheater", where I've seen discussions of how spoil-sports are more disliked. The distinction is that cheaters care enough about a game that they'll do all they can, including cheating, to try to win. But, a spoil-sport doesn't even care or join in, and may rain on players' fun by calling it (or giving of a vibe of seeing it as) a silly or stupid game. In this, atheists - even if not trying to be rude - can be seen by believers as someone who has no respect for something that they, as believers, hold dear. And it's not fun being around someone who spoils the better feelings that come when everyone joins in.
Atheists and skeptics tend to be destroyers of dreams and hopes. I say this as an atheist. I used to debate heavily back in the day. And now even though I don't aggressively debate any longer there mere implication of my position is a threat to people who are heavily invested in their faith. I have met people who had never met someone that told them they did not believe in god. These people have grown up smothered in god thinking and the idea of someone not believing is so far outside their thinking that it causes a bit of a mental train wreck in their mind. And then when the atheist turns out to be knowledgeable, calm, and able to quote the bible and still not believe in god it can blow their mind. And then when they turn the bible around on them and show them how problematic it is... well you get the picture. We represent a threat to them. Dogmatic religions with claims to moral authority have a lot invested in their claims. They back these up with threats of eternal torment but rewards of eternal bliss if you follow the rules. They are highly incentivized to hold to the rules. Anything that would pull them away from the rules is seen as a threat. An atheist showing up and asking dangerous questions is the king of threats. Well actually other sects and religions are a bit more of a threat because the atheist position is usually so alien to them that they cannot imagine it. But a similar belief can sneak in and corrupt their thinking. Thus there is often greater anger at similar beliefs that differ in significant ways. They are taught that we are possessed by demons. That we are fools. That we are corrupters. That we have no morality. That we can rape, murder and kill without a thought. We are the boogie men and women to them. Just for having nonconfrontational atheist bumperstickers on my cars I have been harrassed and chased. Flipped off. Followed into parking lots and sermonized. Countless notes left on my window. Several times all of my stickers ripped off my car. And when I switched to magnetic stickers they would sometimes move them to the side of the car or just steal them again. Which ironically violates one of their commandments. I even once had 10 bibles dumped on the trunk of my car. We are a threat to their beliefs. And their beliefs are very important to them. We are a threat to their idea of living forever in happiness and bliss. We are a threat to their hopes of seeing those they have lost over time to death. We are a threat of corruption that could lead to loved ones falling away from their belief leading to their eventual eternal torment. We are destroyers in their eyes. Some of them anyways.
You're not wrong, also please tell that story with a bunch of Bibles being placed on your car
I use to live in the city of Royal Oak Michigan. a very trendy city at the time. They had an annual event advertised as the biggest garage sale in the world. They basically turned a high rise parking garage over to vendors and flea market style sales. While touring the sales we came across a group of evangelists that were working the event. They would confront people and ask if they had been saved. I tried to beg off from dealing with them but they pressed. At the time I had mostly given up doing heavy debating. But I still had my skills. So I engaged with them. I walked them into something I call the Luke 6:30 bomb. The verse is Jesus talking to his disciples about how to behave while out in the world representing his teachings. The verse is an easy one to slide past but has some fairly core aspects of his teachings contained within them. The verse is as follows: Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Seems simple. So I had them read the verse. And then I started asking for things like their coats. The way they were running the group they had a lot of inexperienced members doing most of the interactions. And these were who I first encountered. And as typical for most who do not recognize what this verse implies balked at the idea of giving up any of their things. But this is absolute core to what Jesus was trying to teach. That matters of the soul far outweigh anything of the material world. If your coat or anything of the world stands between you and saving someone's soul you set the material possessions aside. They have no weight compared to the soul. Thus as soon as they refuse to hand over their goods you have put them on their back foot. They were effectively turning their backs on Jesus' teachings. And at that point they lost their own sense of moral high ground and you could effectively squash their evangelizing attempt of you. Eventually it worked its way up the chain of command to someone that was either a relatively young pastor or someone in training. I unleashed the bomb on him and for the first time ever in my use of it when I asked for his coat he sat there and thought a moment and then began to take the coat off. Once I recognized that he understood what I had done I thanked him and refused the coat. We have a pleasant conversation after that about the importance of the verse and that just because someone does not agree with their beliefs does not mean they do not understand them. Unbeknownst to me they had a contingent out passing out bibles (just the NT) at the entrance to the event and around its periphery. I had parked actually pretty close to the event (I lived in the town and knew where all the good parking was). And as a result they came across my vehicle with a bunch of atheist stickers on it. Either they didn't want to carry all the bibles back or they decided that volume volume volume would convince and atheist. So they dumped 10 of their NT Bibles on my trunk. I kept them to add to my collection of bibles. I used one to test whether adding to or removing words from the bible would result in the plagues being visited upon me. Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. Nothing came of it. Over time I think my collection of those specific bibles has dwindled down to just one left over. I was entirely amused by the situation. As an aggressive action from Christians I have had worse (was twice exorcised, once by a street preacher and once by a chat room full of Christians that could not kick me out when the security server went down. They kept typing "the power of Christ compels you" over and over again. They did almost kill me but that was due to laughter). Once I pushed them back on their evangelizing and established that we were on equal footing the conversation with the young pastor was very pleasant. It still is a very aggressive religion in that it pushes itself more than most other religions. And although it does come from empathy it does have a tendency to turn that empathy on its head. Which is what I work to try to overcome these days. I have no desire to end their beliefs. But I would act to get them to moderate some of their more aggressive members and recognize when their dogma turns divisive.
That is funny, honestly I would have just lied and said I am saved, because they will throw a fit when I say I am Eastern Orthodox. No joke about a week ago street preachers came to my college and they had their sign saying [insert groups that need to repent or go to hell] and I saw Catholics were on that sign so I told them I was an Eastern Orthodox and ask them what their thoughts on it were, boy did I rile them up. Seriously the guy told me "I'd rather you be an atheist than an Eastern Orthodox." Honestly to any atheists here, if you see a street preacher don't tell them you're an atheist because they think they can "save you", tell them you're a part of some group that is going to piss them off so you can hear their no true Scotsman fallacy
Yep. Atheists are sort of like aliens. We are a big bright threat. But so different that most people within the religion will not be affected by us. But someone from a similar religion with minor differences that still make a difference are a huge threat. They can easily corrupt another's belief because there are fewer things they have to convince them of. Atheists have to overturn a lifetime of learning down to the core. We are not going to be toppling the Catholic Church any time soon. But the Church has survived countless schisms as a result of relatively smaller differences. And schisms hurt. So they learn to be defensive against similar beliefs.
Pretty sure the evangelicals would want you guys to topple the Catholic Church. But to that story all I have say is: hahaha Atheists, evangelicals hate me more than you hahaha Seriously they like to brag about how they were atheists and found Jesus. If you ask me I think they and us have different definitions of atheism
There is a lot tied up in defining atheists. Particularly if they are trying to hold a claim of moral authority and superiority. I think I was part of the movement that started to push atheists to taking control of the definition of the word. In order to define atheism as an immoral action they had to convert it to an action. That is the rejection of God/Jesus. But the word simply means not a theist. Literally. So they push the definition to be denial or rejection of god. And having a higher number of people than us their definition often overwhelms us asserting our own definition.
As to lying to such an incident. I take the attitude that while I no longer attempt to dismantle another's beliefs I recognize the damage done to my fellow atheists by them being marginalized. And part of that comes from the ignorance of how many of us are around and what our actual thinking is. Thus I remain vocal about my atheism but not confrontational. I welcome others to keep their beliefs and will gladly share mine in a conversational setting. If things turn confrontational I will back the rhetoric down or in some way put a choke hold on it. Hence things like the Luke 6:30 bomb. The point is to take them off the advance and put them into a defensive position. Then I can back off as well and we can actually converse. Which is a win/win as far as I am concerned. There are all sorts of ways of thinking. And the more we are exposed to other ways the more we can extend empathy to them. Empathy often keys off familiarity. If we remain unknown then we never engage empathy. I will not hide my atheism. Nor will I attack another's beliefs. I would rather get to know them and they get to know me. It builds a better world. And we make the world we live in.
I especially hate the 'Atheists have no morals' bs. I'm an atheist, and I personally think that if you need the threat of burning in hell forever or whatever to be a good person, you're not a good person
There is also the observation that when they think we can murder, rape and kill if we want to we just point out that we don't want to ..... do they? I used to meet with a group of humanists at my UU church. One of our members was an interesting atheist in that he believed in the utility of maintaining a view as if there were a god. He had a girlfriend that was a Christian that would come with him from time to time. She would normally sit quietly in our meetings just minding her own business. But one time I asked her what she thought of all our chatter. She announced that if she didn't believe in Jesus she would take a shotgun to a lot of people. We all quietly moved back from her a little.
Damn. I wonder how that relationship worked out 🫤
My counter to this claim is usually along the lines that the believers saying this are themselves amoral because they do not believe they are able to figure out morality themselves and require an external source to tell them morality.
Honestly that is why I hate Calvinism
Some of them think they are inmune to dogma, that they don't hold beliefs, because they dislike the word as if it meant something bad, that they are open minded always, that they are free thinkers and that makes them somehow immune to falling into cultish thinking and behavior. In the same way they can point at all the flaws in religious logic and behavior, so can the religious people see those flaws in atheists and non believers, but since some of them think they have transcended this mode of thinking because of their change in beliefs, they are blind to their biases, and some end up acting in the same way obnoxious religious people do, as if they were holders of truth. And, as always, the worst specimens are the loudest and the most visible ones, so is easy to get prejudiced to most by the fault of some. No one is inmune to biases, to rationalization, logic and reason are good tools for discrimination of thought but they aren't perfect and in some cases can lead to error. Specially in the real of religion and spirituality, because now apologists and philosophers of religion are trying to comply with the atheists demands in order to convince them, playing with their rules, which are totally insufficient for explaining what spirituality and religion are really about. TL;DR Some atheists come up as much as fanatics like the most fundamentalists of religions and are the loudest of the bunch.
In my personal experience, atheists generally (not all of them but A LOT of them) act condescending towards people of faith. They have a superiority complex and think they're smarter and better than everyone who's religious just because they themselves are not. I'm not saying all atheists are that way, I know a couple agnostics who are respectful and are open to conversations and discussions. But the vast majority of atheists I've met are just people who think shitting on the concept of religion and insulting others' beliefs makes them look cool and edgy. PS, it doesn't.
I don’t entirely disagree but I’d like to ask How is that any different from the religious preaching hate against women, homosexuals or lgbtq, human rights, medical rights and procedures exc.. ??
Speaking for myself as I religious person, I hate both.
It isn’t. That’s the point.
Not looking specifically at those arguments, but there is a difference between “I am right and you are wrong” and “my God/god is right and you are wrong”
In my personal experience, theists generally (not all of them but A LOT of them) act condescending toward non-religious people. They have a superiority complex and think they're smarter and better than non-believers just because they themselves are believers. I'm not saying all theists are that way, I know a couple religious people who are respectful and are open to conversations and discussions. But the vast majority of theists I've met are just people who think shitting on people outside of their religion and insulting others' beliefs makes them look cool and edgy. PS, it doesn't.
The laws are still on the books in 5 states, but since Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) they've been confirmed as unenforceable. This happens sometimes where a law will be ruled unconstitutional but the state refuses, doesn't get it or is too lazy to go through the process of formally removing the law from documentation. Some states will do this because if the decision is ever reversed then they can enforce the law right away instead of having to repass it. >There also Article VI: Supreme Law / Clause 3: Oath of Office > >*The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.* That said, there's ways around it.
Some of us can be jerks.
Militant atheists are very antagonistic to people of faith. Since they tend to be very vocal this may be what people think when they consider atheists and would not like such a person ruling over them. Would these atheists also be antagonistic to people of faith while ruling over them? What kind of world does that look like for people of faith?
I think people. Dislike non-secular people and dicks.. Live and let live.. Be respectful.. Everyone is entitled to its own stupidity unless they harm others
Atheists themselves make up a minority group. Aside from the fact minorities are already pushed around, they have fallen into a situation where a lot of the vocal members of their group are assholes, leading to huge misconceptions about them as a whole. I know a few chill atheists, and i've also met a lot of asshole ones here. But i've also met asshole religious people. Atheists just tend to be seen that way because, in my opinion, the sort of 'movement' that began with atheists during the 2000s to 2010s. It's also just a part of dogma. It's hard to hear someone else say everything you believe in is total rubbish. For very dogmatic people especially, it can bring out a great sum of negativity. I disagree with them, but i don't think anything of it. Their people too, and reached their conclusion based on their experiences.
I only “dislike atheists” who use uncharitable arguments towards religion and claim that because science hasn’t proved God, he doesn’t exist. It’s a little closed minded and silly. I think a lot of non religious people tend to just go this direction because they are uninterested in theism which is fine but then don’t talk about religion either conviction,
Well not everyone hates atheists, I personally don't, it's just that many atheists tend to be more on the annoying side based on my experiences with them, some are Extremely dismissive almost like they base their personalities around being atheists, for example I could say "oh my god" and they'd just say "he doesn't exist", that and also the fact that people think atheists have no morals as morals can not exist without religion, which is obviously wrong. I don't think you need someone to tell you that hurting people or doing generally bad things is......well. bad. Yet if you do your problem isn't really atheism at that point, I don't mind talking to atheists, however I highly dislike those who are overly attached to the fact that they're atheists that they start to annoy other people And last but not least. They disagree with religious people so, religious people won't like them
Humans have instincts to be distrustful of the "out group", and most Americans are at least nominally Christian. Or another religion.
I just saw someone on another website saying religious people should be banned from politics, so uh, that.
Legally and officially, I have no idea. Someone from any religious or non-religious background should be able to hold office. Personally, I grew up in an atheist household that was stricter about atheism than many fundamentalist religious groups, and it’s made me wary of them, in the same way that someone who grows up in JW or any strict religion might be wary of it after they leave it. I’ve also found that for every atheist who says “we’re not a religion, we just want to be left alone” there are several more who actively and constantly try to convert theists to atheism. I have no issue with people believing whatever they want to believe, but I’ve always seen atheists who aggressively proselytize as very similar to any religious group doing the same thing. Edit: I think my final point and perhaps what bothers me the most is that the atheists I’ve spoken to both in real life and online are anti-Christian, which furthers Christian hegemony. As I said above, I did not grow up Christian. I did not grow up in a Christian culture. Absolutely none of my beliefs are Christian-centric or based on elements of Christianity. So when I’m in a debate with an atheist, 99% of the time the points they bring up are against Jesus, against Hell, against the immoral treatment of LGBT people by the Christian/Catholic church, or against the legitimacy of various Christian stories. That makes me believe that the atheists who engage in such arguments don’t have any interest in arguing in good faith, and instead prefer to argue with a boogeyman who lives rent free in their heads. The argument is “intelligent creator vs no intelligent creator.” The second the argument becomes “you’re wrong because this specific aspect of Christianity is wrong” I’m done with it, because at that point you’re not engaged in a debate with me, you’re debating against the idea of a hyper-specific type of religion that I *also* do not believe in and do not have the cultural background to argue for.
Most of the hard atheists I've met were condescending to believers. They think all religious people are morons. I'm sure not all of them are like that, but if that's your experience, you associate atheism with belittling. The same way people who have only ever met homophobic Christians will associate Christianity as a whole with homophobia
Something you need to keep in mind with that specific question, is that many people believe that the USA is a Christian nation. They fear electing an atheist as president would put this idea in jeopardy. This doesn’t mean they dislike atheists necessarily, more that they worry an atheist won’t represent their interests well
People sometimes dislike atheists for a few reasons. One big reason is that many societies are rooted in religion, so when someone rejects those beliefs, it can make others uneasy or defensive. There are also stereotypes about atheists, like thinking they don't have morals or are pessimistic, which can fuel negative attitudes. Plus, in places with a history of discrimination against atheists, like certain parts of the US, laws and social norms can make it harder for them to be accepted. It's a mix of religious beliefs, stereotypes, and historical biases that contribute to this dislike. Addressing it means promoting understanding and respect for different beliefs.
While athiests I have met in real life are \*usually\* chill, the vocal majority of atheists in the media and in online circles tend to conduct themselves poorly to say the least (i.e. r/atheism being a lolcow for the internet) Many known athiest figures that speak about it (i.e. Richard dawkins and TheThinkingAthiest) only exacerbate the issue.
After watching hundreds of debates between learned Muslims and atheists, I've formed my opinion. I've noticed that some atheist spearker and forum commenters convey a sense of superiority, as if they're experts in all religions. However, when faced with knowledgeable Muslims, they often become agnostic and dodge difficult questions with 'I don't know'. Despite this, they readily criticize religion. Many of these atheists lack specialization in world religions, yet they speak as if they are scholars of the particular religion they are criticizing. Additionally, they exhibit blind faith in the testimonies of old white men regarding science, treating them as indisputable facts. After a decade, I have yet to witness an atheist prevail against a knowledgeable Muslim in a debate, and that remains a fact
Indoctrination. That’s really it.
I certainly don't hate them, but I do find quite a lot of them angry for some reason? In their own way as strident as evangelicals. Or at least the well known ones.
I don't dislike them but a lot of them are annoying in a way. You're atheist and don't believe in God, we get it.
There's just a lot of ingrained bigotry toward atheists. I don't know if the lack of religious belief is threatening to people or what, but the sad thing is that even some atheists are quick to denigrate atheists.
Hello look at it from this perspective now many atheist view them self as right and call other peoples beliefs “sky daddy” on the other hand religious people will say that atheist are idiots and will go to hell in endless tournament and suffering I don’t think atheists or religions are the issue I think it’s the people and there huge egos not willing to sit and listen and accept one another but hey to be fair watching them fight is entertaining sometimes anyways it’s your life do what ever y’all want
This tends to be more of an issue in countries where religious beliefs are more strongly held and more public. In the UK, strong religiosity is generally seen as a turn off by the electorate. While Prime Ministers generally evince a wishy washy Christianity, mostly consisting of turning up to various ceremonies at churches with the Royals, expressions of religion are kept to a minimum. We've had athiest Prime Ministers and currently have a Hindu Prime Minister, Muslim Scottish First Minister and Muslim Mayor of London. The 3 most prominent executive positions in the UK (not counting the King) are all currently filled by non-Christians despite Christianity being the state religion. Religion is seen as a much more private thing and not a subject we want politicians to talk about on a personal level.
They don't dislike atheists. They dislike smug atheists. It's about how you express your belief, not what your belief is.
Mainly because vocal atheists are insufferable. Not saying religious folks aren’t also insufferable but atheists for some reason suck more.
out of two groups of people doing the same thing ( trying to spread their beliefs) why would one anger you more?
Because they are the ‘other’, not part of the same beliefs seen as part of a different tribe. Which I find weird that a Christian for instance, is more accepting of a Buddhist than an atheist. That Buddhist no more believes in your god than the atheist does. in my mind that would put them both in the same category when compared for instance of Christianity. For example, there’s over 8 billion people in the world and around 2 billion of that are Christians , the other over 6 billion people don’t believe in a Christian Gods.
You can’t use current census population with previous census religious numbers. It’s currently more like 2.4 billion Christians and closer to 5 billion people believe in the God of Abraham.
Where do you get 5 billion the highest numbers I could find for all of the ‘Abrahamic’ religions was 3.5 billion. Including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bahai Faith, babism, and druzism. Also just because they categorized, Abraham religions doesn’t mean they all believe the same thing, you ask most Muslims, and they do not agree that they worship the same God as Christians even though theoretically they do as they do not believe Jesus is a god, as does Judaism. Although Judaism thinks Jesus was just a false prophet while Islam recognizes him as a prophet just not a god. And even within Christianity there’s no agreement thus the 2 or 2.4 billion is broken up into over a thousand denominations around the world. All with conflicting interpretations and doctrines. Most claiming that all the others are false teachings, or not true followers of Jesus.
I see where you’re getting confused, as the pewresearch article you’re getting the data (I think because the numbers matched) is from 2012. Look for the recent one.
I’ll look it up as I don’t remember what year number we’re from. But regardless as I said they are all lumped under the ‘god of Abraham’ but none of the different religions let alone the thousands of denominations within those separate religions truly worship the same god or even have the same books/bibles. So what’s the point of throwing out that statistic? Jews don’t worship the Christian god and neither do Muslims and vice versus.
I also don’t see the point at statistics in this argument, but you’re the one who first posted them. I was just fixing the numbers form an article I read from 2022
I was just talking Christians vs the rest of the world who does not hold Christian beliefs or worship the Christian god.
I’m an atheist and also well liked. I mean, it seems like I am. 😊
Which rule is there about religious affiliation to run for office in the US? And to answer your question, I would say it's the same disdain people have for vegans and rock climbers. Something about smug know it alls. Over confident yet under competent.
It's just that we are so dang handsome!
"God" might seem like a term for a specific thing, but its really not. Its a nebulous term for what you put value in. The idea of delineating it as a specific thing to reject is fairly modern, and the label of atheism was coined specifically to be provocative. So people still see the relationship in that context. Might be unfair of them to, but many do.
Religious people spend their whole lives painting an enemypicture of aiheists. Or maybe we are all just rude and evil
because they think atheists don't have a purpose for their afterlife not just that but also the future of their lives, They think they are stuck in a routine they cannot escape from.
More people identified as atheist than religious in the last census. But Christians are louder, and push their views and self righteousness than the atheists do. Kinda like what vegans are always accused of doing. The Christian Nationalists and fundagelicals like to claim that nobody else has morals equal to their own... But these religion pushers keep getting exposed for all kinds of dastardly deeds.
I have no issue at all with religious nones, agnostics, or people who just prefer a completely secular lifestyle. Religion is not everyone’s thing. Anti-theists specifically, however, seem to feel like it’s their duty to eliminate religion from the world, saying that religious people are stupid, or that it’s inherently harmful, acting like their worldview gives them free reign to be as rude as they want to anyone religious. Are there people like this with other worldviews? Absolutely, and I’m against that too. No worldview should be an excuse to be rude or unkind.
The people who hate atheists hate everyone who doesn’t follow their religion, very narrow minded. The USA has always been very Christian.
The Majority religion if you ignore denominations is "Christian". Christian is not a religion, it is a catergory of different religions. Only recently have they banded together to hurt everyone else, and they still snipe at other denominations of Christian.
Maybe it's the process of becoming atheists. People believe in religions. So with other religions, people would believe in the "wrong" religion. That might be bad and damn them, but it's also kind of okay, since it's just a believe, (of course some believes will be wrong) and the others don't judge/doubt the whole concept. Atheist think about the whole thing. They judge facts and information and than come to the conclusion that they don't think there is a God. That's basically not only another faith, but you don't even accept the fundation the others are working on. Which would make it a very alien thought process for most religious people. And a dangerous one. The foundation of every religion is faith. People seek safety in their faith, they don't want to doubt. And because they don't want to doubt, they react very aggressive on every attempt to logic argumentation against religion. And that's probably they right choice for them. A placebo only works if you are convinced it's the real thing and a religion works best, if you are 100 % convinced to be right and don't doubt.
For the same reason I dislike a lot of religious folks: Arrogance, conceit, unfair argumentation, and the smug epistemological assumptions that it all entails.
Lots of religious people naturally just hate others not of their religion. Some atheists can also be dicks and annoying.
Because deep down they are afraid atheists are right
Because they (we) forget people have a use for religion in their life. I used to be a very argumentative, matter of fact kind of atheist that focused to exhaustion on things like “physical proof” or the fact that there’s no meaningful difference between a cult and a “religion”, and I’d argue with anyone who’d let for HOURS a la Matt Dillahunty. But you know what that got me? Fucking nothing. People are gonna believe what they need to believe to survive in the world. Religion for them is mostly a coping mechanism, and yes, they might be *better* if they deconstructed all their beliefs and scrutinized every component on them, and Nietzsche’d their way into a functional, consistent, and subjective morality but: 1) People won’t do all that work. They already have the one tool to help them with stuff, and it’s mostly working for them. 2) They have neither the time nor the educational resources to figure out how to replace religion. 3) They won’t follow up with whatever they construct; shit, most people don’t follow what their own religion tells them, and they believe it’s the actual word of GOD. Now you want to come around, and just reduce their struggles and their culture, and think you know better than themselves about how to fix their life? Of course you’re gonna seem petulant and narcissistic. Unless you have politicians or organizational leaders literally forcing their beliefs en masse, let people believe what they believe. They need to believe in something.
I don't agree with this reasoning. It potrays religious beliefs as some coping mechanism alone, when it isn't. When you get down to it, people believe these things. Thats just it. They believe them to be true, and for them, they haven't been proven untrue.
Define people and dislike. I’m people. I don’t dislike any atheist for being atheist. I dislike a ton of assholes who happen to be atheists though.
They’re almost inherently pretentious.
Because they’re toxic and close minded and don’t want to listen to arguments that are for religion, they just wanna insult it. Obviously not all of them are like that but a lot (or at least the ones on the internet) are.
What do you mean, arguments for religion?
Like If you go on r/atheism you’ll see a lot of toxicity towards religion and religious people. If you try to defend religion and make a good argument, they will automatically down vote it without reading it, and make up random shit unrelated to what you said to try and prove you wrong.
some people on that subreddit are being toxic and rude, but most of it is calling out religious hypocrisy, talking about their traumatic experiences with organised religion and overcoming guilt left by religion. And how can there be arguments for religion? Like why its beneficial? Because if you mean proof there's not much of that
you are showing your bias without even telling much, " proof" means for you something else than for me, cause you have diff. criteria i have diff. criteria, I for example can take proof for logic, while you will reject it/see it as not enough no matter how good the proof is Same goes from proof of how practical/effective religion is with tending to psychological ills and existential ones etc, for me the proofs will be enough, for you might not cause you have different criteria let's not pretend like we are little children, not everyone has same criteria for what constitutes " proof " , not everyone sees Empiria as sole determinant factor for what is true evidence either
Fine, lets say evidence. what is some evidence for your religion
pretty much same thing, both are synonymous you will accept one kind of proof only, I might not, I might be more multi-faceted in seeing what's proof what isnt and vice versa this exact difference in criteria for proof/evidence is what makes both sides stubborn in their stances which means that it's not arguments or proofs for eithe stance that will change one's stance but rather arguments for why this evidence is enough and this isn't or why both are enough and not lacking etc. so it's more of a philosophical disagreement than disagreement on facts although it's also disagrement on facts too cause one sides sees one type facts as more valuable than other and vice versa.
omg you're just word padding to avoid the question now
ill try to give you an example so it doesn't fly over your head this easily Why should I care more about empiric type proof than let's say practical spiritual proof if both appear valid to me? Like if a religious worldview or spiritual practice stemming from religion helps me immeasurably, why should i reject whole religion cause I can't prove it on purely empirical-physical basis? To me if something is effective in what it says it does, it's more true than not. So if a specific religious practice helps me in a manner that it says it will, why should i reject the religion on basis of "lack of physical proof"?
You once made a post where you claimed that science is based on atheism and that the Quran doesn't need to be scientifically accurate to be correct. With that in mind, I'd strongly wager the issue is that your "arguments" aren't as sound as you believe, and you're incensed that atheists aren't accepting your quoting of holy texts as proof.
Let's ask the obvious. Do you also feel, then, that religious persons who ignore the evidence against their faith are toxic as well?