Why do Atheists care about religion?

reply to post by Welfhard


Oh totally...tell me about it...

I have a few 'Christian friends' who I really don't agree with when it comes to the manner in which they approach things, or voice things...or more importantly approach others.

Really...what part of 'Love Thy Neighbour' lacked clarity??
Or is 'Love Thy Neighbour' complete with amendments such as:

1. Love Thy Neighbour
(1.a)Unless they are Gay
(1.1.a)Unless they are 'living in sin'/unmarried
(1.1.1.a)Unless they aren't of your Religion
(1.1.1.1a)Unless they aren't also demonising anyone who falls within the above subsections.


I know thats a bit of a taking-the-mickey with the above...but seriously with some I know I can totally see how their approaches can really get up peoples noses and really turn people away from any belief.

As I say to them when they seem to go on little tirades about sin/sinners/etc (and yes I do acknowledge God may well be an 'imaginary friend' to some ) :There is perhaps no greater sin than to force someone from God.


...as someone wise once said to me: If you wish to engage a person, do so with 5 fingers (shake their hand) rather than one (point a finger of blame/attack at them).


...hope that wasn't Off-topic, or I might have to ding myself with a Warn...

reply to post by alien

As I say to them when they seem to go on little tirades about sin/sinners/etc (and yes I do acknowledge God may well be an 'imaginary friend' to some ) :There is perhaps no greater sin than to force someone from God.

You see, even when I was a Christian, I believed that it wasn't my job to make people get to know God, it was God's job. Me telling people that God loves them and wants them to get to know God - on behalf of God - seemed very silly and likely prone to fail.

I still believe that now but I add as a preface "On the assumption that God exist...

You know this could actually go on forever, he said god she said no god !!
I think there is a god but the human race has no idea as to who or whom or what he is .If there was a big bang what blew up ?how can nothing blow up?there had to be something right!! well how did that something get there ?you cant get something from nothing unless something created it?
I think all major religeons are basically bull crap!! they are all about control ,without control we would have utter chaos but you dont have to have a religeon to have control do you.why would any god let some poor kid die from cancer?when he could stop it...if he could stop it and didnt hes not much of a god if you ask me !!! If I was a god why would i need people to worship and or follow me ?

reply to post by StumpDrummer

how can nothing blow up?

Nothing didn't blow up. Something rapidly expanded. All the work that has been done on the bigbang has lead to the conclusion that all that is: matter; energy; space and time, all came from one 'thing'. To make the point, before the expansion, time was not moving, it was fixed. Because that is the case there is no timeline extending before the expansion and because of that there is no causality. Because of that, no creation or destruction or anything could happen prior the expansion.

I can't tell you more than that, although I will say that placing God/miracles in the gaps of explanations is a fallacy.

reply to post by alien


So, are we to understand that, to you, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" as said by Jesus as part of a reply to the Pharisees about the most important commandment is merely a statement of tolerance? So, what do you say to those who say that this is a summary of roughly the back half of the 10 commandments? That loving thy neighbor means *not* committing those latter deeds, including coveting thy neighbor's stuff? If it is, should I apply those commandments to both myself and my neighbor? What if my neighbor is consistently trying to fornicate with my wife or kids? You happened to pick a couple of the currently favorite 'tolerance' hot buttons but could I say, "Love thy neighbor, unless he consistently shows that he has a depraved mind and wants to molest my family members?" Would you agree that that is a biblically sound application?

How about all the stuff that God says He hates? Since you seem to agree with the 'love thy neighbor...' creed, how about hating the stuff He hates?

Additionally, if you want to adopt the importance of this creed, then how about the one that Jesus said was the most important, i.e. that we love God with all our heart, soul, and mind? People enjoy conveniently forgetting this. I even heard Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, say that if people would just remember "love thy neighbor" things would work better. Well, what about the more important suggestion to "love God." Do you also give that equal importance or do you pick and chose only those things that you can adapt to your own creed?

To the point of the OP, that Atheists are the least trusted in society. I think that's perfectly understandable, a believable statistic, and perfectly rational. An explanation might be that people like predictability in other things and people. Because Atheists have no absolute authority and cannot state what is right or wrong above and beyond what the current 'state' says is right and wrong or what they themselves say is right or wrong. They don't accept God and so they dismiss any creed that purports to derive from God. They can pick and choose. Therefore, nobody can trust them, as they may shift their position in ways that suit their current predilections. Essentially, they make it up as they go along - the ultimate situational ethicists. For instance, let's say you're dealing with a naturalist atheist, who simply believes we're part of the food and reproductive cycle. Why should I trust him more than any other carnivore? I can't even trust most of the people who *say* that they follow an absolute creed so I certainly wouldn't trust anyone with a relative creed.

Finally, when there's an atheist calendar that cites the many persecutions of atheists throughout the world that we need to remember and fight for, then the subject will have reached a level that we can respect. For now, I've never seen one. Maybe this will inspire some enterprising atheist to create one.

reply to post by Ichabod

They can pick and choose. Therefore, nobody can trust them, as they may shift their position in ways that suit their current predilections.

Theoretically they could pick and choose, but they don't really. An atheist will inform you that there is no absolute "Good" or "Evil" and that these are just abstract concepts hence "morality" is also not real. The thing is just because a person prescribes to this belief, doesn't mean that won't act based on morals. Morals are imprinted onto us from an early age when we are instructed as to what the difference is between "right" and "wrong" and morality, a lot of which is probably also instinctual. Ergo they still can still characterise acts as right, wrong or ambiguous.

Also because we encounter this problem in atheist, we tend to be more philosophical about how we personally define as right and wrong, but still it tends to be close to the standard to the conventional definitions.

Finally, when there's an atheist calendar that cites the many persecutions of atheists throughout the world that we need to remember and fight for, then the subject will have reached a level that we can respect. For now, I've never seen one. Maybe this will inspire some enterprising atheist to create one.

It's a rather good idea actually.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Maybe it has something to do with Christian messages consistently attempting to reach out with a positive, loving message and atheist messages consistently attempting to simply bash religion and convey an ultimately negative message. Atheists have no belief system. Having religious material around should pose no offense to them. I have NEVER seen religious people destroying an atheist's "lack of belief system," but I have seen countless atheists who make it their personal vendetta to destroy anything and everything religious. "In God We Trust" offends no one. Constructing an advertisement that says "There probably is no God" is a despicable thing to do.

reply to post by ChocoTaco369

Maybe it has something to do with Christian messages consistently attempting to reach out with a positive, loving message and atheist messages consistently attempting to simply bash religion and convey an ultimately negative message.

You have a very skewed perception of reality, though I'm not shocked - you people tend to (it's almost a prerequisite or something).

Open you eye's and look around that the motives of the people involved, and don't stop at your own assumption. For instance, if you don't know any atheists, you ought to so you can understand their perspectives.

Saying God doesnt exist is like saying evil doesnt exist, and we all know who the 'great ahole of texas' is.

If evil didnt exist, which we know it for damn sure does. It would make the law of positive and negative balance in the Universe irrelevant hmm???

I mean come on guys, are you all here perfect? You dont pass on the moral values Christianity teaches. Blasphemer!

reply to post by topsecretombomb

Saying God doesnt exist is like saying evil doesnt exist

Evil is an abstract concept that exists in our minds. This is self-evident because it doesn't exist outside animals with brains - you know that whole circle of life thing - and the fact that we could be wiped out by a giant meteor at any time, which also makes our social constructs meaningless - the universe does not settle the score.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


And most do leave you alone. Does every single religious person try to "give you the Good News"? Somehow I doubt it. I'm religious, and I haven't attempted to give the good news to anyone, ever... What you believe in is your own business, and frankly I don't think God cares whether you believe in him or not... I was told once by a rabbi that there are many paths to God, and not all of them involve belief in the same. Words to live by, I think, and it's colored my attitude ever since.

I do understand the point you're making. In your face confrontation from the religious, and the not religious, does get tedious in short order. It's wrong, but so to is belittling their religious bent in return.

Originally posted by seagull
It's wrong, but so to is belittling their religious bent in return.

You think so? Really? Doesn't that sorta undermine the whole concept of punishment, retribution and justice?

They say what you get out is what you put in, suggesting social karma. On these fairly universal ideas, the in-your-face bigots deserve to be put in their place or at least made to understand how personal boarders work.

reply to post by Welfhard


In essence what you're saying is two wrongs somehow make a right? Don't buy it.

Confrontation is sometimes necessary. You'll never hear me say otherwise...but unless you're being physically assaulted what's the harm in walking away? Metaphorically, or otherwise? If you're beliefs are strongly held, then they are proof against those who would have you change to suit their expectations of you.

Walk away. Ignore. Belittling only causes more of a rucus.

Originally posted by seagull
In essence what you're saying is two wrongs somehow make a right? Don't buy it.

It's two wrongs only if you decide the response is wrong.

On principle, if someone bothers me by not respecting my personal space by bible bashing, I feel often that the best thing to do is to put the someone back in their place.

For instance my best friend I consider my best friend simply because if I step on his toes I find out about it. People who don't end up resenting my for reasons I don't know - which is silly yet it's not entirely my fault.

Putting someone in their place is generally the best move to make, 'which is not always responding in kind', BUT don't you find it interesting that our natural reaction is always the desire to respond in kind?

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Welfhard]

The question should be :Why do people become Atheists?
A: Because they find it hard to rationally have blind faith in something that has so many wholes that one could drive a mack truck through!
I have never been one to give my heart and soul to something that was so obviously twisted and used to gain power by the elite!
I'm sure there will be many to disagree, but, there are those that have read and studied - then concluded that its for one only chinese whispers; and there seems to be many zealous christians that wouldnt know the first thing about the history of the religion that they are trying to shove down everyones throats!
I find Catholics to be particularly prolific in this sense!
It an interesting fact that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have the same characters within their stories, although seen in a different light by each.
Yet, these are the most intolerant of all.

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
The question should be :Why do people become Atheists?

While I agree with everything else you said, no I don't think that should be the question. I say that because it is another issue all together and this thread is about a constitutional principle, and so the point and nature of atheism is actually irrelevant in this discussion.

We are discussing facts and fictions. And don't realise that feelings and believes are facts of emotions, impressions and thoughts. Everybody has them.

Feelings are as much facts as science. But science is a different type of fact.
Feelings are based on your personality which makes up the person you are. And that to is a fact.

If a person feels a connection to God or a God. The only scientific fiction is God but not the feeling toward a higher being or a character of care. The feeling is not a fiction there are billions of people who will tell you that.

If you dont feel a connection to God or a God. Does that automatically mean no one else should have them. Or is it just odd that some one else has different feelings then you have?

Or is it just wrong that others have different feelings then you have. Is there a standard for what people can or should feel ?

You can support your feelings with scientific facts. But science can't role out the fact that other people do have feelings towards a God. Even though a God cant be proven.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
If you dont feel a connection to God or a God. Does that automatically mean no one else should have them. Or is it just odd that some one else has different feelings then you have?

This is pretty much the point I was making in the op except the first two lines were not in the negative form (If you do feel a ....).

You can support your feelings with scientific facts. But science can't role out the feeling that other people have towards a God. Even though a God cant be proven.

Science will say that people do experience those feelings, sure, but that doesn't mean it's not simply a product of the mind. That's what science suggests. It can all be accounted for.

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by spy66
If you dont feel a connection to God or a God. Does that automatically mean no one else should have them. Or is it just odd that some one else has different feelings then you have?

This is pretty much the point I was making in the op except the first two lines were not in the negative form (If you do feel a ....).

You can support your feelings with scientific facts. But science can't role out the feeling that other people have towards a God. Even though a God cant be proven.

Science will say that people do experience those feelings, sure, but that doesn't mean it's not simply a product of the mind. That's what science suggests. It can all be accounted for.

Ok i might be on thin ground by saying this. Because i haven't checked for facts.

But can we feel anything with our brain. Or does feelings accrue somewhere else but the brain. I mean we have thoughts and images in our brain but do we feel the emotions there as well.

Is our brain connected to our emotions or feelings ?

Why do i ask this because i feel that there is more to this then meats the eye. I believe in science and evolution but i also believe in a source to everything.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


It is everyones right to choose their own path to the spiritual, not to have others impressed upon you!
I say that all religions hold the thread of divinity; yet are not actual representations of God-head.
All written religious discourses are after-all; are written by men. In that case, to see all with equal merit,this means too, that we have to take nut-cases like L.Ron Hubbard, Joseph smith etc into the equation with an equal bias.
I am different. I NEED TANGIBLE PROOF. What I need is history that correlates, and examples of ritual where I can participate- not sanctioned rules and ceremony that I can only witness and have a small part to play in, if only i submit to the authority of another MAN.
A MAN that is ultimately, put on a pedestal be the religious faction they are EMPLOYED by!!!'