I get a lot of guff from Atheists.

[Ambiance]

The truth is, I've met a lot of Christians who are cool with people believing whatever they might believe in, but I haven't actually met an atheist who didn't try to give me shit or insinuate that my beliefs were a symptom of lack of intelligence. Even friends have given me this at some point. And, yet, they will complain about getting rants from those over the edge Christians who try to convert them and tell them they're going to hell. I think these two extremes are the equivalent of each other; either way, you're giving someone crap for believing what they do. And, just so it's clear, I've never tried to talk any atheists into Christianity or convey any superiority over them or anything. I really have kept my beliefs to myself for the most part, but I do feel obligated to speak up when they say bad things about Christians in front of me. I am not a Christian because I'm an inbred idiot who "needs a crutch", I'm an open-minded intelligent person. I genuinely feel God's presence, and I believe He's good, and I think the basic principles of the Church are good. I let other people believe in whatever they want, I don't even really mention religion because I know they don't want to hear about it, and yet I still get crap; and I mean, that's how life goes, I understand that, but I would think that a group of people who get a lot of crap would understand what's wrong with doing that to other people.

So, I'm not saying all atheists are like this; I have complete faith that there are tolerant atheists in the world, as well. However, if this is the kind of atheist you are, I'm curious as to why. If it's not, it'd be great to hear from you. And I'm also curious as to whether there are other Christians who find themselves in the same situation.

Please no bashing anyone on either side.

[TheBabyEater]

Honestly, who gives a damn. Believe what you want to believe in and walk away from anyone giving you grief, whether they're Christian, Atheist, Satanist, Islamic, whatever.

In the defense of an Atheist, it is hard for many of us to come by a Christian, who is obviously Christian (meaning someone we don't really -know- but know that they're Christian- who doesn't constantly try to convert us, or try to impose their beliefs about Abortion or God or whatever onto them. Myself? I've met about... one person in actual person, not online, that didn't bash me over being a Satanist. I became good friends with them, despite that they were Catholic.

I said fuck it to everyone else. And guess, what I walked away.

[Ambiance]

Originally Posted by Mr. Gir

Honestly, who gives a damn. Believe what you want to believe in and walk away from anyone giving you grief, whether they're Christian, Atheist, Satanist, Islamic, whatever.

In the defense of an Atheist, it is hard for many of us to come by a Christian, who is obviously Christian (meaning someone we don't really -know- but know that they're Christian- who doesn't constantly try to convert us, or try to impose their beliefs about Abortion or God or whatever onto them. Myself? I've met about... one person in actual person, not online, that didn't bash me over being a Satanist. I became good friends with them, despite that they were Catholic.

I said fuck it to everyone else. And guess, what I walked away.

I really appreciate your profile picture/screen-name.

You make a good point. It just aggravates me. I guess I'm not obviously a Christian, but I kind of think that faith is a person's own business, and I hate getting in debates with people over it. They like to throw scriptures at me that sound absurd, and say "What now?! Huh?! You look crazy now, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" and I just get sick of it.

People probably give you grief because Satanism sounds scary. No one wants to piss of someone with connections to the Devil (I'm not sure that's actually what Satanism is, as I'm not educated, but that would be the average person's assumptions).

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, nice attitude!

[TheBabyEater]

Originally Posted by iLikeToMoveIt

I really appreciate your profile picture/screen-name.

You make a good point. It just aggravates me. I guess I'm not obviously a Christian, but I kind of think that faith is a person's own business, and I hate getting in debates with people over it. They like to throw scriptures at me that sound absurd, and say "What now?! Huh?! You look crazy now, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" and I just get sick of it.

People probably give you grief because Satanism sounds scary. No one wants to piss of someone with connections to the Devil (I'm not sure that's actually what Satanism is, as I'm not educated, but that would be the average person's assumptions).

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, nice attitude!

Obviously I've gotten quite used to the grief by now, it pretty much comes with the title

But, there are a lot of Atheists that get crap from Christians, and a lot of Christians that get crap from Atheists. I think a lot of it depends on where you live. I live in the Bible Belt. So Christians are pretty much the bullies here. If you're not Christian, you're doomed. Now, if you lived in a more liberal place like the city of New York or something, I'm sure there are more Atheists than Christians around. Pretty much, the majority always wins.

[Cosmo]

I think it's a matter of perspective.



Atheist extremists annoy you.
Christian and Islamic extremists shoot people and blow up buildings.

[dredear]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Christian and Islamic extremists shoot people and blow up buildings.

I agree. Personally I believe that until there is no religion there will be war. But when I talk to Christians, muslims, ect I don't try to tell them why they shouldn't believe in religion. Unless they try to convert me.
Thats just my opinion though, Doesn't really matter what I think.

[eunoia]

I think the only time I'm "obviously" Christian to the greater population is when I'm walking in or out of Mass each week. Like you, though, I regularly witness people implying all religious folk are uneducated maniacs. I've had to block some people entirely from my FB feed, for example, just so that I'm NOT insulted by their anti-religion, when the only evidence on my own profile that I'm Catholic is the one little bit where, well, I was invited to include that information. Shoving what down whose throat, now?

I can almost understand the religious nutters perspective on preaching. Okay, say you honestly believe everyone not your brand of Christian is on the express to Satan's slumber party. You want to save them, or at least enlighten them to the error of their ways so they can save themselves. So you tell them about Christ. Now you're nothing more than an annoying nut. Virtuous intentions, at least, although who hasn't heard what the road to hell is paved with? Gotta love proverbs.

I have a bit more difficulty endorsing the atheist's method. So, you honestly believe every Christian has been brainwashed to drink the Kool Aid. You want to save them from themselves and that evil, evil preacherman who keeps shouting at them about God's love. So you tell them they're prehistoric (and obviously pathetic) idiots. Now you're just being a jerk. I mean, didn't your mother tell you that if you don't have anything nice to say, you shouldn't say anything at all? Gotta love mom.

Also, religion (like guns), doesn't kill people; other PEOPLE do. If nutbags don't have religion to skew for their own personal gain/message/mass murder, don't you reckon they'll just find something else? Stop blaming the tools people use and start searching for the real issues.

[dredear]

Originally Posted by Jessie

Also, religion (like guns), doesn't kill people; other PEOPLE do. If nutbags don't have religion to skew for their own personal gain/message/mass murder, don't you reckon they'll just find something else? Stop blaming the tools people use and start searching for the real issues.

The koran states that lying is a sin, But its okay to lie to get others to believe in allah. Does that seem right to you ?
Believe in whatever you want, It doesn't matter. Just don't go extreme with it. Thats when the trouble happens.

[eunoia]

Originally Posted by dredear

The koran states that lying is a sin, But its okay to lie to get others to believe in allah. Does that seem right to you ?
Believe in whatever you want, It doesn't matter. Just don't go extreme with it. Thats when the trouble happens.

Of course that's not right, and I don't believe a single thing I said should have given the impression that I feel otherwise. I'm not sure what you're getting at, though?

[dredear]

Originally Posted by Jessie

I'm not sure what you're getting at, though?

Some of athiest's believe being athiest is more peaceful, And lying can create trouble, which is not peaceful. So that is one example why some athiest believe its more peaceful.

I think that made sense:P

[eunoia]

Originally Posted by dredear

Some of athiest's believe being athiest is more peaceful, And lying can create trouble, which is not peaceful. So that is one example why some athiest believe its more peaceful.

I think that made sense:P

But how does that justify bashing religious people? Even on the high road, two wrongs still don't make a right.

[dredear]

Originally Posted by Jessie

But how does that justify bashing religious people? Even on the high road, two wrongs still don't make a right.

I'm not justifying anything. I hope I didn't come across as rude. I don't bash anyone, Some people do because they feel their better than anyone else. Which isn't right. I can't justify it.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Jessie

I think the only time I'm "obviously" Christian to the greater population is when I'm walking in or out of Mass each week. Like you, though, I regularly witness people implying all religious folk are uneducated maniacs. I've had to block some people entirely from my FB feed, for example, just so that I'm NOT insulted by their anti-religion, when the only evidence on my own profile that I'm Catholic is the one little bit where, well, I was invited to include that information. Shoving what down whose throat, now?

That's not shoving anything down anyone's throat, that's thoroughly respectable!

Originally Posted by Jessie

I can almost understand the religious nutters perspective on preaching. Okay, say you honestly believe everyone not your brand of Christian is on the express to Satan's slumber party. You want to save them, or at least enlighten them to the error of their ways so they can save themselves. So you tell them about Christ. Now you're nothing more than an annoying nut. Virtuous intentions, at least, although who hasn't heard what the road to hell is paved with? Gotta love proverbs.

I honestly believe that I should tell them they're wrong. It's my virtuous intention because I think I can save people or make them happier by doing it. Why is one wrong but not the other? I don't criticise religion because I want to be a dick, I do it because I think that by doing it I'm making the world a better place with every person that stops believing in religion.

Originally Posted by Jessie

I have a bit more difficulty endorsing the atheist's method. So, you honestly believe every Christian has been brainwashed to drink the Kool Aid. You want to save them from themselves and that evil, evil preacherman who keeps shouting at them about God's love. So you tell them they're prehistoric (and obviously pathetic) idiots. Now you're just being a jerk. I mean, didn't your mother tell you that if you don't have anything nice to say, you shouldn't say anything at all? Gotta love mom.

I think you have a very skewed and incorrect view on the situation. i, and 99% of others, do not tell Christians they're prehistoric, pathetic idiots. I make calm, polite and logical arguments in an attempt to make them realise they're, in my opinion, wrong. But it definitely depends on what you find offensive. If you cannot take logical, polite criticism, then you are a pathetic person. However, I do not support anyone calling anyone else idiots, especially just because they believe in a religion.

Originally Posted by Jessie

Also, religion (like guns), doesn't kill people; other PEOPLE do. If nutbags don't have religion to skew for their own personal gain/message/mass murder, don't you reckon they'll just find something else? Stop blaming the tools people use and start searching for the real issues.

Would Al Qaeda have found another excuse to cause 9/11 if there was no such thing as Islam? They probably wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Islam.
Would Richard the Lionheart have started the Crusades if it wasn't for Christianity? No, obviously not.
The main reason i disagree with many religions, especially Islam and often Christianity, is that it encourages or at least is often used as a reason to cause terrorism, war and murder.
I don't even agree with your analogy. If you take away the means to kill, murder does not happen. End of story.

[eunoia]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I honestly believe that I should tell them they're wrong. It's my virtuous intention because I think I can save people or make them happier by doing it. Why is one wrong but not the other? I don't criticise religion because I want to be a dick, I do it because I think that by doing it I'm making the world a better place with every person that stops believing in religion.

I think you have a very skewed and incorrect view on the situation. i, and 99% of others, do not tell Christians they're prehistoric, pathetic idiots. I make calm, polite and logical arguments in an attempt to make them realise they're, in my opinion, wrong. But it definitely depends on what you find offensive. If you cannot take logical, polite criticism, then you are a pathetic person. However, I do not support anyone calling anyone else idiots, especially just because they believe in a religion.

Never said I hold the beliefs I stated. I also only said I find it more difficult to support the latter, not that I cannot understand where atheist's are coming from. But if we're talking extremes, I get to join in too--it is just two ends of one spectrum, after all. People say the religious are bible thumping elitists because they (the small percentage that actually are) tend to be the loudest. I said those things about atheists because those types (and I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a greater percentage than one) are also loudest. That's not to say I agree with any one side.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Would Al Qaeda have found another excuse to cause 9/11 if there was no such thing as Islam? They probably wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Islam.
Would Richard the Lionheart have started the Crusades if it wasn't for Christianity? No, obviously not.
The main reason i disagree with many religions, especially Islam and often Christianity, is that it encourages or at least is often used as a reason to cause terrorism, war and murder.
I don't even agree with your analogy. If you take away the means to kill, murder does not happen. End of story.

I won't presume to know you, but I've seen you around a fair while now, and I know you're smart enough to understand that terrorism and war do not rely solely on religion. I mean, you don't really believe that removing religion from the equation would magically transform murderous assholes into lovable teddy bears, do you? Yesterday I stabbed Joe with a pitchfork because he voted for Obama. Quickly, remove all knives from the world and squash the political system. Never you mind that I'm clearly unhinged and using politics as a justification and sharp objects as a tool.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Jessie

Never said I hold the beliefs I stated. I also only said I find it more difficult to support the latter, not that I cannot understand where atheist's are coming from. But if we're talking extremes, I get to join in too--it is just two ends of one spectrum, after all. People say the religious are bible thumping elitists because they (the small percentage that actually are) tend to be the loudest. I said those things about atheists because those types (and I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a greater percentage than one) are also loudest. That's not to say I agree with any one side.

Fair enough. Just be careful about the wording next time, you don't want to label an entire group by accident!

Originally Posted by Jessie

I won't presume to know you, but I've seen you around a fair while now, and I know you're smart enough to understand that terrorism and war do not rely solely on religion. I mean, you don't really believe that removing religion from the equation would magically transform murderous assholes into lovable teddy bears, do you? Yesterday I stabbed Joe with a pitchfork because he voted for Obama. Quickly, remove all knives from the world and squash the political system. Never you mind that I'm clearly unhinged and using politics as a justification and sharp objects as a tool.

I never said it was the sole reason. Just that it is sometimes the reason. I don't think removing religion would stop war or murder, but I think we'd see a large reduction in it.

My argument is impossible to disprove. If there is no means to commit murder, murder cannot be committed. Do you question that? I'm not arguing on a practical level, I'm not an idiot, I don't believe we can remove all possible weapons, I'm just saying that there always needs to be a means to kill.
I also don't believe the example really applies with the Obama example. Religious extremists/terrorists take parts of their religion and use it as a reason to commit terrorism. Not quite the same.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Jessie

Never said I hold the beliefs I stated. I also only said I find it more difficult to support the latter, not that I cannot understand where atheist's are coming from. But if we're talking extremes, I get to join in too--it is just two ends of one spectrum, after all. People say the religious are bible thumping elitists because they (the small percentage that actually are) tend to be the loudest. I said those things about atheists because those types (and I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a greater percentage than one) are also loudest. That's not to say I agree with any one side.

I won't presume to know you, but I've seen you around a fair while now, and I know you're smart enough to understand that terrorism and war do not rely solely on religion. I mean, you don't really believe that removing religion from the equation would magically transform murderous assholes into lovable teddy bears, do you? Yesterday I stabbed Joe with a pitchfork because he voted for Obama. Quickly, remove all knives from the world and squash the political system. Never you mind that I'm clearly unhinged and using politics as a justification and sharp objects as a tool.

This is disingenuous. No one is arguing that religion is the only force for evil in the world; only that it is one of them. Of course there would still be problems without religion in the mix, but the argument is that there would be fewer. You're free to disagree with that argument, of course, but at least be honest enough to acknowledge what the other person is saying.

[bailatyvm]

lalalalla I'm not actually here to be a part of the conversation but yeah, I'm a christian who's in that situation alllll the time.

[bailatyvm]

Just kidding I need to add a little bit more. There's this dude I know and I told him I was Christian and he automatically went 'Oh, so I guess you hate me?" And I was like, no..I don't get why most Christians are so judgemental, but I hate being seen as that. Yeah, I want to tell my 'getting my religion' story, but only because it helped me so much with overcoming self-harm and eating problems. which most people in my life are okay with, because they know I genuinely am not pushing it and that I won't judge them. But when I tell it on here, wah-pam, everyone's like, oh you're saying God loves you stop pushing it..and I was like what the heck? Sure, I believe God loves you and me. But you could tell me Buddha hates my guts and I really wouldn't give a crap. People just..ugh.

[Ambiance]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

That's not shoving anything down anyone's throat, that's thoroughly respectable!



I honestly believe that I should tell them they're wrong. It's my virtuous intention because I think I can save people or make them happier by doing it. Why is one wrong but not the other? I don't criticise religion because I want to be a dick, I do it because I think that by doing it I'm making the world a better place with every person that stops believing in religion.



I think you have a very skewed and incorrect view on the situation. i, and 99% of others, do not tell Christians they're prehistoric, pathetic idiots. I make calm, polite and logical arguments in an attempt to make them realise they're, in my opinion, wrong. But it definitely depends on what you find offensive. If you cannot take logical, polite criticism, then you are a pathetic person. However, I do not support anyone calling anyone else idiots, especially just because they believe in a religion.

Why do you feel the need to inform people that they're "wrong"? It seems unnecessary to me, even if you truly believe that they're incorrect, and honestly, to me at least, it seems disrespectful. Because if they are grown, intelligent people who can make decisions for themselves, and they probably have already been presented with the facts and polite criticisms that you are presenting them by someone else (trust me, they have) and still believe what they believe, I don't think they need help from someone else in what they choose to have faith in.

And, I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, you certainly seem to be a lot more level-headed than most people I come across. It's just that this is how the situation seems to me, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone does this to anyone else.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

I have a dislike for Christianity as a belief but not for all Christians. Generally, I'll push back against a Christian IF they push first or if it's a debate, then I'll debate them in a civil manner. Many religions do this, I'm not sure if some do it more than others, possibly though. However, certain religious receive more pushing, such as Satanism mostly because people don't understand what it really is. I don't label myself as a theistic Satanist because I don't feel I know enough of it, however I've been bashed left, right and center.

Not all religious and atheistic folk are intolerant. I'm anti-theist but I still have religious friends because they're willing to accept there's more to life than religion and can be more open-minded. Some of them are also brilliant in science while being very devout and the reason they don't push others is they feel no need or purpose in doing so.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by iLikeToMoveIt

Why do you feel the need to inform people that they're "wrong"? It seems unnecessary to me, even if you truly believe that they're incorrect, and honestly, to me at least, it seems disrespectful. Because if they are grown, intelligent people who can make decisions for themselves, and they probably have already been presented with the facts and polite criticisms that you are presenting them by someone else (trust me, they have) and still believe what they believe, I don't think they need help from someone else in what they choose to have faith in.

And, I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, you certainly seem to be a lot more level-headed than most people I come across. It's just that this is how the situation seems to me, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone does this to anyone else.

I don't believe it's impossible for anyone, properly presented with the facts, ideas, alternative and arguments against Christianity to turn away from it. Yes, it's what they believe. However, what I believe is that a world without Christianity and Islam is a far better world than what we see here today. I could go on for hours about why, but I you're intelligent enough to understand why, I think. Just think about the hatred to and from muslims, for example.

I really don't mind Christians trying to convert me. It's kind of cute really. What I tend to do is say "Alright, you can try and convert me. But once you're done, how about I present a few arguments against God to you which you can take away and think about?" and it often works out pretty well.

[eunoia]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Fair enough. Just be careful about the wording next time, you don't want to label an entire group by accident!

I never said it was the sole reason. Just that it is sometimes the reason. I don't think removing religion would stop war or murder, but I think we'd see a large reduction in it.

My argument is impossible to disprove. If there is no means to commit murder, murder cannot be committed. Do you question that? I'm not arguing on a practical level, I'm not an idiot, I don't believe we can remove all possible weapons, I'm just saying that there always needs to be a means to kill.
I also don't believe the example really applies with the Obama example. Religious extremists/terrorists take parts of their religion and use it as a reason to commit terrorism. Not quite the same.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

This is disingenuous. No one is arguing that religion is the only force for evil in the world; only that it is one of them. Of course there would still be problems without religion in the mix, but the argument is that there would be fewer. You're free to disagree with that argument, of course, but at least be honest enough to acknowledge what the other person is saying.

Why so serious? Just stating one side of things, no need to get all flustered because it isn't your side, especially as I didn't fail to acknowledge anything. My point was that you cannot possibly rid the world of all tension and evil, and I disagree with you on the usefulness of removing just some (inclusive of religion) and leaving others to flourish. Logically it follows that upon removing religion people will just find something else to justify their lack of morals or sanity--so what qualifies as "bad enough" to necessitate purging from society, other than religion?

I don't think I have to "be careful"--it's not really my fault if people misread my words, although a bit disappointing nonetheless. I think I was clear in my statements, and maybe if they are read in a less aggressive tone (as I wasn't using one) my sentiments will be more clear.

Edit: Just realized this thread was a bit derailed. I'd be happy to continue this discussion in PM, but I'm going to bow out of this thread until I have something relevant to say to the OP. (:

[Terry]

Most people have a beef with the other because of how those people have been treated by the opposite side before. I for one was never against religion, then some one told me I would go to hell because I was bisexual and literally threatened me with death, because it would be justified. If something can get this kind of thinking into some one's mind, in my opinion it is a bad thing. I am not generalizing, this is not always the case, but to either not have religion at all, and have no people be brainwashed into these beliefs, as opposed to having people constantly bombard me with threats of burning in hell, I think I'd choose the former. Religion has been ruined by people using it to propagate their own bigotry and have something to blame for their hatred.

Another reason would be how smug SOME religious people are about "knowing" things us atheists don't, when all they do is say "god did it" as a cop out from thinking. Direct quote from an argument I saw not too long ago in a video. "Atheists claim everything came from nothing! Impossible! Atheists don't know where the universe came from. I do. God did it. Simple as that." As if they have some secret knowledge atheists don't. I'm sorry but that is not an argument, there is no way to prove or disprove it (because it's based on blind faith).

I know some very nice religious people who are very tolerant. Which is why I don't get into debates, but if some one ever rejects evolution, or accepts that the earth was only created a few thousand years ago, I will feel free to call them an idiot, because the evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, and the amount of evidence for religion, differ by literally 100%. Scriptures are not proof. You can have your opinion but don't claim theories are wrong when you have nothing to back your beliefs up. (this is not directed at the original poster, so please don't be offended)

[dr2005]

I was going to do a blow-by-blow account of why I object to a lot of things being said on here (mostly yours I'm afraid, Matthew - sorry, it's nothing personal ), but that isn't very constructive so I'll pass. I will however address the following in brief:

• People like Stalin and Pol Pot (who could arguably be defined as atheist extremists with the emphasis on "extremist") did far more than just annoy people. Same with the Tamil Tigers.
• Richard the Lionheart didn't start the Crusades. He didn't get involved until the Third Crusade - he wasn't even born when the First Crusade started in 1096.
• Al-Qaeda were an offshoot of the Afghan-Soviet War and could just as easily emerged as a political movement (like the Tamil Tigers who were a self-declared secular group) as a religious one; indeed, they are more often defined as a political one.
• Land and borders between land are often used as a reason to cause terrorism, war and murder, and people can quite easily kill with their bare hands. Advocating removal of religion on those grounds runs into all kinds of difficulties when you realise the same logic could lead to abolishing all land rights and borders or mass amputation.

Anyway, I think to be honest the behaviour the OP alludes to is something both sides are guilty of, but neither wish to admit it. Preachers and the like claim it's motivated by a desire to see people saved, while atheists and the like claim it's motivated by a desire to see people enlightened and more rational. The more cynical part of me thinks it may also have something to do with massaging the egos of some who partake in such activity (notice I said some, not all. I'm not accusing my fellow TeenHelpers of being egomaniacs. ). In any event, it's a pattern of behaviour you see in all walks of human life, from politics to workplaces to the train and so on, and the only way you're really going to get rid of such tendencies is either mass corrective re-education (and personally I'd prefer Nineteen Eighty Four to stay as fiction, thanks) or get rid of humans. Alternatively, you can accept some people will be morons whichever label they latch onto and hope that the remainder on all parts of the spectrum are decent human beings who make up for the morons. For the most part, they usually do.

That's my two cents anyway.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I was going to do a blow-by-blow account of why I object to a lot of things being said on here (mostly yours I'm afraid, Matthew - sorry, it's nothing personal ), but that isn't very constructive so I'll pass. I will however address the following in brief:

• People like Stalin and Pol Pot (who could arguably be defined as atheist extremists with the emphasis on "extremist") did far more than just annoy people. Same with the Tamil Tigers.
• Richard the Lionheart didn't start the Crusades. He didn't get involved until the Third Crusade - he wasn't even born when the First Crusade started in 1096.

I'd argue that they didn't do it either because they were atheists or for the goal of an atheistic purpose - they just saw Religion as a threat to their regime, which is very different. Stalin I can speak of as I know a lot about him. Communism is based on the idea that every person is equal, but obviously there's going to be a leader. Stalin wants everyone to believe that he is, in a way, their God - he protects them and he nurtures them. If the people believe there's a higher power, then a) he's no longer their leader and b) that means the people might not follow what he says.
But on the Richard point, fair enough, my history knowledge was failing there.

• Originally Posted by dr2005

  Al-Qaeda were an offshoot of the Afghan-Soviet War and could just as easily emerged as a political movement (like the Tamil Tigers who were a self-declared secular group) as a religious one; indeed, they are more often defined as a political one.

Al Qaeda were American trained Afghanis. While I agree that they would 'exist' without religion, although obviously not in the same form, we wouldn't be facing the terrorism we now face from them.

Originally Posted by dr2005

[*]Land and borders between land are often used as a reason to cause terrorism, war and murder, and people can quite easily kill with their bare hands. Advocating removal of religion on those grounds runs into all kinds of difficulties when you realise the same logic could lead to abolishing all land rights and borders or mass amputation.

[/list]I'm not necessarily advocating the removal. Just that I think the world is better off without two religions specifically - Christianity and Islam. I don't have a problem with religions like Buddhism, which I'm interested in right now; i don't hate all religion, just some.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I'd argue that they didn't do it either because they were atheists or for the goal of an atheistic purpose - they just saw Religion as a threat to their regime, which is very different. Stalin I can speak of as I know a lot about him. Communism is based on the idea that every person is equal, but obviously there's going to be a leader. Stalin wants everyone to believe that he is, in a way, their God - he protects them and he nurtures them. If the people believe there's a higher power, then a) he's no longer their leader and b) that means the people might not follow what he says.

With all due respect, atheism was quite clearly an important ideological consideration of the Soviet Union. To claim otherwise is blatant revisionism with no rational basis, and one I view as quite concerning. The efforts the Soviet regime went to in instilling atheism as the national default, persecuting anyone with any religious tendencies whatsoever irrespective of their actual threat to the regime and near-extermination of the Eastern Orthodox Church speaks of more than an attempt to remove a vague threat to the cult of Stalin, frankly. We are talking about something which was fairly fundamental to the Soviet view of communism, if not communism generally (and I do distinguish between the two because Soviet communism really went off the rails), and as such I feel my choice of terminology was appropriate. Pol Pot may well have fit more into the mould of removing a threat to his regime and I accept that one, although again I feel it went beyond that fairly quickly, but considering Stalin had the backing of one of the largest militaries on the planet in a state with de facto martial law I struggle to see how he found a God he didn't believe in particularly threatening to his position. That is merely my opinion however and I imagine you would have grounds to the contrary in making such a statement.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Al Qaeda were American trained Afghanis. While I agree that they would 'exist' without religion, although obviously not in the same form, we wouldn't be facing the terrorism we now face from them.

I fear you have missed my point - while we may not have faced this particular form of terrorism, it does not mean they would not have gone on to become terrorists. Without labouring the point too heavily as I feel I did that with the last one, there are any number of reasons why groups in the Middle East would see fit to attack the West - disparity of wealth, oil, abuse of military power, support of Israel against Palestine and so on - and none of these are reliant upon Islam or any other religion. If they really want to kill people, they'll find a good enough justification one way or another.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I'm not necessarily advocating the removal. Just that I think the world is better off without two religions specifically - Christianity and Islam. I don't have a problem with religions like Buddhism, which I'm interested in right now; i don't hate all religion, just some.

It's interesting that you omit Judaism, which shares an ideological basis with Christianity and Islam, and I must confess given that the two you name are the biggest in the world at present that does raise some interesting questions about why you target them above others. Hinduism, after all, invokes a regimented caste system and has other less salubrious points as well. I may just be being overly cynical but I would ask why them above all others?

[Ambiance]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I don't believe it's impossible for anyone, properly presented with the facts, ideas, alternative and arguments against Christianity to turn away from it. Yes, it's what they believe. However, what I believe is that a world without Christianity and Islam is a far better world than what we see here today. I could go on for hours about why, but I you're intelligent enough to understand why, I think. Just think about the hatred to and from muslims, for example.

I really don't mind Christians trying to convert me. It's kind of cute really. What I tend to do is say "Alright, you can try and convert me. But once you're done, how about I present a few arguments against God to you which you can take away and think about?" and it often works out pretty well.

I'm intelligent enough to understand what you're getting at, I just disagree with it. I mean, look at it this way: If EVERYONE was tolerant to what everyone else believed in, this would solve all the problems relative to religion, wouldn't it? Say you remove religion; people will still get at each others' throats for being different, because people are different. I hardly think the topic of the debate matters, when what causes it is the need within people to debate over it. Religion and culture make different people rich in their unique qualities, and thinking patterns; we should be enjoying learning about other people and celebrate the differences, not making all our convictions so bland that we can't find anything to fight over. I think the world you're talking about sounds wonderful, but it could just as well be achieved if we could just all be nice to each other, and contributing to that ourselves by being tolerant of others' beliefs, and respectful, most of all.

Also, I've been presented with the facts. I still believe in God.

And I know about all the wrong that has happened within the Church, for one; No one ever said people were all good. I can understand why some people feel so hurt by the Church. The Religion is not about the Church, though; It's about your personal convictions. Things might be different for me because I tend to pick and choose what I take into consideration from the Bible; Lots of it is taken out of context, metaphorical, plus a lot isn't even translated correctly from Greek scriptures. But the basic morals are good, and I think that if all Christians followed those basic morals, they wouldn't snap at people for their convictions.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by dr2005

With all due respect, atheism was quite clearly an important ideological consideration of the Soviet Union. To claim otherwise is blatant revisionism with no rational basis, and one I view as quite concerning. The efforts the Soviet regime went to in instilling atheism as the national default, persecuting anyone with any religious tendencies whatsoever irrespective of their actual threat to the regime and near-extermination of the Eastern Orthodox Church speaks of more than an attempt to remove a vague threat to the cult of Stalin, frankly. We are talking about something which was fairly fundamental to the Soviet view of communism, if not communism generally (and I do distinguish between the two because Soviet communism really went off the rails), and as such I feel my choice of terminology was appropriate. Pol Pot may well have fit more into the mould of removing a threat to his regime and I accept that one, although again I feel it went beyond that fairly quickly, but considering Stalin had the backing of one of the largest militaries on the planet in a state with de facto martial law I struggle to see how he found a God he didn't believe in particularly threatening to his position. That is merely my opinion however and I imagine you would have grounds to the contrary in making such a statement.

I agree with you. I think you're misinterpreting my post. I agree that Atheism was a massive part of the Soviet Union. However, it was not Atheism for the sake of Atheism - religion is not compatible with Communism, or more to the point, Stalin, and later leaders such as Khrushchev, Brezhnev etc, did not see it as compatible. They didn't believe they would be able to maintain rulership if religion was still there.

[quote=dr2005;691038I fear you have missed my point - while we may not have faced this particular form of terrorism, it does not mean they would not have gone on to become terrorists. Without labouring the point too heavily as I feel I did that with the last one, there are any number of reasons why groups in the Middle East would see fit to attack the West - disparity of wealth, oil, abuse of military power, support of Israel against Palestine and so on - and none of these are reliant upon Islam or any other religion. If they really want to kill people, they'll find a good enough justification one way or another.[/QUOTE]

You're missing my point - without Religion events would have been different. We may not have had 9/11, in fact, I doubt we would - nobody is willing to throw their lives away like that if there's no chance of an afterlife. I'm not arguing they wouldn't exist, or that they wouldn't find another excuse, but one major reason would be taken away.

Originally Posted by dr2005

It's interesting that you omit Judaism, which shares an ideological basis with Christianity and Islam, and I must confess given that the two you name are the biggest in the world at present that does raise some interesting questions about why you target them above others. Hinduism, after all, invokes a regimented caste system and has other less salubrious points as well. I may just be being overly cynical but I would ask why them above all others?

The reason i omit Judaism is that I simply don't know enough about it to make a rational or informed opinion or decision on it. I of course disagree with Iraeli actions in current events, but I know little of the specifics of the religion. I do feel qualified to comment on Christianity, I think I know a lot about it, and I know the basics of Islam, so I feel I am qualified to have an opinion on that too. i do disagree with the Hindu Caste system - but, again, I do not know an awful lot about the religion as a whole, just some basics.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I agree with you. I think you're misinterpreting my post. I agree that Atheism was a massive part of the Soviet Union. However, it was not Atheism for the sake of Atheism - religion is not compatible with Communism, or more to the point, Stalin, and later leaders such as Khrushchev, Brezhnev etc, did not see it as compatible. They didn't believe they would be able to maintain rulership if religion was still there.

Unfortunately I feel there is a bit of spin going on here - "atheism for the sake of atheism" is a meaningless soundbite in the context of what communism actually is. The sole reason religion is incompatible with communism as defined by Marx is that he made it an atheistic philosophy - it was a deliberate choice, not retrospective interpretation. You are also conflating two separate issues - religion's compatibility with communism and an individual premier's grip on power - which have nothing to do with each other and similarly do nothing to dispel the claim that atheism was a motivating factor in either event, albeit taken to utter extremes. If Stalin et al felt religion was a threat to their position, that says something about their view on religion; likewise, if they felt it was incompatible with communism then again that says something about their view on religion. In both instances, they were advocating atheism to the detriment of religion and religious belief and hence that qualifies their extremism as of the atheist variety. I do not see how I can state this any more clearly.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

You're missing my point - without Religion events would have been different. We may not have had 9/11, in fact, I doubt we would - nobody is willing to throw their lives away like that if there's no chance of an afterlife. I'm not arguing they wouldn't exist, or that they wouldn't find another excuse, but one major reason would be taken away.

Yes, because no one has ever blown up a building for any reason other than religion. [/sarcasm] Leaving aside that point, I have yet to see anything suggesting that suicide bombing is linked to belief in an afterlife - it certainly does not hold with the Tamil Tigers many of whom are/were Marxist. It would certainly remove one potential reason, but there are plenty more to choose from.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

The reason i omit Judaism is that I simply don't know enough about it to make a rational or informed opinion or decision on it. I of course disagree with Iraeli actions in current events, but I know little of the specifics of the religion. I do feel qualified to comment on Christianity, I think I know a lot about it, and I know the basics of Islam, so I feel I am qualified to have an opinion on that too. i do disagree with the Hindu Caste system - but, again, I do not know an awful lot about the religion as a whole, just some basics.

Israel =/= Judaism - I'll get that out of the way for starters. Nor does Zionism equal Judaism for that matter. Given that Judaism is (to put it in hideously simplistic terms for which I apologise to all our Jewish TeenHelpers) in effect Christianity without the New Testament or Islam before Muhammad, I would have thought the rationale would be transferable. It was merely noticeable that you single out the world's two largest religions as your target.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Unfortunately I feel there is a bit of spin going on here - "atheism for the sake of atheism" is a meaningless soundbite in the context of what communism actually is. The sole reason religion is incompatible with communism as defined by Marx is that he made it an atheistic philosophy - it was a deliberate choice, not retrospective interpretation. You are also conflating two separate issues - religion's compatibility with communism and an individual premier's grip on power - which have nothing to do with each other and similarly do nothing to dispel the claim that atheism was a motivating factor in either event, albeit taken to utter extremes. If Stalin et al felt religion was a threat to their position, that says something about their view on religion; likewise, if they felt it was incompatible with communism then again that says something about their view on religion. In both instances, they were advocating atheism to the detriment of religion and religious belief and hence that qualifies their extremism as of the atheist variety. I do not see how I can state this any more clearly.

No. You're still wrong. I've explained why religion is not compatible with communism, and it's because Communism, or at least Soviet Communism, required the leader, Stalin, to be at the top. He had to be at the very top. if people believed in an afterlife or some other person whose judgement was greater than Stalin's then his rule starts to crumble. The system was atheist because it had to be, simple as. If you don't understand that and still disagree, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Yes, because no one has ever blown up a building for any reason other than religion. [/sarcasm] Leaving aside that point, I have yet to see anything suggesting that suicide bombing is linked to belief in an afterlife - it certainly does not hold with the Tamil Tigers many of whom are/were Marxist. It would certainly remove one potential reason, but there are plenty more to choose from.

Okay I agree with your first point, they may well have done it for another reason - but the reason they gave this time would be removed. However your second point can be disproved by inherent common knowledge - very few people would be willing to sacrifice their lives if they believed that nothing was to come afterwards. However, if you give a person a belief that if they sacrifice their life then they are actually rewarded in the afterlife then... the result is obvious.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Israel =/= Judaism - I'll get that out of the way for starters. Nor does Zionism equal Judaism for that matter. Given that Judaism is (to put it in hideously simplistic terms for which I apologise to all our Jewish TeenHelpers) in effect Christianity without the New Testament or Islam before Muhammad, I would have thought the rationale would be transferable. It was merely noticeable that you single out the world's two largest religions as your target.

I never said it was...? But I know that much about Judaism. I don't much like what I know, I regard the Old Testament as Hate Speech. I just don't feel I know enough about the religion or the people who practise it to make a judgement

[MadPoet]

I just wanted to say that every religion has its extremists. Even atheists have extremists. The thing that bothers me is that atheists treat religion as if it's the enemy, when really the enemies are the people who take religion out of context and blow it way out of proportion. Religion is meant to spread peace. It seems like a lot of atheists make Christians out to be evil people who love war and fighting with others about religion. Yes, there are undoubtedly people like that. But most religious people are generally peaceful. It's just that the majority of them are judged for the actions of few. Just as is the case with atheists. Not all of them will shove their beliefs down your throat. Yes, some of them will accept you and your beliefs, whatever they may be. And others won't. I don't judge the whole of atheists based on the few I have talked to, and I don't judge the whole of Christians or Muslims by the ones I have talked to.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Afterlife

I just wanted to say that every religion has its extremists. Even atheists have extremists. The thing that bothers me is that atheists treat religion as if it's the enemy, when really the enemies are the people who take religion out of context and blow it way out of proportion. Religion is meant to spread peace. It seems like a lot of atheists make Christians out to be evil people who love war and fighting with others about religion. Yes, there are undoubtedly people like that. But most religious people are generally peaceful. It's just that the majority of them are judged for the actions of few. Just as is the case with atheists. Not all of them will shove their beliefs down your throat. Yes, some of them will accept you and your beliefs, whatever they may be. And others won't. I don't judge the whole of atheists based on the few I have talked to, and I don't judge the whole of Christians or Muslims by the ones I have talked to.

Atheist extremists don't kill people. Religious ones do. Just sayin.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Atheist extremists don't kill people. Religious ones do. Just sayin.

Really? What about the thousands of martyrs that died in the name of Christianity? What about the communists who believe in ending religion? What about Jesus being crucified by those who did not believe in him? Any extremist, religious or not, has the potential to spread violence.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Afterlife

Really? What about the thousands of martyrs that died in the name of Christianity? What about the communists who believe in ending religion? What about Jesus being crucified by those who did not believe in him? Any extremist, religious or not, has the potential to spread violence.

Can you find me one Atheist (I'm not counting Staling, Pol Pot etc. as they're completely disputable) who has committed mass murder with the purpose of spreading Atheism? I'm deliberately still searching for one because I don't one to crop up.

[QuantumModulus]

Originally Posted by Afterlife

What about the thousands of martyrs that died in the name of Christianity?

Dying in the name of Christianity implies fighting in the name of Christianity. Be careful there.

Originally Posted by Afterlife

What about Jesus being crucified by those who did not believe in him?

I'm sure that if they killed him, they must have believed in him...but I'm going to assume that you were referring to his teachings.

The fact that Jesus was supposed to have been killed by those who did not believe him says absolutely nothing about whether or not his murderers were atheists. I'm pretty sure they weren't.

Originally Posted by Afterlife

Any extremist, religious or not, has the potential to spread violence.

This is true. However, as MonsterCosmonaut has pointed out already, religion is simply another justification for committing the same crime. It's not a stretch of the imagination to think that if one removes the more compelling reasons for doing something terrible, its frequency will decrease.

[bailatyvm]

seriously, why can't we all just be friends? why don't we just treat each other as individuals, and decide which people we like and dislike, and be done with it?

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by bailatyvm

seriously, why can't we all just be friends? why don't we just treat each other as individuals, and decide which people we like and dislike, and be done with it?

This is something that I would very much like to be rooted in society. Unfortunetly, it becomes a bit too idealistic to assume all people will follow suit.
I for one won't openly criticize religion without purpose, but if a theist wishes to engage me in an argument, I can assure you that there is a good possibility I will return the favour. They want to derogate my beliefs, I'll do the same.

[Serene]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Can you find me one Atheist (I'm not counting Staling, Pol Pot etc. as they're completely disputable) who has committed mass murder with the purpose of spreading Atheism? I'm deliberately still searching for one because I don't one to crop up.

Jared Lee Loughner.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Serene

Jared Lee Loughner.

I know a bit about him. I know he was an atheist, but he didn't kill those people because of that or because he wanted to spread atheism. Next.

[Serene]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I know a bit about him. I know he was an atheist, but he didn't kill those people because of that or because he wanted to spread atheism. Next.

Very rarely would the motivation behind any mass killing be to solely recruit others to your cause, but to take out those who hold different views. Loughner targeted Giffords because she was Blue Dog, and a well known, very religious Democrat at that. His religious views directly affected his motivation. You said name one, I'm just giving it to you.