Your view on Atheists

[Totenkopf]

I would have to say that as far as viewing atheists as people/individuals, I couldn't really give a fig's fart what your persuasion is on the issue of god/no god. Ambrose pretty much summed it up in his first post. I may not agree with you philosophically, but that doesn't mean I'll dislike you. It's a big world and there's lots of things to talk about beside religion and philosophy. As DI pointed out, you're people too.

[Bimmerman]

I'm an atheist, and I could care less what others either think of me and my beliefs where religion is concerned(my family's pretty religious and don't get why I'm not). As for other people, I could also care less whether they are religious or not; I'm an atheist because it is what makes sense for me. If other people have different views, kudos. If they don't try to convert me I won't try to explain why I think they're full of it.

 

My 02 cents

[lord ignarn]

It´s all about respect, of course you can take an atheist and make him say lots of things against any religion. But, that guy would be stupid in any case. The best thing we can do it´s having our own criteria.

 

If you want to see like this: it´s all a personal choice. If you don´t make the choice, at least respect the other.

[DarkDwarf]

I used to be an atheist, however, I decided it wasn't for me, and switched to agnosticism...

[i_shot_the_jedi]

I have no quarrel with Atheists as I have no quarrel with Christians, and I will happily discuss faith with them at any time.

 

I have thought for a number of years on the subject of God and I learned the hard way that deconstructing reality to find the missing parts is not always a good idea. I decided that it was no longer my place to question this "God" with my limited human wisdom and intelligence and a single world beneath my feet on which to base all my theories on.

 

I live by my own brand of semi-agnostic Judaism and my father's philosophy of simply living life as a good man, and I am always open minded; accepting or rejecting theological theories as they come. To close ones mind to different concepts; blindly believing that yours is the one true faith or belief system and that all others are false is to chain yourself to a single possibility amongst the myriad variety of possible truths.

 

As John Lennon said; "I believe in me, Yoko and me... and that's reality."

[True_Avery]

I try and be as neural and open minded about religion as possible. There are subjects I debate, but I only attempt to debate them if I feel I have a fairly good understanding of who I am debating against, why they believe what they do, and what the core of what that belief truly is.

 

I try to also not label myself as far as religion goes. At times I believe there is something there, at times I see it as silly. Pretty much undecided on all of it as I can't and could no ever truly make up my mind on something as strange and interesting as religion.

 

I do, however, tend to greatly dislike religious supremacy and hate speech. Some would say that disliking that throws me off of my stance of being neutral, but I disagree and say that true ignorance and hate for someone on their personal beliefs is just that. Ignorance. If you say your religion is better or more supreme over another, then you quite possibly do not understand your own religion and thus have no right to take a religious stance in a debate in my personal opinon. I dislike them for what they say and do, not for what beliefs they have. Everybody has the right to an opinon and belief and to some extents, actions.

 

Atheism? Just another belief system. It is simply another religion to me, wether atheists would like to think it or not. It takes just as much spiritualism, if not a bit more, to believe there is nothing there opposed to believing there is something.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I treat them as I wold treat any "religious" group, except subdividing them into seperate 'religions', to fit the different "sects" of Atheism (communism, capitalism, scientific materialism, anarchism, liberal democrats, etc., basically people who believe there is no God, and then coming up with different doctrines based on the nonexistence of God).

None of the examples you list are the result of atheism. The only thing I can come up with is secular humanism.

 

Atheism? Just another belief system. It is simply another religion to me, wether atheists would like to think it or not. It takes just as much spiritualism, if not a bit more, to believe there is nothing there opposed to believing there is something.

No, because spiritualism specifically refers to entities. I know what you mean, but you're getting your terms wrong.

[Totenkopf]

No, because spiritualism specifically refers to entities. I know what you mean, but you're getting your terms wrong.

 

She might have been better off saying belief, since we've no idea where any of the matter and energy that constitutes this universe came from in the first place.

[JediKnight707]

What do I think of Athiests?

 

Hmmm. One of my best friends is an athiest. I think, to be more exact, he's a pagan. I didn't know this until a few months ago. We were chat-chiting, and he asked me what my beliefs were. Long story short, he likes Satan. I'm still not sure if he was kidding or not. But, regardless, my thoughts about him have changed. He's still my best friend, and nothing will change that, but there's just an uneasiness I feel when I'm around him. To say that I think of Athiests the same way as I do other people would be a lie. I've got nothing against Athiests, don't misinterpret my words when I say that. I merely think of them differently. Not a good or bad different. Just different.

[Hallucination]

I think you forgot the definition of 'atheist'.

atheist

–noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I think Satan would count as a supreme being.

 

As for atheists, I hate them all and I beat any of them I see. Of course, I happen to be one... >_>

 

Seriously, there are annoying atheists who don't know what they're talking about, while there are those who do. Just like Christians. And Hindus. And Jews. And Muslims. It's not like we're from space, we happen to be human and vary depending on ourselves.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Hmmm. One of my best friends is an athiest. I think, to be more exact, he's a pagan. I didn't know this until a few months ago. We were chat-chiting, and he asked me what my beliefs were. Long story short, he likes Satan.

An atheist is by definition someone who does not believe in gods, angels, Satan, etc. Atheist≠Pagan≠Satanist.

[Nancy Allen``]

This is how I feel it should be. You, what are your beliefs?

 

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE!!!

[Achilles]

Unfortunately, that philosophy will tend to fail in a democracy. Viewpoints determine policy, therefore it's irresponsible not to keep abreast opinion.

[Nancy Allen``]

I call it egotism, people want to have their viewpoints brought to the fore, even harang others into adopting the same beliefs.

[Achilles]

Being aware of other view points is egotism? You'll have to clarify that one for me.

 

Last time I checked, egotism is the practice of putting oneself before all others. Being egocentric (which may have been the term you were looking for) is the practice of thinking that one's viewpoint should be the only one.

 

Considering that organized religions tend to profess to be concerned about "the next life" while trying to dictate a moral code for everyone to adhere to in this one, I would recommend that you proceed carefully, lest you apply that label to the wrong ideology.

[Nancy Allen``]

By that I mean saying that your way is the only way that matters, your beliefs are the only beliefs that matter. Whether it be Christianity, Judasim, Islam, Greek Mythology (is that the proper term for it?), Atheism, whatever, it doesn't matter. To condemn others for their beliefs or to say that you cannot hold such beliefs is to rupture the fabric of society.

[Achilles]

So like when Christians say that atheists are going to burn in hell or that homosexuals are destroying this country? Or when Muslims condemn all "infidels" to death for following the wrong god?

 

Or were you specifically referring to the part where most atheists try to assert their right to live in a country where imaginary friends don't dictate foreign and/or domestic policy?

 

As you can see, we can't live in a society where beliefs don't matter, hence my earlier point.

[Nancy Allen``]

So like when Christians say that atheists are going to burn in hell or that homosexuals are destroying this country? Or when Muslims condemn all "infidels" to death for following the wrong god?

 

Yes, exactly. By doing that you're playing chicken with other people's lives, hoping that whoever hears the message of hatred blinks and follows through with killing homosexuals, committing acts of terror for their God. Atheists are no less immune to this and fall under the same bylines that apply to those who follow religion. Condemning religion the same as Christians or Muslims condemn others makes them as bad as who they criticise.

[Achilles]

Really? There is an atheistic "holy" text (or other practice) that not only permits but advocates the death and/or discrimination of others? I was not aware of this.

 

I think there is a distinction that you are missing in your rebuke. Atheists don't "condemn" religion for the sake of persecuting followers. Most atheists seek to point out the flaws in theism because, as Chris Hitchens points out, "it poisons everything". If theists were happy enough to "check their devotion at the door" and use their minds rather than their holy text while in the public domain, I don't think there would be a problem. However this rarely, if ever, happens. Hence all the killing and condemnation and fire and brimstone, etc.

[Nancy Allen``]

I don't know of any Atheist text that advocates death and discrimination either, but it does happen, and Atheists are held to the same laws and civil responsibilies as people who follow religion are.

 

Just on that note, I may have said this before, when people read passages in their religious texts they may be confusing accounts of what happened (judgement being cast on Ninevah for example) with the way things are meant to be, taking texts that preach destroying those who do not follow their religion as gospal of how to act. That, or it's simply used as an excuse by someone with an axe to grind.

[Achilles]

I don't know of any Atheist text that advocates death and discrimination either, but it does happen,

Examples please.

 

Just on that note, I may have said this before, when people read passages in their religious texts they may be confusing accounts of what happened (judgement being cast on Ninevah for example) with the way things are meant to be, taking texts that preach destroying those who do not follow their religion as gospal of how to act. That, or it's simply used as an excuse by someone with an axe to grind.

Who gets to decide which interpretations are correct and which are incorrect? What happens when the instructions are specific? I believe I posed these questions to you before.

[Nancy Allen``]

Examples please.

 

Saying that religion is a delusion and those who believe it are deluded, treating those who believe in it with contempt. A look through the Senate will yield some examples and I can bring up other sources if you like.

 

Who gets to decide which interpretations are correct and which are incorrect? What happens when the instructions are specific? I believe I posed these questions to you before.

 

That's a topic that's debated time and time again, whether using what Jesus had set into motion for example does away with what had taken place before or if many of the old rules still apply. People do honestly feel that those who do this, those who do not do that, shall surely be put to death is to be taken litrially, and not in the etheral astrial sense (what happens when you die). I think however these people are the minority, certainly in the case of saying to go out and kill those who, shall we say, defile their religion. Those who do think this way (an example would be a priest who broke into a witch's home, burnt her belongings in a Salem trials style bonfire and told the police who showed up the woman should be burning in there as well) are shown to be extremist, and rightfully so.

[Achilles]

Saying that religion is a delusion and those who believe it are deluded, treating those who believe in it with contempt. A look through the Senate will yield some examples and I can bring up other sources if you like.

Contempt is neither death nor it is discrimination. Since you mention the Senate, perhaps you would like to try some examples from that specific body (good luck, as the quickest way to talk yourself out of public office is to deny the existence of jesus christ). The fact that you seem to think any kind of anti-religious sentiment exists in the Senate indicates to me that you might be grasping at straws.

 

That's a topic that's debated time and time again, whether using what Jesus had set into motion for example does away with what had taken place before or if many of the old rules still apply. People do honestly feel that those who do this, those who do not do that, shall surely be put to death is to be taken litrially, and not in the etheral astrial sense (what happens when you die). I think however these people are the minority, certainly in the case of saying to go out and kill those who, shall we say, defile their religion. Those who do think this way (an example would be a priest who broke into a witch's home, burnt her belongings in a Salem trials style bonfire and told the police who showed up the woman should be burning in there as well) are shown to be extremist, and rightfully so.

I don't understand what this has to do with my questions.

[Totenkopf]

Contempt is neither death nor it is discrimination. Since you mention the Senate, perhaps you would like to try some examples from that specific body (good luck, as the quickest way to talk yourself out of public office is to deny the existence of jesus christ). The fact that you seem to think any kind of anti-religious sentiment exists in the Senate indicates to me that you might be grasping at straws.

 

Two things, Achilles. It would very likely depend on where you're running for office. I'm reasonably sure that belief in Christianity isn't requisite if you run in, say, NH or San Fransico to name a few examples. Also, if you think there's NOT a strain of anti-religious sentiment in the Senate, you've not read very closely what people have written w/regard to that subject. That isn't the same as saying those people want to unleash pogroms against the believers, just that they do regard it contemptuously and aren't the least bit reticent about saying so.

[Achilles]

Two things, Achilles. It would very likely depend on where you're running for office. I'm reasonably sure that belief in Christianity isn't requisite if you run in, say, NH or San Fransico to name a few examples.

This sounds very much like supposition. I'd be happy to take a look at any examples that you would like provide of senate or house of representative candidates that ran on an "atheist platform" and were elected into office.

 

Also, if you think there's NOT a strain of anti-religious sentiment in the Senate, you've not read very closely what people have written w/regard to that subject. That isn't the same as saying those people want to unleash pogroms against the believers, just that they do regard it contemptuously and aren't the least bit reticent about saying so.

It is entirely possible that I've been misinformed. Since you appear to have at least one specific example in mind, perhaps you would be willing to share it (them?).

 

In the mean time, I'll ponder why it is that Senate opens with prayers and scoffed at our first Muslim representative being sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran.