Why is atheism seen as such a threat?

[Oleg Bach]

I'd say is that atheists follow their own belief system indeed. I really think atheists just do not need to congregate and convince others or other atheists why they beleive the way they do. It is an individual thing. Like most religions in some ways, and it should be for all religions, is that it is a personal thing. Religion or your faith is personal and should always stay that way.

I'm in total agreement - even in scripture it says not to make a display of your faith in public like the pagans do...to utter oaths repeatedly hoping that by the very number beseachments you will be heard...It specifically instructs you to enter your private room to communicate with the maker...even the church thwarts this basic precept...If that was the way old traditional Christianity should have been then at least the atheist should follow suit and shut up and keep their faith to themselves...It is irksome that they want to suddenly promote publically...all religion if it is real is very very private - If people kept it the way it was designed to be kept we would not have half the problems that religion causes.

[cybercoma]

Yes, as we have moved beyond enslavement to kings and priests

Instead, we have become enslaved by corporations and their insatiable hunger for wealth. Those that are being controlled are kept in place with pittances; all the while, their debts insurmountable. Not unlike colonialism of the past, foreign labour forces make next to nothing and work in conditions that most of us couldn't even imagine. Shades of mercantilistesque military support are still seen when American military interventions open up markets to the wealth-generating juggernauts: multinational corporations. Slavery and colonialism is not dead. Instead of colonizing powers in the form of nations, we now have colonizing powers in the form of corporations. Instead of blatant slavery and free labour, north americans are enslaved by debts and foreign labour is paid marginally above free.

Meanwhile, corporate executives last year took home in excess of $18,000,000,000 in bonuses. Wealth is limited, so upper-classes are robbing the lower-classes. That is not to say those who invest more don't deserve more, but the disparity in wealth needs to be addressed. Like the sugar colonies of the past, vast numbers of people toil to generate the wealth, while only a very small fraction reap the rewards. While the corporations cash in on the wealth and executives keep their share, well beyond the needs of any person, the people who are creating that wealth for them are in slavery. This is colonialism in the 21st century: corporate-colonialism.

[Oleg Bach]

One writer writes "who is to decide what is moral?" - boy oh boy are we in trouble...It's not a decision - it is old law - real law - natural law - devine law - If it brings about death and suffering and poverty etc...then it is IMMORAL. If the action brings about peace and plenty and beauty and love - combined with long and happy human existance for all with out sacrafical victims --- THEN IT IS MORAL - OR COMMONLY CALLED RIGHT OR RIGHTEOUS - Sin or sinisterism or leftism...is immoral and destructive..because if the collective travels right in unison all flows well and all are happy - once there is deviant behaviour then their is a wrecking of the fabric of human existance - To be more is to not be decadent - and the word decadent is the opposite of cadence...candence is to march in perfect time as a whole and graceful body - decadence...is deviatism..which screws up the perfect world and makes it hellish - and hell is not moral.

[WIP]

But do they really use the Bible all that much? It seems to me that, as a civilization, we have, over the centuries, become quite adept at picking out which Biblical laws are to be enforced and which are not. Of course, the writers of the Gospels gave a convenient out. Christ "fulfilled" the Law, which seems to translate into "Any Biblical law that seems tyrannical or barbaric doesn't apply to us anymore." Thus, despite all the hullaballoo about "Judeo-Christian" morals, the fact is that a fair chunk of the laws found in the Pentateuch are viewed as either idiotic (laws about what men should wear on the bottoms of their robes or all the menstruation-is-unclean laws) or outright monstrous (stoning children who don't listen to their parents and the execution of witches). Killing disobedient children clearly went out of vogue a looong time ago, and witch burnings in most of Christendom ended in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Christian Reconstructionists (the guys behind the Ten Commandments monuments campaign in the U.S.) are about the only Christians who would try to apply Old Testament law today, but the ethical philosophy of other Christian denominations is exactly the same! They contend that morals and ethics are derived from God, and they keep moving the goal posts, but wherever they stand, they put a stake in the ground and claim their values are God-given and unchanging. Morality is about discerning whatever God's standards are, and holding to them regardless of the effectiveness of whatever laws and rules are derived from these standards.

Look at slavery in the US. Baptists, who have long been one of the major Christian groups, split between north and south over slavery. In the North, it was clear to God-fearing Baptists that slavery was wrong, and it was equally clear to God-fearing Baptists in the South that slavery was fine. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed by angry Southerners; a classical example of theology and religion as slaves to economics and prejudice.

The churches that fought against slavery co-opted humanist principles from the Age of Enlightenment , not from the Bible. The Bible is pro- slavery from cover to cover -- in the New Testament, there is no call for ending slavery. It wasn't until the Enlightenment, that concepts of righs of privacy and individual autonomy became an issue. When the Bible was written, it was just taken for granted that it was permissible to own human property as personal possessions.

[WIP]

Instead, we have become enslaved by corporations and their insatiable hunger for wealth. Those that are being controlled are kept in place with pittances; all the while, their debts insurmountable. Not unlike colonialism of the past, foreign labour forces make next to nothing and work in conditions that most of us couldn't even imagine. Shades of mercantilistesque military support are still seen when American military interventions open up markets to the wealth-generating juggernauts: multinational corporations.

I can't disagree with you here. Capitalism can morph into corporate feudalism when corporations start writing the tax policies and trade rules for nations to follow, but that's a whole different topic than the one I was referring to.

[Chris in KW]

I was driving past a church today, and read the sign out front: "Atheism isn't merely a denial of the truth, but a suppression of it." As I continued to drive, I thought that there is no way a church would post such an attack about other belief systems - can you imagine what would happen if you substituted the word Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism in that sign? Why is atheism seen as such a threat?

Great original post, Melanie. If anyone's still reading this thread, I think it's pretty simple.

Atheists tend to be very reactionary (eg, reacting negatively to many real and perceived problems with religion in general and Christians specifically). For many atheists, the reasons they put forward to support their beliefs are all the worst abuses of Christianity (and there are a lot).

I'm a Christian, but I have a somewhat... ambiguous relationship with the church (ie organized Christianity). To me, Christianity is largely a personal thing, and I feel that Christianity as organization(s) has often missed the boat.

However, to paint all Christians as crusaders, corrupt popes, Jimmy Swaggart and the tyrant version of Jehova, all rolled up into one, just isn't fair. To talk about "Christianity" like it's one monlothic thing, also isn't fair. It's as bad as calling all muslims terrorists, or all government employees lazy.

I think Christians basically feel slandered by atheists...

[Molly]

So.... why is it unfair to describe 'Christians' as some ONE THING that consists of all the worst of Christianity, yet fair to describe atheists as homogenous, uniform (hostile and reactionary, specifically to Christianity)?

I'm clearly not an atheist of your stereotype. I assure you that I am an equal opportunity disbeliever. Christianity gets no special inattention from me. It is no more nor less rediculous bunkum than any of a thousand other fairy tales.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Molly

[Chris in KW]

I'm clearly not an atheist of your stereotype.

Well, I said that "many" atheists seem to be extremely negative about the christian church. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get. Not only negative, but also disappointed and disillusioned. I'm not attacking that viewpoint -- I actually think there's quite a bit of reason for disillusionment with Christianity as it has been practiced and abused over the centuries.

However, your point that not all atheists are alike is well taken. I concede that there may be a lot of atheists out there who are not reactionary, and who aren't obsessed with attacking religion, and have well-constructed value systems that have nothing to do with hating religion. I also suspect that your viewpoint is not well represented in the sad Christian/Atheist debate.

I assure you that I am an equal opportunity disbeliever. Christianity gets no special inattention from me. It is no more nor less rediculous bunkum than any of a thousand other fairy tales.

Nice turn of phrase Of course, I think you're wrong!

[WIP]

Atheists tend to be very reactionary (eg, reacting negatively to many real and perceived problems with religion in general and Christians specifically). For many atheists, the reasons they put forward to support their beliefs are all the worst abuses of Christianity (and there are a lot).

That depends on many other factors, but most atheists who are also anti-religious have come out of fundamentalist religious backgrounds and struggled to find their own way in the world. Anyone who's been kicked out at a young age will more than likely harbour hostile feelings about their own family brand of fundamentalism, and that may extend to religion in general. Those of us who've taken the time to examine the problems of religious belief try to distinguish between innocuous dogma and harmful beliefs.

I'm a Christian, but I have a somewhat... ambiguous relationship with the church (ie organized Christianity). To me, Christianity is largely a personal thing, and I feel that Christianity as organization(s) has often missed the boat.

However, to paint all Christians as crusaders, corrupt popes, Jimmy Swaggart and the tyrant version of Jehova, all rolled up into one, just isn't fair. To talk about "Christianity" like it's one monlothic thing, also isn't fair. It's as bad as calling all muslims terrorists, or all government employees lazy.

Sounds like you may be in the process of creating your own church...which could be added to the more than 33,000 sects and denominations already in existence. The first question I ask regarding this point about separating the belief from the bad conduct of the believers, is WHY don't Christians act better than less religious people? I know some do! But, survey after survey in the United States and around the world, finds the regions with the highest church attendance and religious belief, are also the places with the highest divorce rates, teen pregnancy rates, murder rates, drug use etc.....if Christian values are superior to secular values, as we are so often told by the fundamentalists who try to force their will on the rest of us, why aren't Christian values having greater effect on the Christians who are sitting in church every Sunday? And the Muslims shouldn't be allowed to play the same dodge either! If their religion is a "religion of peace" why do Muslim-majority nations rank at the bottom of the quality of life scales?

It's also worth noting that the most corrupt, megalomaniac evangelists who start their own TV empires are predominantly nondenominational. They also create their own brand of Christianity.

I think Christians basically feel slandered by atheists...

And that's because Christians feel their core beliefs should be protected from criticism. Atheists may or may not be tactful, but we don't accept the concept of sacred beliefs!

[Chris in KW]

Sounds like you may be in the process of creating your own church...which could be added to the more than 33,000 sects and denominations already in existence.

Yikes! No thanks, I really don't think more denominations are the answer. I go to one of the many mainstream Christian churches in KW. It's certainly not perfect, but I find that like most churches, it has some people who I like, who are genuinely trying to answer the question "ok, in light of what Jesus taught, how should we live"?

The first question I ask regarding this point about separating the belief from the bad conduct of the believers, is WHY don't Christians act better than less religious people?

You know WIP, you sound a bit dis-illusioned yourself. Christianity doesn't make people better. There are some Christians who are successfully becoming better people. But trying to follow Jesus (that's my definition of Christianity) doesn't MAKE people better.

It's also worth noting that the most corrupt, megalomaniac evangelists who start their own TV empires are predominantly nondenominational. They also create their own brand of Christianity.

Yep, a toxic brand of Christianity. The tv preachers (and many Christians, sadly) would like you to believe that being a Christian is just a matter of saying some words and then living happily ever after, or magical healing. (And sending them some money). Well, I hope everyone takes that with a grain of salt.

And that's because Christians feel their core beliefs should be protected from criticism. Atheists may or may not be tactful, but we don't accept the concept of sacred beliefs!

No, as far as I'm concerned, you should be able to challenge any belief of Christianity. The unfortunate thing is that so little actual atheist/christian debate really happens, other than on the level of "your faith is ridiculous" or "you're going to hell!".

[Molly]

"Your faith is rediculous" and "You are going to Hell" is the obvious discourse between the two-- they are that fundamentally different in world view.

I simply do not understand why or how anyone would/could expect those two worldviews to launch a nuanced discussion ....

Would you engage in much detailed civil discourse over the nature of the cheeze from which the moon is made, the geography of a flat earth, or which bits of mischief may or may not be blamed on the fairies? Of course not!!! Because the fundamental assumptions are preposterous- a complete step through the looking glass!

[sharkman]

So.... why is it unfair to describe 'Christians' as some ONE THING that consists of all the worst of Christianity, yet fair to describe atheists as homogenous, uniform (hostile and reactionary, specifically to Christianity)?

I'm clearly not an atheist of your stereotype. I assure you that I am an equal opportunity disbeliever. Christianity gets no special inattention from me. It is no more nor less rediculous bunkum than any of a thousand other fairy tales.

So why do you characterize Christianity as feeling threatened by atheism? Just because you saw a sign in front of a church that offended you, which is a pretty inaccurate description of the Christian faith, by the way.

But the thing is, atheism opposes all faiths. Muslims would call you an infidel and are one of the biggest faiths out there, yet you don't spend any time opposing them on this thread.

I have a theory that many who end up becoming atheists once had a bad experience in the church. It may explain the fixation on Christianity, but I could be wrong.

Edit: On looking back over this thread, kimmy feels somewhat the same, maybe I'm onto something

I see I have you mixed up with Melanie, who started the thread, sorry for the confusion.

Edited February 4, 2009 by sharkman

[Chris in KW]

"Your faith is rediculous" and "You are going to Hell" is the obvious discourse between the two-- they are that fundamentally different in world view.

I simply do not understand why or how anyone would/could expect those two worldviews to launch a nuanced discussion ....

Would you engage in much detailed civil discourse over the nature of the cheeze from which the moon is made, the geography of a flat earth, or which bits of mischief may or may not be blamed on the fairies? Of course not!!! Because the fundamental assumptions are preposterous- a complete step through the looking glass!

Well, it's certainly clear that you aren't capable of nuanced discussion on this topic.

[Mr.Canada]

Well, it's certainly clear that you aren't capable of nuanced discussion on this topic.

Atheists are largely white people whose parents were Christians. It's about not belonging to the same religion as their parents. It's built up teenage angst, nothing more.

Stuff White People Like

#2 Religions that their parents don’t belong to

White people will often say they are “spiritual” but not religious. Which usually means that they will believe any religion that doesn’t involve Jesus.

Mostly they are into religion that fits really well into their homes or wardrobe and doesn’t require them to do very much.

Source/Full

[ToadBrother]

Atheists are largely white people whose parents were Christians. It's about not belonging to the same religion as their parents. It's built up teenage angst, nothing more.

Source/Full

There's nothing that shows your idiocy and bigotry more than this kind of crap. I am so glad I'm not your coreligionist.

[Chris in KW]

Atheists are largely white people whose parents were Christians. It's about not belonging to the same religion as their parents. It's built up teenage angst, nothing more.

Source/Full

Mr Canada, in future, PLEASE don't agree with me... It doesn't help!

[ToadBrother]

No, as far as I'm concerned, you should be able to challenge any belief of Christianity. The unfortunate thing is that so little actual atheist/christian debate really happens, other than on the level of "your faith is ridiculous" or "you're going to hell!".

How can there be any rational debate, when both positions are based on fundamentally indemonstrable tenets. I like to believe that my atheism is rational, but I'm under no illusion that I could ever bring any kind of actual evidence to the table. At the end of the day, the only real rational position is agnosticism.

[ToadBrother]

Great original post, Melanie. If anyone's still reading this thread, I think it's pretty simple.

Atheists tend to be very reactionary (eg, reacting negatively to many real and perceived problems with religion in general and Christians specifically). For many atheists, the reasons they put forward to support their beliefs are all the worst abuses of Christianity (and there are a lot).

Oh come on, Christians can be every bit as reactionary. Look at the idiots sending death threats to David Attenborough.

I'm a Christian, but I have a somewhat... ambiguous relationship with the church (ie organized Christianity). To me, Christianity is largely a personal thing, and I feel that Christianity as organization(s) has often missed the boat.

However, to paint all Christians as crusaders, corrupt popes, Jimmy Swaggart and the tyrant version of Jehova, all rolled up into one, just isn't fair. To talk about "Christianity" like it's one monlothic thing, also isn't fair. It's as bad as calling all muslims terrorists, or all government employees lazy.

I think Christians basically feel slandered by atheists...

As atheists so often feel slandered by Christians. You read some of the bigoted crap that guys like Mr. Canada write, and then you see how seldom his and his ilk's coreligionists stand up and say "You're wrong and hateful."

[Mr.Canada]

There's nothing that shows your idiocy and bigotry more than this kind of crap. I am so glad I'm not your coreligionist.

Aweee, don't me upset cause I'm right...poor baby is crying some more...awe..

[Chris in KW]

How can there be any rational debate, when both positions are based on fundamentally indemonstrable tenets. I like to believe that my atheism is rational, but I'm under no illusion that I could ever bring any kind of actual evidence to the table. At the end of the day, the only real rational position is agnosticism.

Right - I can't prove god exists, and you can't prove he doesn't. But at least, I should be able to come up with better reasons than "because" and you should be able to come up with better reasons than "you're an idiot".

Statement 1...

I *think* God exists because I have a hard time believing that things like shopping malls, pansies, cathedrals, manatees, little old ladies who stroll around with big floppy hats, and many other fanciful things in the world are the result of nothing more than darwinian evolution.

That's a statement that can be argued with. Feel free.

Statement 2...

Believing in God means that you're an infantile fool who thinks the whole world is run by fairies

I can argue with that, but as you said, what's the point?

[ToadBrother]

Right - I can't prove god exists, and you can't prove he doesn't. But at least, I should be able to come up with better reasons than "because" and you should be able to come up with better reasons than "you're an idiot".

Statement 1...

I *think* God exists because I have a hard time believing that things like shopping malls, pansies, cathedrals, manatees, little old ladies who stroll around with big floppy hats, and many other fanciful things in the world are the result of nothing more than darwinian evolution.

That's a statement that can be argued with. Feel free.

I could simply argue that what you're attempting to use as a foundational argument is simply an argument from incredulity, that because you cannot imagine something happening by purely natural forces is not in fact really a very compelling argument.

Statement 2...

Believing in God means that you're an infantile fool who thinks the whole world is run by fairies

I can argue with that, but as you said, what's the point?

Well, I never say things like that, because A. it's rather silly and B. it simply means that a pointless fight will ensue. You'll note that's why I don't like Hitchens and Dawkins, both of which make this sort infantile argument in many different ways, along with all sorts of rubbish about how religions are evil and only with the demolishment of faith will we enter a world filled with love and butterflies.

Edited February 4, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Molly]

I was directly responding, Sharkman, to the post immediately preceeding my own, in which that assertion is made.

It was not my characterization. Still isn't, even though the posts in this thread would suggest that the shoe fits- that Christians DO feel particularly threatened by others' disbelief.

'Deity' and 'divinity' strike me as delusional, plain and simple. I do believe my posts have been fairly consistent in pointing out that pot=kettle, one deity as rediculous as the next.

As to why I haven't replied to Muslim proposals that I am infidel.... no Muslim has entered this thread to say it.

As to why one might reject deity- a decent enough explanation is that the myths defy belief. I struggle to grasp why anyone would embrace any of them, when they are so demonstrably absurd. Where does that strange need for Big Brother in the Sky come from? I don't get it.

[ToadBrother]

Aweee, don't me upset cause I'm right...poor baby is crying some more...awe..

This from the guy that called the Roman Catholic Church a puppy that I was kicking. The real irony here is that I know more about your religion than you do.

[Mr.Canada]

This from the guy that called the Roman Catholic Church a puppy that I was kicking. The real irony here is that I know more about your religion than you do.

More deflection. Too afraid of admitting the truth, must be more overgrown teenage angst you've got there.

Stuff White People Like

#2 Religions that their parents don’t belong to

White people will often say they are “spiritual” but not religious. Which usually means that they will believe any religion that doesn’t involve Jesus.

Source/Full

[Molly]

Chris... what sort of nuanced discussion are you proposing?

Where is the common ground to be found?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Are you interested in discussing with me the Darwinian/neurological implications of the universality of 'deity' in human cultures-- or, in accepting diety/divinity as something real, does your brain reject that conversation as specious nonsense from the getgo?