Why Are Atheists Cowards?

[BubberMiley]

Technically, it's just Muslims and Christians that try to convert people, Jews don't really do much of that.

I once had a sweet jewish girlfriend who said I would have to convert if I wanted to marry her.

I would have too, but she moved away to get her PhD.

So sad.

[Michael Hardner]

What's the problem with that? Are you suggesting that belief in a vengeful sky-god is the only way to keep people from behaving in an ethical capacity?

It seems like this used to be the case. If we don't need to believe in sky-god today, that's because of collective/collected wisdom over time.

If the "new atheism" as you call it is premised on the belief that supernatural beliefs are harmful, why would you expect them to adopt a live-and-let-live approach to religion? It seems to me you want your atheists to be seen and not heard.

People can talk to me about their philosophies all they want - until I tell them to stop.

[Shady]

People can talk to me about their philosophies all they want - until I tell them to stop.

Agreed. Prosthelytizing atheists can be just as annoying as any others.

[WIP]

Definitely food for thought here, WIP.

Thanks. Glad you appreciated it

[WIP]

Jesus was a true socialist..."sell your property and put the money in a common purse (common wealth) - and let those come and take as NEEDED" - well things went bad when the church took ten percent for 2000 years and NO ONE..was allowed to withdraw from this common account . Socialism became corrupted instantly.

I was going to leave a comment here yesterday, but forgot about it; so I want to fix that now because it is a rare occasion that I agree with you, let alone understand the points you are making.

You are correct here that the vast majority of the Bible (both old and new testament) is overwhelming in its condemnation of materialism, greed, and just plain being rich! Modern right wing, pro-business, capitalist Christianity that has changed the blessings to the billionaires, and the condemnations for the poor, has probably only come about because of the long Cold War against Communism. Before the 1930's, you would be hard pressed to find any prominent Christian minister, whether liberal or fundamentalist, who was a strong supporter of the rich and the free enterprize system. Generally, they would teach that continued focus on acquiring more wealth put a Christian businessman's soul at risk. Needless to say that this may have been a ruse to extract more money from them to support the church, but I want to get on to the Parable of the Talents, which seems to be the only arrow in the Christian capitalist quiver, if you follow the logic of the American Family Institute: Jesus was a capitalist. A rebuttal to AFI's logic in Religion Dispatches notes that the parable of the talents doesn't even portray the master as a good man in the first place:

William Herzog, in his 1994 book, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as the Pedagogue of the Oppressed, sees this parable differently. We’re never told, for instance, that the master is someone we should emulate or admire. In fact, the “wicked and slothful” servant calls him a “hard man, reaping where you have not sown.”

Instead of condemning the last servant as slothful, Herzog proposes that this servant is a “whistle blower”—someone who will not participate in creating wealth “at the costs of the poor,” and refuses to break the Hebrew laws against “usury” or charging interest (Leviticus 25:36-37 is one example).

Instead of a parable about the blessings of capitalism, this is a parable about the wickedness of greed:

According to Herzog’s reading, the point of the parable is to show how much it can cost for an underling to expose the truth about injustice in society. Indeed, this parable is the last Jesus delivers before his crucifixion, the ultimate consequence of his own speaking of truth to worldly power.

In addition, just after this parable, Jesus says those who inherit the kingdom are not those with the most wealth, but those who serve “the least of these” by feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.

Like many people have already said many times, the 66 books of the Bible make it the great book of multiple choice! Whatever crazy idea you've got, you kind find a bible verse to support it. That's why there is now estimated to be more than 33,000 different Christian sects and denominations in the world today. But when it comes to what Jesus has to say about economics, it's very little if anything! And this parable of the talents is about the only thing that Christian capitalists have to sanctify their theology of blessing the rich and condemning the poor.

[Shady]

And this parable of the talents is about the only thing that Christian capitalists have to sanctify their theology of blessing the rich and condemning the poor.

I'm unaware of many Christians that bless the rich and condemn the poor. I think you guys might be confusing charity with socialism. Giving some of what you have, to somebody else who has little is charity. Having the government take from you, to give to somebody else is something different.

[WIP]

The truth of what you say depends on the definition of atheist, which you seem to say is "non-belief". If you define it as such then you're right. Some atheists, though, BELIEVE in a non-god universe which is a belief system.

Yes, there are atheists such as physicist Victor Stenger, who believe they can prove that they can scientifically prove that God does not exist: God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. The problem is that if Stenger (and more recently: Stephen Hawking) can prove that natural theories can explain the origins of our Universe, that still doesn't prove there is no supernatural creative force lurking in the background.

When it comes to scientific evidence, everyone is an agnostic on the God question. Believing in anything supernatural, that cannot be demonstrated with evidence that we can evaluate, takes a leap of faith. Believing in God, or some kind of creator probably comes from our natural intuitions of cause and effect. Believers follow their intuitions, while skeptics ask why God is so hidden from objective analysis. That's not to say that non-believers are going to be perfectly open-minded about this question. The more certain we are about our conclusions, the less willing we are to change them.

In the end, I don't think it should matter whether we believe or don't believe; the key issue should be whether or not our beliefs are harmful or detrimental to ourselves and others. If they're not, live and let live!

I do believe in the Christian ideal, and I think that it has helped evolve western philosophy and our live-and-let-live system.

Even the humanist philosophical movement has its origins in Christian theology. This is surprising, since humanism upended the traditional Christian teaching of man being depraved by nature.

[WIP]

I'm unaware of many Christians that bless the rich and condemn the poor.

It sure sounded like that guy from the American Family Institute interpreted the investor of the talents as equivalent to modern day investors who score big on the capital markets.

I think you guys might be confusing charity with socialism. Giving some of what you have, to somebody else who has little is charity. Having the government take from you, to give to somebody else is something different.

The New Testament doesn't provide any plans for how to create a government or a judicial system, but most of the verses in the old and new testaments consider "charity" to be an obligation, and not something you can choose to do, or not to do. And there are several examples of mandatory alms for the poor in the old testament.

The problem with the modern right wing notion that aid to the poor should be dependent on whatever others are willing to give them, is that this puts those who are most destitute in a precarious situation during hard times....such as right now, when the economic downturn has seen a drop in charitable contributions and to food banks.

[WIP]

What's the problem with that? Are you suggesting that belief in a vengeful sky-god is the only way to keep people from behaving in an ethical capacity?

No, I suggested that people are different, and some people find comfort in what you call the "vengeful sky-god". I would rather not be wondering all the time what the divine surveillance camera in the sky thinks of me or what I'm doing; but this seems to work for some people, so why mock them for it?

If the "new atheism" as you call it is premised on the belief that supernatural beliefs are harmful, why would you expect them to adopt a live-and-let-live approach to religion? It seems to me you want your atheists to be seen and not heard.

Because the claims such as those made here for example -- Viruses Of The Mind, need to be backed up with something more than the bad things that religious beliefs can do. Dawkins's essay does not address the positive aspects that many people take from religion; so it ends up as just a one-sided diatribe based on very flimsy hypothesis that all ideas are memes that are taught to us and can be unlearned or eradicated.

[dre]

No, I suggested that people are different, and some people find comfort in what you call the "vengeful sky-god". I would rather not be wondering all the time what the divine surveillance camera in the sky thinks of me or what I'm doing; but this seems to work for some people, so why mock them for it?

Because the claims such as those made here for example -- Viruses Of The Mind, need to be backed up with something more than the bad things that religious beliefs can do. Dawkins's essay does not address the positive aspects that many people take from religion; so it ends up as just a one-sided diatribe based on very flimsy hypothesis that all ideas are memes that are taught to us and can be unlearned or eradicated.

Dawkins has addressed the positive aspects of religion pretty well in his books.

but this seems to work for some people, so why mock them for it?

Because thats what people do. They divide up into groups based on virtually any critiria available and then they mock each other. Americans mock canadians, liberals mock conservatives, capitalists mock socialists, christians mock muslims, religions people mock non religious people, and vice versa.

Its group-think, and its one of the reasons why humans are predisposed to religion in the first place.

What I dont understand, is why atheists... a tiny persecuted minority would be expected to abstain from this when no other group does?

[Jack Weber]

Dawkins has addressed the positive aspects of religion pretty well in his books.

Because thats what people do. They divide up into groups based on virtually any critiria available and then they mock each other. Americans mock canadians, liberals mock conservatives, capitalists mock socialists, christians mock muslims, religions people mock non religious people, and vice versa.

Its group-think, and its one of the reasons why humans are predisposed to religion in the first place.

What I dont understand, is why atheists... a tiny persecuted minority would be expected to abstain from this when no other group does?

You do understand the difference between "faith" and "religion",don't you?

I mean,the Pharisees were religious but were they faithful?

[eyeball]

What I dont understand, is why atheists... a tiny persecuted minority would be expected to abstain from this when no other group does?

Because we're better than all the rest...sniff.

[dre]

You do understand the difference between "faith" and "religion",don't you?

I mean,the Pharisees were religious but were they faithful?

I understand the difference but its not central to the question I was answering which is "why mock them"?

The answer is self evident. Its our NATURE to mock others with beliefs we find to be silly. As a matter of fact thats what 90% of the activity here on MLW is comprised of.

[Shady]

The answer is self evident. Its our NATURE to mock others with beliefs we find to be silly. As a matter of fact thats what 90% of the activity here on MLW is comprised of.

Yes, you're all about mocking beliefs you find silly, except when it comes to Islam. That's where you draw the line. In that case, when somebody wants to burn some paper, or draw a cartoon, your attitude becomes quite different.

Its best to just not provoke them

Another classic example of how many atheists are hypocrites and cowards.

[Bonam]

Another classic example of how many atheists are hypocrites and cowards.

If only you could round us all up and shoot us eh?

[Jack Weber]

I understand the difference but its not central to the question I was answering which is "why mock them"?

The answer is self evident. Its our NATURE to mock others with beliefs we find to be silly. As a matter of fact thats what 90% of the activity here on MLW is comprised of.

To the point about most posters here at MLW...You're probably right...

Specifically as it relates mockery on the subject of faith/religion,most of the mockery I find comes from the Atheistic side of things.

"Skygod Worshipper" seems to be a perjorative designed to question the inate intelligence of those predisposed to faith in Christ or God,does it not?

Edited December 24, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Shady]

If only you could round us all up and shoot us eh?

Um. Huh?

[Shady]

"Skygod Worshipper" seems to be a perjorative designed to question the inate intelligence of those predisposed to faith in Christ or God, does it not?

Exactly.

[Guest TrueMetis]

"Skygod Worshipper" seems to be a perjorative designed to question the inate intelligence of those predisposed to faith in Christ or God,does it not?

Well considering most depictions of the Christian god show him floating around on clouds it's a pretty good term.

[Jack Weber]

Well considering most depictions of the Christian god show him floating around on clouds it's a pretty good term.

Sure...

But that's a cop out because that's not the intent of the term by those throwing it around...

And please don't ask me what the intent of these people is because there are multitudinous posts by the most virulent Atheists here using that term describing believers...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Sure...

But that's a cop out because that's not the intent of the term by those throwing it around...

And please don't ask me what the intent of these people is because there are multitudinous posts by the most virulent Atheists here using that term describing believers...

Oh I know it's meant to be pejorative but it is also accurate. Like calling them bronze age superstitions.

[Jack Weber]

Oh I know it's meant to be pejorative but it is also accurate. Like calling them bronze age superstitions.

And some of us think that belief in nothing,or even worse,faith in Man is a hopeless system doomed to failure...

With hubris like that,Satan could be described as the ultimate humanist...

[Guest TrueMetis]

And some of us think that belief in nothing,or even worse,faith in Man is a hopeless system doomed to failure...

With hubris like that,Satan could be described as the ultimate humanist...

Then I suppose anyone who thinks like that should get off the evil faithless computer.

[Jack Weber]

Then I suppose anyone who thinks like that should get off the evil faithless computer.

Why should I do something like that?

We are God's creations and some of Gods creations figured out how to make one of these things work!

This version of God's creation can barely turn the thing on!!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why should I do something like that?

We are God's creations and some of Gods creations figured out how to make one of these things work!

This version of God's creation can barely turn the thing on!!

That's because praying at it doesn't work.