Why Religious People Are Scared of Atheists

[cleanhippie]

Why Religious People Are Scared of Atheists

Religious believers commonly attack atheists simply for existing. Do out-of-the-closet atheists -- even polite ones -- challenge attempts at theocracy?

December 16, 2010

What, exactly, do religious believers want from atheists?

If you follow the atheism debates in op-ed pieces and whatnot, you'll see that critiques of the so-called New Atheist movement are often aimed at our tone. Among the pundits and opinion-makers, atheist writers and activists are typically called out for being offensive, intolerant, disrespectful, extremist, hostile, confrontational, and just generally asshats. The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks. And if these op-ed pieces and whatnot were all you knew about the atheist movement and the critiques of it, you might think that atheists were simply being asked to be reasonable, civil, and polite.
But if you follow atheism in the news, you begin to see a very different story. You begin to see that atheists are regularly criticized -- vilified, even -- simply for existing. Or, to be more accurate, for existing in the open. For declining to hide our atheism. For coming out.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/149224/why_religious_people_are_scared_of_atheists

[jdlh8894]

1. "What, exactly, do religious believers want from atheists?"

How 'bout this?

What do atheists want from those who have a religious belief? eom

[cleanhippie]

3. Nothing, nothing at all.

Unless you count wanting believers to keep their beliefs out of politics and government and legislation that affects everyone. The sound of atheists being vocal is nothing more than a response to believers incessant desire to force THEIR religion on everyone else. Perhaps if that stopped, this would all become a non-issue.

[dmallind]

4. easy - stop imposing their beliefs on our laws and society

You'll find almost no atheists who wish to impose atheism, and almost all atheist activism instead aimed at resisting hegemonic religion.

[skepticscott]

6. Try these for starters

We want you to stop demanding that your religious beliefs be supported and promoted by the government and with public funds.
 
We want you to stop insisting that your religious myths be taught as science in public schools.
 
We want you to stop imposing prayer and religious rituals at government meetings and in public schools.
 
We want you to stop trying to impose the tenets of your religious faith on everyone through the avenues of legislation and public policy.
 
We want you to stop trying to censor anything that is critical of your religion, or that offends your religious sensibilities.
 
We want you to stop acting as if religion and the religious deserve special or deferential treatment and stop acting like poor, persecuted victims every time you don’t get your way about everything.

I'm sure others on the board could supply a few more of their own.

[PearliePoo2]

15. This is worthy of an original post..

:thumbsup:

[CrispyQ]

16. Perfectly stated.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[backscatter712]

18. Preach it, brother!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[jdlh8894]

24. "We wan't you"

Me, personally? All I did was just reverse a question.
You assume too much!

[skepticscott]

25. Of course not "you" personally

Thought that was obvious. And why would you reverse the question if you weren't interested in the answer? Any atheist worth their salt already knows the answer.

[DeSwiss]

26. Excellent!

:thumbsup:

[pokerfan]

32. Why are atheists so angry?

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

[Deep13]

72. To leave us alone and to stop...

...imposing their irrational values on public policy.

[LeftishBrit]

99. That they should not impose social conservativism on others due to religious beliefs that not

everyone shares.

In particular, they should neither seek to ban abortion, contraception, gay rights, etc; nor endorse right-wing economic policies on the grounds that government-provided welfare gives too much power to the 'secular state' or goes against Biblical principles that 'those who do not work shall not eat' (and yes, I've seen such arguments even in the UK, though less commonly than from Americans).

That they should not endorse sectarianism/ war/ terrorism/ oppression/ violence against those of other beliefs or none.

That they should not interfere to smear and defeat liberal/left-wing candidates in elections.

That they should not blame secularism and atheism for the problems of society.

I have no problem with religion; I have problems with the 'religious right'. I have problems with any sort of political Right!!! But some people do use religion in the cause of promoting or enforcing right-wing policies - and it is that which can be worrying to both atheists and religious left-wingers.

[Zoeisright]

2. Exactly. Religious nuts have such shaky 'faith' they lash out at anyone who

questions it. And why are religious nuts so freaking angry, anyway? There's really something wrong with them.

[hlthe2b]

7. As an agnostic, I feel fairly detached ... But the anger that I see

is very clear on both sides. Evidence this thread and I am not intending this as a criticism of either POV. But, it is clear that both Christians and atheists are angry. I would posit that Christians are likewise angry at the fundamentalists and RWers who have bastardized the tents of their religion. That is an anger that both progressive Christians and atheists could probably jointly appreciate. Progressive Christians teach tolerance--also a tenet with which atheists would find common ground.

So, I posit that, yes, there is anger, but that anger is not well focused. And unfocused anger yields little with its fallout, but more anger. :shrug:

[edhopper]

27. As an agnostic,

you are not angry at the government imposing laws based on religion?
Things like anti-gay legislation and anti abortion laws?

[hlthe2b]

38. I oppose all of those things... I also know that progressive

Christians (mainstream Christians like I was raised with, who are not fundamentalist, nor right wing, nor zealots) do NOT believe in imposing laws based on religion, nor anti-gay legislation, nor anti-abortion laws. So, why should I be angry at THEM?

[edhopper]

39. You shouldn't

but the views here, and for most atheist I know, is not anger at all believers (though we disagree with their ideas about God) but at those who impose their religion on others.
You should be angry at those people.

[hlthe2b]

40. I often do not see that distinction made here.... unfortunately

[darkstar3]

41. Oh, but they DO believe in imposing laws based on religion.

(What? NO! Liberal Christians hate theocracy!) Yeah, so you think.

You see, mainstream Christians believe that their faith should inform their decisions. How else can one be expected to bear the fruit of the spirit?

For a Christian of any stripe, in fact for a believer of any stripe, faith is as important a resource for decision-making as logic, past experience, desire, etc. So when it comes time for complex issues to be legislated upon, even the liberal "mainstream" Christians consult their faith before making decisions.

THAT'S why the good 'ole Christian boy from Arkansas signed DADT and DOMA. THAT'S why President Obama continues to allow the faith-based initiatives office to operate in the same way it did under W. THAT'S why there are large numbers of people out there who call themselves "Pro-Life Liberals".

The difference, then, is "letter vs. spirit." Fundamentalists believe that legislation should be based on the letter of their holy texts, while "mainstreamers" believe that legislation should follow the spirit of their holy texts. Either way, laws get voted on based the religion of the voters.

[hlthe2b]

55. Nice attitude.. but simply not true.

Look, I will defend atheists right to believe or not anything they chose. Likewise, I will defend moderate and liberal progressive Christians against stereotyping. I will call out fundamentalist and bigoted Xians who have bastardized the tenets of Christianity to fit their own bigoted and exploitative goals. I have no real dog in this fight, but I won't tolerate those who try to paint everyone with the same brush, when it is not true. You are simply wrong to do so. This will be my last statement to you on the issue. I find such disingenuous argument distressing and not at all consistent with progressive values. If you truly believe that there are no progressive Christians that do not believe in homophobia, misogyny, proselytizing, theology and who DO believe in social justice, separation of church and state, and tolerance, then you are simply ignorant on the issue. I may be agnostic now, but I grew up among these kind of "real" progressive Christians. They are nothing like you assume and they detest the Xian types just as much as you and I.

[darkstar3]

56. Wow.

So what you're saying is that you like to sit on any fence you can find, and you don't think I'm progressive/liberal because I disagree with you. How collegiate.

[hlthe2b]

57. Progressives are not intolerant....

that includes being respectful of other cultures, genders, races, ethnicities, and yes the right to believe or not a chosen religion-- where those practices do not impede on the rights of others.

[darkstar3]

59. Ah, the old "respect" dodge.

I don't believe I was being disrespectful anywhere. I said something truthful, and I didn't impinge on anyone's right to believe in anything. Calling me intolerant is nothing more than hyperbole, not to mention name-calling.

[hlthe2b]

61. You stereotyped all Christians the same as RW fundamentalists

bigots, claiming they all wanted a theology and were homophobic. That is either willfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest. To intentionally do so, if that is what you are doing, is certainly not progressive.

[darkstar3]

62. I did nothing of the sort.

Obviously you didn't bother to read the post that started this subthread in its entirety, and your knee-jerk, hyperbolic response to what you think I said has led to a pointless back and forth. If you have nothing more to say in response to the content of #41 than "you're intolerant", then consider yourself to have said your piece (albeit ineffectively) and then we can bid other each good evening.

[hlthe2b]

63. You most certainly did. Your own words are below.

In response to my comment: I oppose all of those things... I also know that progressive Christians (mainstream Christians like I was raised with, who are not fundamentalist, nor right wing, nor zealots) do NOT believe in imposing laws based on religion, nor anti-gay legislation, nor anti-abortion laws. So, why should I be angry at THEM?

YOUR REPLIED:
Oh, but they DO believe in imposing laws based on religion.

(What? NO! Liberal Christians hate theocracy!) Yeah, so you think.


Enough. If you can't even own up to your own words.... Forget it.

[darkstar3]

64. And again you prove that you didn't read the whole post.

Obviously TL;DR is beginning to apply to anything that can't fit on a bumper sticker. Goodnight.

[hlthe2b]

65. Own up to your own words. What other interpretation is there?

Having cited your own EXACT words in response to my quoted post, you have the nerve to say I did not read your post? Good heavens. Well, I am happy to let you take your leave. I can only hope you realize the need to be more intellectually honest in your future posts. If you make bigoted statements, there are those DUers here who WILL call you on it. Good night.

[AlecBGreen]

5. Im not

:hi:

[rug]

23. Me either

:)

[xocet]

8. "Religious Correctness" on DU....

Before X-mas, I noted that I had received an X-mas card from the White House. Apparently, the terms "X-mas" and "Xmas" are not officially approved by USA Christians. I was called out for not using the appropriate term "Christmas".

Reason and history yield the following:

"X-mas (Xmas) has been around for a long, long time. As far as I know, it has only been recently that it has been seen as disrespectful. Apparently, modern people are not aware that the "X" in X-mas is not a capital English x, but is a capital CHI from the Greek alphabet. Also, Jesus Christ was not originally referred to in English: Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew along with many other languages referred to Jesus likely long before anyone who spoke English ever knew anything about Christianity: the people of Britain at the time did not speak English -i.e., the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were still on the northern coast of Europe when Christianity began. Even the whole word "Christ" is a transliterated Greek word, CH (CHI), R (RHO), I (IOTA), S (SIGMA), T (TAU) + its proper ending, O (OMICRON), S (SIGMA). If anything, the word "Christ" is a mutilation of the original Greek word which has had its nominative singular ending +OS lopped off - an ending which I believe changes with the grammatical context of the Greek word.

So, I don't mean any disrespect by the use of X-mas or Xmas.

Here are a couple of links to back up some of what I mentioned:

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5...

http://www.crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html "

What do USA Christians have against Xmas or X-mas? Is it a bad experience with algebra coupled with a lack of historical knowledge? Is it pure brainwashing by pseudo-intellectual clergy? Is it Bill O'Reilly's Counterattack on the "War on Christmas"?

[CrispyQ]

19. "Is it a bad experience with algebra coupled with a lack of historical knowledge?"

:rofl:

[pokerfan]

45. A couple of years ago

Billo was ranting about the use of Xmas. When the whole Greek spelling thing coupled with the fact that the spelling is as old as the religion itself and started by Christians, his reply was something to the effect, "Yeah, so what? Who the heck knows that?!"

[eridani]

68. Anyone who isn't a lazy ignorant jackass

I learned it in Catholic school, myself.

[MineralMan]

9. Because we threaten their mythology and fables.

It's simple. They've built their lives around a mythology. We don't buy it. So, since we seem to be getting along OK, we're a threat to their ability to hold onto superstitious belief systems. We're like a street-widening project that's going to get to their street one day and wipe out their front yards.

It's a natural fear. The trouble is that fearful people want to do whatever is necessary to allay those fears. Prayer won't work, so they want us gone.

[PearliePoo2]

13. Exactly...and a "thumbs up" for you.

:thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

20. Thanks!

[starroute]

17. I'll second that

The thing is that religious belief rests on airy nothing. For a few people, it may be supported by a mystical sense of ultimate oneness, or of a higher power guiding their footsteps, or any of those inner feelings us humans experience that may or may not be rooted in something more than brain chemistry.

But for the vast majority, their ability to believe is based solely on the fact that everybody else they know believes the same thing. You take that away -- you offer just one exception to it in the form of a single non-believer -- and the whole house of cards collapses.

That's why the very existence of non-believers can be perceived as a dark secret to be kept away from innocent children. That's why the phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" used to be bandied about so much. They need to believe that everybody else believes in their god -- or some reasonable facsimile -- because otherwise they have no solid reason for belief at all.

And that's not just about theocracy and the tug-of-war over Christmas. It goes much deeper and affects a lot more people.

[MineralMan]

21. Yup. The problem is that it's almost impossible today to avoid

knowing that there are people living and thriving without any belief in supernatural entities. They're all around us. In Europe, religion has lost its hold on the population. In the US, religion is holding on to a little tree growing out of the side of a cliff, and that's pretty scary for them. Sooner or later, the little tree will be pulled out by its roots.

So, we're seeing some desperation moves going on to try to forestall that inevitable process. It won't work. For religion to be the core of a society, that society has to be ignorant. We can see the attempts to maintain a level of ignorance as a main feature of conservative Christianity today. It won't work. It won't wash.

[DeSwiss]

28. Nailed it!

[InvisibleTouch]

10. I think the entire discussion could be greatly enhanced...

...if all sides started out with the basic admission and understanding that none of us KNOWS, for sure. Every belief system or lack thereof is based on what each of us thinks and feels is the actual state of reality. Maybe we've had some life-altering subjective experiences - which feel significant to us, but are completely and totally unreliable. In fact, none of us knows, nor CAN know. We may all be wrong. In fact, we probably are. But we each accept that belief system or lack thereof that works best in our own lives, that makes the most sense and rings the most true to us.

I can respect someone whose beliefs differ from mine, under the realization that they've adopted what's right for *them* - but they have to realize that it's not necessarily right for *me*. I may be intellectually curious about their beliefs and see it as an opportunity to share worldviews, but I don't want to be converted to their version of the "truth" - and I don't expect them to take on mine.

As for the question of "tone," there are jerks and civil people in every group. I've known arrogant asshole atheists, and I've known batshit crazy religious people. And I've known those in all camps who could draw strength and purpose from their version of belief or lack thereof, without feeling like they had to look down on those who felt differently.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. The moment priests and pastors say "I don't know for sure whether God exists" they lose their salary

in almost all denominations. They get their weekly wage by telling their audience what God's wishes are. Most people don't donate to agnostic "if there is a supreme being, then it might think that ..." claims. They pay for the comfort of being told something is certain. We're really not going to be able to get the Pope to say "I don't know if God exists". It's not in his nature.

[InvisibleTouch]

35. I just don't see why they can't say...

..."This is *my* truth, and it may be yours as well, or it may not be. Either way is fine. Maybe you can learn something from my version and I can learn something from your version." Of course they can't precede every sentence and sermon with a statement like that, but in an open-minded church or community, it seems like there could be that understanding. Eventually people with similar "truths" are drawn together, but it's important to remember that others' versions are just as valid.

[Tesha]

96. Atheists won't say it because there is *NOTHING* to be learned...

...(except as a study in brain functioning) from a belief that a
non-existent being is omnipotent, omniscient, and ever-present.
It simply isn't so, and while a marginally-moral person may find
this belief a useful tool for keeping them acting rightly, a person
who is already acting rightly without any such belief has no need
for it and can learn nothing from it.

Tesha

[cleanhippie]

12. Right and wrong.

if all sides started out with the basic admission and understanding that none of us KNOWS, for sure.

Well, that IS the atheist position, its the believers you have to convince to start from there. Good Luck with that.

[backscatter712]

22. Very true. I'll just add something.

An entity we could call a deity could exist, though hasn't been proven to exist, and thus should be regarded with the same probability of existing as invisible pink unicorns or teapots in Mars' orbit. Like other atheists and scientists, I regard such things as being extremely unlikely to exist, and assume they don't exist unless shown proof otherwise.

However, the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-benevolent god like the Christian god is not just unlikely, but is a logical impossibility. That's not just opinion, that's logic. That's the Epicurean dilemma.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Dan Barker made some more arguments, from God's viewpoint, in his article Dear Theologian.

Not only does the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God not make sense, but other parts of religion - Heaven, Hell, substitutionary atonement, original sin, etc. don't make sense either. Just full of contradictions and fallacies.

[InvisibleTouch]

37. Good luck convincing anyone who thinks they've cornered the market on the truth...

...and that certainly includes some atheists as well. How do we know, for instance, that the laws of physics and the rules of logic accurately describe the true nature of the Universe? Sure, they describe part of it, the part we can perceive and test and measure ... but on a larger scale, we may be totally wrong about how it all fits together.

Just to take a simplified example, think of how different animal species perceive different wavelengths of color. A flower that I see as red, a bee may see as violet. Which version is the "truth"? Maybe that flower is neither red nor violet, but some other color altogether that neither species can detect. (This also speaks to the fallacy of basing our beliefs on our own perceptions and experiences, and thinking that because we've seen it or felt it or had an "insight," we're right without a doubt.)

Anyway, you're correct in that it *won't* happen for the vast majority of those that think they know the truth and everyone else is wrong. People like to be certain. But it would be nice if there was a greater realization that none of us really can know; we can live "as if," but can't insist upon more than that.

[skepticscott]

43. Since when have atheists claimed

that they have cornered the market on the truth? I challenge you to show me ONE instance, ONE quote where this claim has been made by ANY atheist.

Neither have any atheists or scientific rationalists claimed that they have a perfect understanding of the laws of physics. The claim is that we understand the laws of nature to a relatively high degree of accuracy. If we didn't, you wouldn't be reading what I've typed, now would you? Nor would your car, your electric lights, your microwave oven or your cell phone work (to name but a few examples of thousands). The reason all this works is that we DON'T base our convictions (keep your "beliefs" to yourself) on the perceptions and experiences of any one person. The collective enterprise of scientific inquiry is designed to filter out such individual biases and misperceptions, if you didn't already grasp that. So please, dispense with the straw men, and try a real argument.

[InvisibleTouch]

66. You're certainly spoiling for a fight.

An ironic example of what was discussed in the OP, as it turns out. Thank you for demonstrating my point - that there are atheists who are every bit as much jerks as any religious crazy, and who can't talk about their worldview without getting defensive and insulting. None of those types are worth getting into lengthy debates with.

And yes, I do know atheists who think they've cornered the market on the truth. Your "convictions" are still nothing more than "beliefs," like it or not. They may be based on our current best understanding of the nature of the Universe, but I dare say in 500 years if humans still exist, they will look back on what we thought was undeniably true, and laugh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. I don't think skepticscott is being a jerk in that post

I do, however, think you are insulting him by saying so. He said your argument is a strawman - but he didn't say anything about you. You, however, said he has just demonstrated that there are atheists who are jerks. You have just directly insulted him.

This really is not a proper way to debate anything on DU, and I think you ought to review your own attitude, and think more carefully about what is an argument, and what is a personal insult.

And, by the way, he answered your argument with reasonable points about how science works and improves its theories. You call this 'getting defensive'; he's defending his argument. "These types" who do that are certainly worth getting into debates with; you just have to accept that you may have to acknowledge they have reasonable points.

[cleanhippie]

74. Perhaps this quote from the article is applicable...

Because it seems to me that it would apply directly to your comments...

"If you follow the atheism debates in op-ed pieces and whatnot, you'll see that critiques of the so-called New Atheist movement are often aimed at our tone. Among the pundits and opinion-makers, atheist writers and activists are typically called out for being offensive, intolerant, disrespectful, extremist, hostile, confrontational, and just generally asshats. The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

I think this paragraph perfectly describes your two posts.

[Jim__]

79. Do you really think it's possible to be a jerk *AND* to be right?

I certainly don't. Sure, you can be right about a few details, but if you're a jerk, then clearly you lack the understanding that's required to generally be considered right.

[cleanhippie]

83. Depends.

Define jerk. Can I assume that a similar word for jerk could be "asshole"? Are the definitions similar?

If so, it seems perfectly plausible to be right and a jerk at the same time. Being a jerk (which really is just a subjective personal opinion, right?) has nothing to do with the substance of the argument. I think that is the point of the article.

[InvisibleTouch]

86. Oh, it's possible.

In this instance, there are people who are very clearly the former. They may or may not be the latter. Sadly when people are assholes, no one in the discussion will ever get any closer to understanding one another's version of the truth - because the only sensible thing to do with jerks, is to stop wasting time with them. Even if you can reply to them point for point, and even if you're itching to do so. They are just utterly and totally not worth the energy.

[cleanhippie]

87. Laughable.

I would really only hope that your personal requisites for determining someone to be a "jerk" would also include self-determination of the moniker.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. So you're happy that you called a fellow DUer a jerk, then?

Your personal determination that someone is 'a jerk' gives you the right to insult them in public, ignore their arguments, and determine them "just utterly and totally not worth the energy".

Would you like an honest opinion of how you are coming across, right now? We can get it deleted along with you calling skepticscott a 'jerk', because it'll obviously break the DU rules, just as that did.

[skepticscott]

85. Sorry if you consider asking you

to provide actual evidence to back up such outrageous claims as "spoiling for a fight" being a "jerk" or being "defensive and insulting". This is just another manifestation of the "tone argument": deflect question of fact by trying to run down the attitude and demeanor of the person you're debating. It fails due to complete intellectual bankruptcy. And so did you fail, to provide a single example to back up your claim. "You know atheists"? Sorry, another claim backing up your original claim is not evidence, and someone claiming they are right on one or several points is not by any stretch claiming to have "cornered the market on truth".

And please don't tell me what my convictions are based on. I know you and many others would love to paint rational inquiry as just another faith-based belief system, but that's been so thoroughly debunked that it's hard to take you at all seriously when you bring it up again. And if you have examples of what rational thinkers regard as "undeniably true", let's hear them (not holding my breath, though). You'd be much closer to the mark if you predicted that the beliefs held as undeniably true by the religious will be regarded as rank foolishness in 500 years (or less). They are not even based on the best evidence available (or any evidence worth crediting).

[darkstar3]

44. I have a nit to pick.

Surprised? Probably not.

My main contention has to do with your assumption that the laws of physics may be totally wrong.

First, let's start with your example. The flower in question is only visible because it reflects a certain amount of the electromagnetic energy it receives from the sun. This is true for any visible object. The interesting thing about color is the fact that what we see is reflected EM energy focused in a very narrow wavelength band. Therefore, according to this site, a reflected EM wavelength of approx. 700nm would make any object appear to be red, not just to you, but to everyone whose eyes can process that particular wavelength (the non-color-blind).

This brings us to the bee, whose eyes do not process EM energy in the same way we do. They can see the blue and green spectrums, as well as the ultraviolet spectrum (which is invisible to us), but not red. Therefore the bee obviously sees the flower very differently than we do, but that doesn't change the "truth" at all.

The "truth" is that the flower is absorbing some of the EM energy directed at it, while reflecting some of the other energy in specific wavelengths, and those wavelengths are reflected and absorbed at various intensities. That "truth" doesn't change due to the perception of the observer.

That's the whole nature of science, not just physics. The "truth" should not change simply because the perspective or nature of the observer changes.

I will freely admit that we don't know everything about the universe, and that as we learn more we will very likely amend to, or modify, the current laws of physics. One thing I will not agree to, though, is the idea that everything we know with regard to physics is or could be wrong.

Of course, the real problem here is probably the usage of the word "truth"...the term is too vague. It could refer to something as simple as the positive outcome of a true/false logic test, or it could refer to an all-encompassing revelation of the universe.

[unblock]

14. i think it's a tribal instinct to a tribal threat from outside

i think most people who believe in a religious mythology do not believe it because they arrived at it logically.
they believe it because that's the secret handshake for admission into the tribe. this is not true of all religions (e.g., judaism) but it certainly is true of christianity.

eventually, believers may convince themselves and each other that their believe is logical or real or sound, but whether it is or is not, it is, first and foremore, just the secret handshake. we are the people who profess belief in x, y, and z. they are the people who don't.


therefore, if you approach a believe and say something that contradicts their belief system, you are identifying yourself as an outside to the tribe and are perceived as a threat, especially if it's phrased in a challenging fashion.

note the difference between "i don't believe god exists" vs. "god doesn't exist." the former is a statement of personal belief and allows other people to believe otherwise. the second is a universal statement and it follows logically that anyone else who believes otherwise is "wrong". of course, believers are very often careless in making this distinction as well, and often say "god wants us to do x" rather than "i believe that god wants us to do x."

the difference is that god-affirming language is well-established as "normal", whereas god-doubting or god-denying language is not.

[struggle4progress]

29. Broadbrush claims like "Religious People Are Scared of Atheists" are tiresome

As far as I can tell, the author (of the piece linked by the OP) is upset after reading some comments at the KTBX website, in regard to a vuvuzela band. The story's about a month old now, and I must admit I didn't read all 22 pages of comments, because they were repetitive and uninformative, hence boring. The author (of the piece linked by the OP) apparently thought it worthwhile to surf all 22 pages of comments and cherry-pick a handful: well, to each his/her own! We at DU did actually discuss that vuvuzela band weeks and weeks ago. I said then "Jingle Bells" was an uninspired choice of song, not particularly well-suited to the vuvuzela, and I might even repeat it if the vuvuzela band plays "Jingle Bells" another time -- though with any luck that won't happen again too soon. If anyone wants to read the whole month-old thread, with all thirteen comments, go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=267132#267139

[cleanhippie]

31. Someone sounds bitter....

Santa didn't bring you everything on your list this year or what?

[struggle4progress]

33. ?

[WolverineDG]

73. "Bitter" is the new "straw man" nt

[Festivito]

58. Someone sounds snippy.....

What, learned about Santa too early in life?

[cleanhippie]

75. No, about the same time as everyone else did.

Somewhere between 8-10 I think. You?

[Festivito]

90. Still sounds snippy. /nt

[cleanhippie]

92. Uh, ok?

Thanks for your input. It was enlightening, I think. :wtf:

[Festivito]

94. Thank you for yours. Nearly engaging.

And an equally returned devolvement from your iconic initialism.

[DeSwiss]

30. In my experience it is the religionists.....

...who barely believe their religions. Atheists serve as a nagging reminder of this failing. Particularly the adherents of the Abrahamics. And many have developed their cognitive dissonance skills to the point where they can walk around holding onto their religion's conflicting/opposing ideas with no headache, no frontal lobotomy and no apparent acknowledgment of anything even being amiss.

Christians exhibit the worst behaviors of this lot I think, largely because they're required by biblical commandment to (and I quote} "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." And such. But it is clear that the majority of them are just giving lip-service to their religious beliefs for appearance's sake. And not only don't they believe in their own religion all that much, but they FEAR being accused of not acting like they do sufficiently because of what might happen to them if others (e.g. - fellow co-religionists) found out they're slacking-off.

Still, they refuse to do what their god has commanded of them. Haven't seen any eye-gouged-out nor hands-chopped-off Christians lately have you? And the hate they direct toward atheists (as evidenced by some of the comments from the RELIGIOUS in the linked article) is proof of this failure to adhere to their religion's tenets. I guess there's no loving an enemy when s/he is an atheist, right? But how do they ever expect to graduate to the heavenly choir hating atheists?

With their very existence and not having to do one damned single thing -- non-believers force religionists to face their own doubts and disbelief. And they hate them for it.

- So you ask: What do religious believers want from atheists? What they want is for non-believers to believe like they do, or GTFO. Literally....

K&R






http://youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ">10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

[rug]

34. From the same person: Why Religious Believers Are So Desperate for the Atheist Seal of Approval

http://www.alternet.org/story/148984/why_religious_believers_are_so_desperate_for_the_atheist_seal_of_approval/

I, for one, am desperately afraid I won't get my Seal.

[cleanhippie]

36. you should worry about getting a "point getter" instead.

Because the points made by both articles seem to have been missed by you.

[rug]

42. The point that theists simultaneously fear and crave approval from atheists?

Yes, I suppose I have. Please don't think less of me.

[darkstar3]

46. You think that contradictory?

Countless children who live in fear of their fathers and at the same time crave their approval would disagree with you.

[rug]

48. Yes.

Theists are adults not children. Atheists are hardly father figures to theists. Odd simile.

[darkstar3]

51. It wasn't an attempt at similie,

simply a single example of how fear mixed with desire for approval is not contradictory or unreasonable.

[cleanhippie]

77. WOOOSH! Another goes right by!

You really DO need a "point getter."

[rug]

80. You know, gnawing on an old bone doesn't really make a point.

[cleanhippie]

82. Not to someone who doesn't see the bone at all, it doesn't.

[skepticscott]

47. Is it contradictory

that religious fundamentalists reject the methods and findings of science when they undermine religious doctrine, and embrace them when they appear to support it?

[rug]

49. The OP is about religious people not simply fundamentalists.

[skepticscott]

50. Silly red herring that fools nobody

Try again, and actually answer the question this time. Is it contradictory or not?

[rug]

52. Tsk, you're breaking you New Year's resolution.

And your lack of precision is deplorable.

To answer your question: Scientific tenets conflict with tenets of religious fundamentalism (and literalism) in particular.

To answer the actual question at hand: Scientific tenets do not conflict with religious tenets in general.

[skepticscott]

53. That was not my question

so please don't talk to me about precision. If you can't argue with some semblance of intellectual honesty, then my New Year's resolution will kick in.

My question was: Is it contradictory that religious fundamentalists reject the methods and findings of science when they undermine religious doctrine, and embrace them when they appear to support it? Yes, or no?

And please don't pretend that fundamentalists are the only theists with this sort of disconnect, because we both know it isn't true. I used that example just to make things clearer, but apparently that was wasted on you.

[rug]

54. Oh, please do let it kick in.

I'm tired of repeating myself.

I hope it sticks this time. Be strong. You can do it.

[skepticscott]

88. Well, since I'm tired of having you repeat

dodges and non-answers, I will. Done here.

[cleanhippie]

76. Don't worry, I don't.

That's a difficult thing to do.

[rug]

81. .

:cry:

[cleanhippie]

84. If that makes you feel better, fine by me.

Crying works for many, I won't hold it against you.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

69. I'm wondering where the notion that religion ought to be mainly about faith came from

Experience is more important than belief for many traditions.

Student: Where do enlightened ones go after the illusion of death?
Teacher: How should I know?
Student: Because you are enlightened.
Teacher: That, maybe. But I'm not dead.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. When religion started making supernatural claims, perhaps?

ie, pretty much from the beginning of religion.

Any religion that endows gods with superpowers that people don't actually have experience of has to tell its followers to accept the superpowers on faith. Or, as you seem to say, when claims of an afterlife are made, of which, again, none of us has experience.

[Deep13]

71. We think their whole point of view is wrong.

Not just in its details, but fundamentally. Any perspective that is based on faith and the constant need to protect that faith from questioning and criticism will naturally feel threatened by those who question everything and take nothing for granted.

[Jim__]

78. delete - wrong place

[Manifestor_of_Light]

89. "Faith is believin' in things that ain't so." -- Mark Twain

They are scared. They don't have any real answers and don't want to be reminded of it.

[Evoman]

91. They just want to believe.

And when someone makes that harder with a good argument, it hurts them. We don't understand that because we don't have a personal stake in the argument (except, perhaps, when there are literal stakes involved).

So, in a way, we are jerks because we make something that is hard enough (seriously, believing in that bullshit is damn hard with all the scientific knowledge we have) even harder. Is it our fault? No, we can't help it that we have no emotional connection to the subject. To us, it's no different then arguing about a scientific theory or even couch colours. To them, however, it's like arguing whether or not their mom is the greatest lady in the world.

We all wish that religious people would just debate with us and leave all of that other bullshit aside. But they can't. First, because they HAVE NO GOOD ARGUMENTS. Ever. Their religions are stupid. Always have been, always will be. And they can never make a good case for it, because there are no good cases for it. Second, because they are so emotionally invested, like I said above. And third, because rational arguments seldom make anyone change their mind about an irrational subject.

I find it harder and harder to care what religious people think about religion, which is why you don't see me as much on here anymore. As long as they keep their bullshit out of my life, it's good enough.

[humblebum]

95. The straight answer: We're not. NT

[cleanhippie]

97. Kick

[peopleb4money]

98. It sounds like you're generalizing believers a bit too much.

Also, the problem I have with "movements", in general, is that people wrap their identities and emotions too much into it and it just ends up being another thing that causes more division between people. I also sense a kind of victim complex in this, which I have very little patience for, because I feel its becoming America's favorite pass time. I'd rather people just put their ideologies aside and just try to find out what they have in common with other people than try so much to change each others opinions.