10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked

There must be freedom from religion in order to insure freedom of religion. Sorry, I don't make the rules...

 

Indeed. And if they would just knock it off, they'd hear nary a peep out of me. But they seem to be pathologically driven to shove their beliefs in our faces. Well, the chickens will come home to roost soon enough when there is a Muslim majority and they start tearing down all the churches and forcing us all to bow to the East... or the West or wherever the hell you're supposed to bow if you wear a blanket on your head.

Of course, when the robots finally take over, we'll all be bowing to them.

 

If that's all it was, you'd get no quarrel from me. But you people do not merely "act to influence." Exemplifying the height of arrogance, you "impose by force of law." Why don't you just live a good life and leave others alone to do the same?

 

No, you stated it clearly and concisely.

Exactly. It is precisely freedom from religion that guarantees freedom of religion.

 

If man is just an accident, if we are only a sack of chemicals, why do we possess dignity or rights?

 

I totally disagree that it is from a religious standpoint. I realize you're just quoting current laws, but laws change and I believe this will be one of them. As medical science continues to progress, a child will be able to live outside the womb in an incubator of sorts in less and less time after conception. The heart is beating and the mind is forming. So what is it? It's human, that's for sure. And why are newborn babies treated differently? They can't live on their own. No, it's not a religious argument.

Again, not a religious issue.

You're certainly free to believe that God is a 'mythical entity', but I would suggest you not let that get in the way of the abortion debate.

 

I didn't say man was an accident.

 

Because we choose to. This is where the Christian or religious myth that athiests have no moral foundation fails. The athiest chooses to have dignity and respect the rights of others. It is based upon logic and reasoning as opposed to religious dogma that, as we see in many cases, often violates the rights and dignity of others.

We see this glaringly evident related to same-sex marriage where Christians willingly violate both the dignity and rights of those individuals involved in same-sex personal partnerships that, from a legal standpoint, have all of the attributes of opposite-sex personal partnerships that are legally defined as marriage. We see it related to the right of choice for a woman related to abortion. We see it related to stem cell research. It is the bigoted beliefs of religion that seek to violate the dignity and rights of others and not the athiest which reaches decisions based upon logic and reason where the respect of the dignity and rights of others are considered.

 

An interesting position that would also argue that, by extrapolation, human cloning is also acceptable. Is that argument also being made? Or would man be playing god?

A newborn baby has obtained individual sovereignty and with it comes the right of life. The right of life is a natural (inalienable) right inherent in a sovereign individual. As I've noted in other threads an infant has a right to feed itself but it does not have a right to be fed. As a society we've determined that feeding infants is important enough to make laws that require the parent or guardian to feed the infant but this is not a right, it's an moral obligation that actually infringes to a limited degree on the parent or guardian.

We can also look at a premature child in an incubator. Since it is no longer dependent upon the woman it has now obtained a right to life. It is a child and no longer a fetus as it is no longer a part of the woman. Does the child have the right to be in an incubator? No, it does not. We might feel a moral obligation to keep the child in an incubator but that does not establish a right. The child has a right to life so long as it can live on it's own without being dependent upon others. Rights cannot infringe upon the rights of others and must be inherent in the individual.

We have natural (inalienable) rights and the protection of those rights is what our nation was founded upon. It was obvious from the beginning though that for pragmatic reasons those rights would suffer infringment for the good of society. In such cases the infringment should always be to the least amount possible to protect the rights of others. In the Roe v Wade decision that was taken into consideration and the woman's rights were infringed upon to a minor degree related to abortion. Prior to birth, where individual sovereignty of the child would be establishes, the court infringed upon the rights of the woman by protecting a potential human being at the point of viability. Will the point of viability change over time with medical advancements? Absolutely but this does not change the fact that the woman still has a right of self-determination related to her body and that we are infringing upon it.

 

Given the impoverished view of man found amongst atheist fundamentalists such a choice is illogical.

The rigid materialist/reductionist world-view sees man as a cipher, an accident, just a sack of chemicals. Why should this nothing be accorded dignity or rights? The dictators of the 20th century relied upon this conception when they deprived millions of basic rights.

Sculpture by Alberto Giacometti - This attenuated figure is a good illustration of the view of man inherent in the pseudo-science of materialism.


In the Christian view individuals should be accorded respect, they should possess rights. Such a view helped inspire Christians to fight slavery, establish democracies, found hospitals and universities.

The Sistine Chapel

 

Shiva still waiting for you to admit this earlier statement is wrong. Why do you reject Fitzsimmons statement? You know 1,500 partial birth abortions were performed a year in one N.J. clinic alone - most on healthy mothers with healthy babies.

 

Rigid libertarian ideology vs. feeding a hungry infant. Wow.

Deeply flawed reasoning.

Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly

quote: A child's creation and presence in the womb are caused by biological forces independent of and beyond the control of the child; they are brought into play by the acts of the parents. The cause-and-effect relationship between heterosexual intercourse and pregnancy is well-known. The child did not cause the situation. The parents are the causative agents of both the pregnancy and their child's dependence.

quote: To conceive and then abort one's child — even by mere eviction — is to turn conception into a deadly trap for the child. It is to set her up in a vulnerable position that is virtually certain to lead to her death. Conception followed by eviction from the womb could be compared to capturing someone, placing her on one's airplane, and then shoving her out in mid-flight without a parachute. The child in the womb is like a captive; she is in the situation involuntarily, and she cannot fend for herself. A captive is not trespassing on the captor's property, by definition. (Evicting or abandoning one's child cannot be regarded as releasing her from captivity, because this does not terminate childhood inability.)

 

A most bazaar statement as I've never heard the term athiest fundamentalists before so I looked it up.

Apparently this is a recently coined term by Christians to condemn athiests that, as noted, is really nonsense as there is no foundation for the term. This, I assume, goes along with the illogical arguments that athiesm is a religion which, of course, it is not.

 

I have neither the time nor the inclination to bloviate on this topic, so I'll be brief.

1. There are not very many atheists in foxholes, look at it that way.

2. Atheists are not angry with God, per se, they are just angry...period.

3. In my experiences, atheists are indeed angry and rude. (see #2.)

4. I agree that atheism isn't just a "white" thing...Asians are far more apt to be atheist, in fact. 1.3 Billion Chinese to name a few.

5. Atheism isn't a faith, but it is a belief system.

6. True. Atheism is all about moral relativism, they have no fixed moral authority.

7. Atheists can lead a full life, no one is disputing that, but most religion is all about the afterlife.

8. Not all atheists are hedonists, but I would bet the majority are.

9. I'm sure that an atheist can handle the death of a loved one without religion, that's not the purpose of religion to be just a coping mechanism for grief.

10. According to Bill O'Reilly's culture warriors, atheists are indeed waging war on Christmas.

I'll add another myth for good measure.

#11. Atheists have no sense of humor.

True, atheists lack a sense of humor...they come across as miserable sods.

 

Actually what is flawed are the arguments presented as they certainly aren't Libertarian and fail to address the fundamental foundation for natural Rights which is individual sovereignty and a fetus has not obtained individual sovereignty. This is as distorted as many "Tea Party Movement" followers trying to identify themselves as Libertarians.

A natural (Inalienable) Right is inherent in the individual and cannot infringe upon the Rights of others. Until the child is born it is a fetus that is dependent upon the woman and has not obtained the status of an individual with Rights.

 

LOL I wish there were more Mormons where I live! I'd be a Mormon for sure! Mormons are typically wonderful people and it doesn't surprise me that Utah is hospitable to people of all faiths, even those with no faith.

Hate to use stereotypes, but I can't help it, they are the nicest people and certainly the most decent Christians, even if other Christians don't think they really are Christians!

But anyway, I am very proud of who I am, even to the point of extreme pomposity. My family knows the truth about me and they also know that I pretend to be Christian in order to develop business networks. It is plum necessary in my neck of the woods: a long way from Utah to the great state of Mississippi! Nothing but Baptists around here. Baptists are fine, but Mormons... you talk about knowing how to run a business! Those guys are incredibly successful and I'd love to get me some of that. But it wouldn't be as lucrative in Mississippi as I'm sure it would be in Utah.

Edited to add: I have children and am stuck in Mississippi for the forseeable future. Conversion to Mormonism is a future prospect of mine.

 

Atheists have a religion.

 

A hedonist! That's what I am, a hedonist.

I also believe that when I die, I will be allowed to relive my life but with super powers.

That belief comes from the old NES version of Super Mario Bros 3. When you win the game, the game starts over and you have an inventory full of P wings, which allow you to fly through any level, generally unharmed.

So I'm a hedonistic P Winger, not an atheist. That's good because people get mad at you when you tell them you are atheist!

 

...and they just pity you and look at you funny when you're a "hedonist."

 

Faith is not like buying a car.

 

Those same truths can be found without religion as well.

 

What's really "bazaar", aside from your spelling, is watching atheists squirm away from responsibility.

Atheism is a belief-system - it is faith-based pessimism. Atheists have established dogma, formed organizations, promoted their ideology, attacked those that disagree, even killed those that disagree.

Chinese Police Proudly Record Their Torture of Christians

New Reports Tell of Executions, Torture of Christians in North Korea
New reports from former North Korean eye-witnesses indicate that the totalitarian government tortures, executes Christians and people related to the faith.

50,000 Christians tortured and abused in North Korean prisons

 

Here's the leaders of the "new atheism". Don't they seem like bloodthirsty fanatics?

Atheist Christopher Hitchens has condemned Moslems because they have sinned against secularism. He demonizes religious folk to justify their murder. He aches to kill even without provocation.

quote: It is impossible to compromise with the proponents of sacrificial killings of civilians, the disseminators of anti-Semitic filth, the violators of women and the cheerful murderers of children.
It is also impossible to compromise with the stone-faced propagandists for Bronze Age morality: morons and philistines who hate Darwin and Einstein and managed, during their brief rule in Afghanistan, to ban and erase music and art while cultivating the skills of germ warfare. If they could do that to Afghans, what might they not have in mind for us? In confronting such people, the crucial thing is to be willing and able, if not in fact eager, to kill them without pity before they get started.

LINK

Sam Harris has called for a nuclear first strike against the Islamic world.

quote: Harris, echoing the blood lust of Hitchens, calls, in his book The End of Faith, for a nuclear first strike against the Islamic world. He defends torture as a logical form of interrogation. He, like all utopians, has reduced millions of human beings and cultures he knows nothing about to primitive impediments to his vision of a better world.
"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?" Harris asks. "If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.

LINK

 

One thing about Sam Harris.....I think you are misrepresenting what he is saying a bit. He is simply saying that (in his view) if extremist Islamic states get more nuclear weapons that it could come to the point where we have to preemptively nuke them to prevent them from nuking us.

He isnt actually saying that we should do it, he is saying that HE personally feels that the religious tensions could get so high between the Christians and Muslims that it could get to that point.

I am a fan of his writings. As an Atheist I agree with a lot of what he has to say. I do not agree that it will get to the point that he is describing though.

Clearly religious wars have caused mass death in our world before though. So its not like his fears are unfounded. Atheist states have killed high numbers of people as well though.

I dont think religion is to blame for wars. Unlike most Atheists I dont hold that viewpoint. I just think that crazy, power hungry human beings of all different backgrounds are to blame.

 

The reason we don't have a set doctrine as atheists is because we have more than 1 book. Atheism is not a belief. It is only a lack of a belief.

This isn't debatable. This is a fact of life.