10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked

A two part post.

 

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2011/09/10-myths-many-religious-people-hold-about-atheists-debunked/

I thought this was fitting and quite appropriate given that most theists have no idea what atheism is. The article debunks quite a bit, including the silly conspiracy theories often passed around theistic circles.

Aside from misguided McCarthyism that is.

 

I admit I didn't read your whole post in detail, but from what I did I gather you feel very negatively stereotyped. I am not a faith based believer. I am a borderline deist/agnostic who sees many valuable truths within religion. I have no problem with atheism in general. However, when any one side of a religious conflict believes they are absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong it justifies many injustices. Theist and atheist are equally capable of doing great harm based on the power of their convictions.

 

Sometimes I do feel negatively stereotyped, I cannot be completely upfront with some people because of the way they will react. I could tell them that I am Catholic, Muslim, or Buddhist and the reaction would be pale in comparison to uttering the word atheist.

Atheism seems to be associated with nihilism (though most do not connect atheism with the word nihilism), I have sense moved myself away from referring to myself as an atheist to a Humanist.

Same concept, but a word without a stigma.

 

Nobody did, you are the only one who has admitted.

 

I am an atheist and I did not read the entire post either, lol. In the first place I am quite familiar with it and in the second place I post for entertainment, it is not entertaining, to me, to read a multi-thousand word post.

 

LOL Ya I see lots of people doing that same thing with the word "agnostic."

 

It may have something to do with your somewhat offensive avatar and your tone in many of your posts.

 

I was looking at his tone in that thread and I really got the impression that he was talking about real life, not internet chat.

 

Oh.....


You mean in THIS thread? No problem, here.

Elsewhere...?

I guess since I'm pretty much the same here as I am elsewhere, I assume others are also (although i intellectually know that is not really the case for a lot of people). I don't think anonymity gives one permission to be a jackass--ever. it has to do with my sense of integrity.

 

How can pixels be offensive?

As I have said before, the avatar is not of Jesus.

 

Ha, yeah. Same here. The agnostics I know do not really believe in a higher power, essentially agnostic atheists (as most atheists are).

Yes, it was in reference to personal interactions with people.

 

Obviously...

 

..... I am at a loss as to how it would offensive.

Even if it were Jesus, in what ways would it be offensive?

I can think of none, unless glasses are somehow sinful in nature.

 

The "aura" surrounding--and although you cut off most of it, on his chest is the top of the cross, which, in the original picture, is mocking the Sacred Heart of Jesus icon.


You can stop being disingenuous. THAT is what is annoying and why you may get stereotyped negatively. You're disrespectful to others' deeply held beliefs.

 

How about sticking to the topic as opposed to discussing members. That isn't really a request.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Thank you, the thread was going to hell fast with the irrelevant panderings.

 

Isn't the topic perception of atheists?



Whateveah...

 

It certainly could be.

However what you don't understand are the basic tenants of the philosophy.

You find my avatar offensive, so what? I find murder, starving children, and blind bigotry offensive, all of which are worth than an arrangement of pixels illustrating a particular artist.

I offer as much respect as the beliefs deserve. You will find from my posts that I am opposed to beliefs that advocate the deaths of homosexuals, non-believers, and unruly children. Such a belief system is not love, it is hate. It is the definition of evil. In no way can such a text benefit humanity, it only serves to divide and conquer.

You may choose to justify it whichever way you like, but I choose not to ignore the inconvenient bits for the sake of adopting a particular belief system. If there are bits that fall outside right and wrong, good and evil, I will gladly discard those I pick up the bits I feel are beneficial. Hence my interest in my latest read "Parallel Sayings: Jesus and Buddha.

I certainly don't see the need to invoke a silly story about god creating all time and space, focusing on one particular planet, making rules, making creatures that disregard those rules, killing them and making them suffer until they love the god, sending himself down to earth as a infant, only to sacrifice himself to himself so that he can change the rules he made. Absolutely absurd. I don't see any ethical benefit that comes from such silliness. Why not cut out the fairy tales and use the good bits as a basis of morals and ethics?

So I may seem disrespectful of your "deeply held beliefs", but that is not a concern of mine. I will gladly dismiss those beliefs as nonsense if it means fairy tales hate in favor of love and compassion.

 

The only time I take offense from atheists is when they try to take God from public view.

 

What a load of generalizing tripe. You're post is the definition of HYPOCRITICAL. You post sunshine and rainbows about atheism and then spew your idiotic anti-faith vitriol. Get over yourself.

 

I am an atheist, not a humanist, in fact there are very few humans I even like. I do not hate any humans, but I dislike at least 6 billion, give or take a billion or so. I am not a nihilist. I am not a theist, I am not a deist, I am an atheist. If anyone wishes to believe that I am stigmatized by being an atheist, they can have at it, i do not mind, and it is no where near as bad as being called a theist.

 

How would one go about doing that?

 

Would you like examples from just my State? Or the nation in general?

 

I'd like a general description of what you're talking about.

Removing religious inscriptions from public buildings, for instance, does not "remove God from public view." There are still plenty of signs of God about -- churches, advertisements, private speech, religious schools, etc.

I've never quite understood why believers -- and especially "small government" types -- think it's A-OK to hijack public resources to promote their belief system.

I'm not saying religious speech should be erased from public spaces. Religion should be treated neutrally by the government -- neither favored nor disfavored. It is a part of our society and culture, and thus deserves as much representation as any other part of our society and culture.

I only have an issue when it is given preferential treatment. And I have a *big* issue when *one* religion is given preferential treatment over others.