Why are many atheists so angry?

Agreed, but that also works for the religious jerks who push their religious beliefs on everyone else including our courts.

 

The history of Christianity is one of a plague on humanity that has been more nasty and more evil in sum total than any other movement in known history.

Jefferson put's it nicely:

Adams also knew his history:

I think many Christians mistake the presentation of facts for Anger.

That said, it would take someone who is pretty evil who is not at least a bit angry at an organization that committed such horrible atrocities over such a long period of time.

 

Is it surprising that a member of a minority group would engage in fewer social interactions than those who belong to the majority? Doesn't necessarily say anything to the objective merits of atheism vs theism.

Certainly, there's nothing illegal about voting stupidly, but that doesn't mean it's good for society. Surely if someone told you they were voting against candidate X because they didn't like the color of their skin, you'd have at least a little bit of an urge to explain to them just how big of an idiot they were.

 

As an aphorism, used colloquially, maybe. It's not a universal truism or even a rule of thumb though. Certainly it's not a good argument in this context. For example, would a small increase in isolation result in a small increase in contempt? Surely it doesn't apply to everyone equally? How do you even measure or even define those things? Isn't contempt a multi-faceted thing, where you can have contempt for some things and not others? How much isolation results from doing other things rather than going to church etc - is it even worth mentioning?

It's just not a good argument in this context.

Why bother? I enjoy debate, and I like to feel like I'm educating people.

So, the government interferes more with my life than government does - well yeah, that's kind of the point of government - to govern things. The clue is in the name. Also, pointing at some other body that does the same thing is a tu coque fallacy - two wrongs (even if it were wrong) don't make a right, although three rights make a left.

Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone was saying it should be illegal about voting based on religion? I find it amusing though that you compare voting based on religion to voting based on skin colour, which most people would consider contemptible, though not illegal.

Not sure what you're getting at there.

 

Unlike all the happy theists who brought you such tidings of joy as the Crusades and 9/11.

 

so deconstruct the reason for thinking its dumb to call it what it is.

 

Social connectivity is an excellent field of study and I agree that religion often provides that connectivity. History has shown it's benefits but also it's negative aspects when abused.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/christians-happier-than-atheists-at-least-on-twitter/

 

When I was young and an atheist, I questioned everything and denied everything until I realized my negativity had made me pretty stupid, so I decided to accept everything. ..and this is how I started my spiritual journey.

Here is an excerpt on Christianity from God's miracle worker: Saint Nektarios: (translated from the original Greek)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Christian religion is not a certain philosophic system, about which learned men, trained in metaphysical studies, argue and then either espouse or reject, according to the opinion each one has formed. It is faith, established in the souls of men, which ought to be spread to the many and be maintained in their consciousness.

There are truths in Christianity that are above our intellectual comprehension, incapable of being grasped by the finite mind of man. Our intellect takes cognizance of them, becomes convinced of their reality, and testifies about their supernatural existence.

Christianity is a religion of revelation. The Divine reveals its glory only to those who have been perfected through virtue. Christianity teaches perfection through virtue and demands that its followers become holy and perfect. It disapproves of and opposes those who are under the influence of the imagination. He who is truly perfect in virtue becomes through Divine help outside the flesh and the world, and truly enters another, spiritual world; not, however, through the imagination, but through the effulgence of Divine grace. Without grace, without revelation, no man, even the most virtuous, can transcend the flesh and the world.

 

At what age did you change?

When I was in my teens I was an Atheist. Even had a small, but friendly, intervention by my parents and two church leaders. Everyone was very polite, including me, but I stood my ground. About 6-8 months later in my Senior year of HS I had a Near Death Experience (NDE).

It didn't convert me, but it certainly put me on the spiritual quest in which I've traveled the past 39 years.

 

Fear of death (more specifically the eradication of one's existance) is often a motivator for belief in the supernatural, but that longing for some form of immortality does not change reality.

 

That's the standard atheist tough-guy approach. Picture Edward G. Robinson munching on a cigar and saying "When you're dead, you're dead, see?"



Making people fear death has long been a form of control over them. Not fearing death frees one's spirit.

[video=youtube;fO1W5T1dc5g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO1W5T1dc5g[/video]

 

Accepting that consciousness is a product of biochemical and bioelectrical processes within the body, and that these processes end at death is not being a "tough guy".

Accepting that your "spirit" is a product of consciousness, and that this therefore also ends at death, is not being a "tough guy".

Believing that death - including the end of existence as an individual - is inevitable and your feelings about it (fear, dread, etc) are irrelevent, is not being a "tough guy".

I agree, which is why I don't respect any belief system that threatens eternal punishment upon death unless you adhere to their dogma (and fill the collection basket).

 

Agreed that threatening death, spiritual or physical, regardless of source or any other form of eternal damnation is a form of control. It also lacks spiritual enlightenment.

Death is inevitable and comes to all of us. That part is fact. What happens after, if anything, is opinion. Your opinion is "When you're dead, you're dead, see?". Mine is that there is more to it than meets the eye. I don't believe in white robes, harps and forever singing Hosannas at the foot of God's throne. For one thing, that's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing boring.

Like you, I also believe physical death is the end of our existence as individuals, but unlike you, I don't believe it's the end of existence.

 

When did I say that your body ceases to exist in any form? When did I say that the bioelectric energy that powers our consciousness vanishes completely?
That would be scientifically impossible, with no need for superstitious belief.
The end of existance AS AN INDIVIDUAL is what I indicated I believe in, there's no need to put words in my mouth for the purposes of disagreeing with them.

 

I understand that many people find comfort in religious beliefs for those that fear death since this is the ultimate reward for believing in it in the first place. I grew up as a Catholic and have always questioned the validity of the scripts but as I got older I decided to do my own research by studying science's version of evolution and the history of religions. I no longer believe in a GOD at least not one that religions preach and although science doesn't have all the answers, their explanation is much more logical in explaining the origin of life.

We are all energy beings made of matter and when we die our matter is converted and used by other living entities so in a sense we are all giving eternal existence just not one as when we were an individual when we were living.