Why are Atheists So Disliked

[alien444]

No, I am not. Nevertheless, I don't want to see anyone go to hell and if I can lead someone to Christ, whoever that person may be or whatever he or she may believe at the time, I will. I don't hesitate to share my faith or the message of the Gospel with anyone, not even an atheist.

What is hell? What is Heaven?

 

[alien444]

i dont want to see anyone go to hell but if its a toss up between me an dawkins, dawkins is frying ....every cloud has a silver lining the more atheists and non believers there are the better my odds go of making it upstairs

What will happen to a "Dawkins" in hell? What will you be doing in heaven?

 

[alien444]

I am defining atheism as western materialism. If you wish to expand the definition to include forms of idealism that do not have belief in a theistic god, then sure. In that case, most Buddhists are atheists. In fact some Hindus may be atheists. And I am pretty sure Taoists would qualify.

If we can firstly agree on definitions then I think we could then go on to agree.

Hope you're having a nice day. I am.

I think defining atheism is a mistake. There is no need. One does not need a special definition of what it means to not believe in totalitarianism or aliens or Zeus. Atheists are not a homogeneous group (which I am sure we agree about that), there exists atheist political organizations, but this is no more descriptive that the UAW. Atheists are simply non-deist Period.

 

[alien444]

Once in for all---Hitler persecuted Jews, there are only two groups that I am aware of in the modern world, in which some members, view Jews as the enemy--Muslims and Christians (re-emphasize some). Stalin may have been an atheist, but his primary objective by eliminating religion was to remove a competing belief system--this is the primary objective in all communist states. Above all, he was a sociopathic megalomaniac. If you look at the absolutely deranged barbarism and brutality of 8000+ years of human civilization, the perpetrators all believed in a God. Neither religion nor non-belief naturally lead to totalitarianism, it is a complex combination of socioeconomic and political factors, in addition to an extreme ideology and personality cult.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's not at all. You stereotyped all atheists as being incapable of having a spiritual side, and I showed you an example of an atheist who is more spiritual than any Christian I know.

It quite effectively showed your stereotype to be utter nonsense

The Dalai Lama is a philosopher who rephrases well known bromides, which include many biblical proverbs, making them his own inventions. He's far too compassionate and accepting to be a good governor.

When someone addresses the characteristics of a large demographic it is to be expected that there are exceptions.

Atheists wouldn't use the spiritual knowledge that they might possess in governing. Christians would be compelled to at least try.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I dislike atheists because they're the rudest, nastiest, most ignorant, and most dishonest people I've ever met.

Well, that's not stereotyping an entire class of people like a bigot would at all....

After dealing with atheists here and on CARM, WOW! They're like a pack of rabid dogs.

If you start off by calling someone rude, nasty, ignorant and dishonest, you may find that you'll be dealing with some fairly upset people.

They come to Christian websites to attack Christianity, which tells you how childish and hateful they are.

How is that childish or hateful? Many problems with society today is started with fundamentalist Christians. The attack on science education, women's rights, etc. They are arguing in opposition to what they see as a threat to society.

Also, as many atheists are former Christians, and resent the indoctrination they underwent as children, they are working to try to open the eyes of those who are still "blinded by faith". That's also not childish, or hateful... In fact they are taking time out of their day to help people.

They'll internationally misrepresent everything we say, which shows how dishonest they are.

I personally have never intentionally misrepresented anything anyone has said on here. Therefore your assertion is false. I'll be happy to accept your apology though.

They're just awful, awful people. And I don't mean "awful" in the Biblical sense that they are sinners, like we all are, but in the sense that, if they moved in next door to you, your property values would drop.

You're the one spewing hatred in this post buddy... if this is how you act in regular life, you're the kind of guy I wouldn't want living in my neighbourhood.

Likewise, it's ridiculous that you think property values would drop. Most atheists are reasonable, rational, peaceful people. Some of us may enjoy the odd debate (I sure do) but that doesn't justify the vitriol you are spewing here.

As for voting for one for president, there's no way in the world I'd vote for an atheist for two reasons:

First, because if they don't believe our rights come from God and that man is made in the image of God, then they don't believe that the rights of man are transcendent and, therefore, cannot be trusted with them.

I'd count that as a negative if someone thought our rights were god granted. I'd prefer a president who believed it was one of his primary goals to protect the rights that we have in a free society. If you think it's up to god, then you are abdicating that responsibility.

Furthermore, there's no indication that a "god loving" president will do anything to protect your rights. The recent example (George W Bush) did a lot to limit your rights compared to other recent presidents.

Second, the Bible is correct when it calls the atheist a fool. Atheists believe the universe just magically appeared one day and that men evolved from monkeys. I wouldn't want to give someone that stupid access to nuclear weapons.

If that's what you think Atheists believe, then I'd challenge the idea that you've ever seriously spoken with one. It's clear the times that you have you weren't really listening.

Nobody believes the universe just "magically appeared" one day (Well, actually Christians do....) and evolution does not state that Man evolved from Monkeys.

My advice: If you ever want to debate honestly, I would recommend you start by not strawmanning the oppositions beliefs.

On a side note, you were criticizing atheists of intentionally misrepresenting your claims.... I believe there's a saying here about a kettle and a pot.

No, because we've explained our position to them many, many times and many of them claim to have been Christians and held "our position".

And many did, in fact there's a number of former pastors or ministers who have left Christianity.

I understand them just fine, thank you.

Based on what you wrote above, no, you don't.

Actually, I have looked at Christian beliefs objectively.

First, you forget that I did not become a Christian until I was in my mid-twenties.

Second, I was required to examine Christian doctrine from all angles, and, often, to argue against it, in seminary, in order to show that I had a complete understanding of Christian doctrine.

Well, the age you converted at is really irrelevant to if you looked at it objectively or not. However, it's good you debated it.

That being said, did you debate using your own knowledge at the time, or did you go out and read criticisms from other people? That's very important, because if you were only debating in seminary with Christian sources, then it's not an even playing field.

Actually, He does think that way. When I said that the Bible calls atheists "fools", I was quoting Him.

And why would we care if your holy book calls us fools? What do you expect any holy book to say about someone that doesn't buy into the religion it preaches?

The rest of the world (religious or not) would think it's foolish to take the bible as literal truth. That doesn't bother you, so why would the vacuous insults in your holy book bother us?

 

[ForJesusChrist]

I think its for too reasons:

1. People judge books by there covers
2. People don't realize the only difference between atheists and religious people is that they don't believe in God. Other than that we are very similar.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

two
their

 

[Dave Ellis]

Probably because atheism by its definition purports to be something the immoral ascribe to. Because character, integrity, scruples, and a moral base is not something that atheism imparts as part of its philosophy.

This is nonsensical.

First off, no definition of atheism purports anything about immoral people.

Secondly, there is no "atheist philosophy".

The exact same on both points can be said about theism. Yet, you are a theist, and for some reason these don't apply to you?

While there are atheists who will argue there is no such thing as a atheist philosophy, and that false proclamation simply adds to the impression that integrity is lacking in the atheist that affords that defensive proclamation.

OK then, please explain to me what "the atheist philosophy" is?

And I'll be fair up front. If what you describe isn't perfectly in line with what all atheists believe, then it's not the atheist philosophy.

What I think speaks poorly also of atheism is the history atheists have carved out in the world. While Christianity nor any religious belief can argue their history is as pure as the driven snow, atheism, for all that it encompasses as "no" belief in no such thing as a higher power, god, creator, impresses upon history a deeper negative impression when atheism flavors a dark brutal murderous history that was carved out in the name of humanist values. Rather than religious.

Really? What humanist values lead to a dark brutal and murderous history? I'm not aware of a single humanist who has ever created the situation you're alluding to.

Communism in Russia for instance. While atheism is not a political ideology it was the lack-of-belief system that was proclaimed by Stalin.

You are aware Stalin became a communist while he was studying to become an orthodox priest at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, right?

And from that point of disbelief he committed atrocities that pushed forth a political ideology that did not have deity at its center. Rather, he pushed forth a communist manifesto that if anything can say it argues that this life is in the hands of the psyche of humanity!
Which means that man and his cohorts trumpeted an oppressive communist regime that credited the human intellect for its tenets.

The problem with Stalin and the USSR was totalitarianism, their atheism had nothing to do with it.

To prove that point, numerous religious people have committed similar mass killings and genocides. Religion was not always a factor in those either (although it played a major role in many).

If you're trying to argue that atheism leads to mass killings as opposed to peaceful Christianity or other theistic beliefs, you are laughably wrong. In fact, largely atheistic societies are generally more peaceful and have a higher standard of life than heavily theistic societies.

And while atheism and atheists may not ever be something that arrives to the attention of Christians in their every day, I think what also helps to impress a strong aversion to the atheist philosophy is when atheists purposefully join religious communities so as to mock, ridicule, publish sarcastic remarks and condemn the Christian faith and philosophy, that that minority who elect to engage in that behavior demonstrate as members of those communities.

If that's why you think atheists typically join forums like this, you are again quite mistaken.

And that while they argue there is no such thing as God , they are unable or unwilling to spend their lives elsewhere. Rather than spending hours upon hours and year after year committing their attention to what their atheist label identifies as, nothing!

The atheist label doesn't identify as "nothing", it identifies you as someone who does not hold the belief a god exists. If you can't see the clear difference there, I'm not really sure what to say.

Thereby indicating by their presence in those religious communities that their intent and agenda is to mock, ridicule, publish sarcastic remarks and condemn people! Whom their atheist humanist ideology among their own purportedly espouses a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.

If you choose to take open debate as a personal attack, that's your business. But then again, if you can't handle people arguing against your beliefs, I suggest you grow up a bit.

We aren't here to attack people, we're here to debate ideas and beliefs. Again, a very clear difference, and if you can't differentiate between the two, that's not my problem.

I am here to promote human welfare, values and dignity and I'm reading posts from people like yourself full of utter hatred and vitriol. Is this what Christianity means to you?

Something that is revoked by those who behave in such ways in religious communities. And that then demonstrates through the abdication of that humanist example, by definition, as well as having no faith in any religious deity, a personality that is bad natured and malevolent.

If you want an example of a bad natured and malevolent personality, I suggest you re-read what you wrote in this post. You are purposefully stirring up hatred and bigotry towards an entire demographic of people, you should be ashamed of yourself.

History precedes the atheist that would think to be elected to lead a Democratic Republic, when Communist Russia, and other countries that were led by atheists afford a history that broadcasts the potential inherent in an atheist candidate.

How about you try focusing on some other countries which are or were recently lead by atheists? For example, a good chunk of Europe, and Australia?

Are you going to try telling me the Swedes are evil baby murderers now?

And most certainly among the electorate in a democratic republic when atheists enter into a community that boasts the most populace body of citizens in America, Christians, and demonstrate what the atheism is when the atheist interacts with people whom any atheist candidate would purport to lead and represent if elected to have the chance.

Are you saying that an Atheist would not look out for the interests of the people that they are representing in government?

 

[JGG]

The Dalai Lama is a philosopher who rephrases well known bromides, which include many biblical proverbs, making them his own inventions. He's far too compassionate and accepting to be a good governor.

So the virtues which make Christians good governors is they lack compassion are intolerant?

When someone addresses the characteristics of a large demographic it is to be expected that there are exceptions.

But we're agreed that we can make broad generalizations about any given demographic?

Atheists wouldn't use the spiritual knowledge that they might possess in governing. Christians would be compelled to at least try.

Atheists would do this out of spite?

 

[Dave Ellis]

The Dalai Lama is a philosopher who rephrases well known bromides, which include many biblical proverbs, making them his own inventions. He's far too compassionate and accepting to be a good governor.

When someone addresses the characteristics of a large demographic it is to be expected that there are exceptions.

Atheists wouldn't use the spiritual knowledge that they might possess in governing. Christians would be compelled to at least try.

You are aware the Dalai Lama's are the leaders of the Tibetan government, and the current Dalai Lama has lead the Tibetan government in exile since the Chinese invasion......... right?

The Dalai Lama is to Tibet what the Queen is to England.

Your assertions on what Atheists would do in power is demonstrably wrong as well.

 

[JGG]

You are aware the Dalai Lama's are the leaders of the Tibetan government, and the current Dalai Lama has lead the Tibetan government in exile since the Chinese invasion......... right?

The Dalai Lama is to Tibet what the Queen is to England.

Your assertions on what Atheists would do in power is demonstrably wrong as well.

But I'm sure it felt pretty good to say it.

 

[elephunky]

Article says that Americans would rather have a pot-smoking, admitted philanderer as President than an atheist president. Why are atheists so disliked in America? I have spent quite a bit of time in Europe, and atheists are viewed as ordinary, responsible, trustworthy citizens. In general, why do you think people (or you) dislike or distrust atheists? I am not a bad guy, I promise.

Americans Exaggerate How Much They Go To Religious Services, According To Study

I am not american but my observation has been that people are scared of atheists. They seem to be put in the same category as satanists. People fear and reject what they do not understand.

 

[StudentOfTheScriptures]

Take away your faith? Are you being forced to abandon your faith? Are you told you can no longer pray or congregate? No. All that is established is that religious tribalism has no place in state judicial buildings nor formal proceedings. The absence of these commandments simply creates a neutral space and remove an inappropriate promotion of a religion. Also recognize that many theists, including many Christians who do not share you specific view, also see the inappropriateness of placing religious content in those contexts too. These infusions of religion in our coinage and anthems were actually added as recently as the 1940s by religious groups who used fear of communism to garner support. Like egocentric infants who've grabbed all the toys, then throw a tantrum when some are taken away to be distributed fairly, some people behave as though it's unbearable if their religion isn't given prominence or even dominance regardless of setting. Taking away religious privilege for one group isn't "taking away [your] faith." Perhaps you've been catered to for so long that taking away said privilege is perceived by you as an assault. Such characterization is a shameless misrepresentation of what is really going on.

You believe that taking those things away creates a neutral environment. The 10 Commandments do not promote religion on people. Are you hoping that by removing the 10 Commandment from the Court will enable you to commit murder and since there is no law as it was taken down you might receive a neutral judgement and walk away free? Lol. You may take down the 10 Commandments, try to stop Christmas and Easter. But I tell you one thing...you guys are fighting so hard to remove a God you believe don't exist. Why is it you are so threatened by a God who you believe do not exist? If you believe God does not exist you would not waste breath or energy to remove all these things. The truth is deep down you know God exists and you know you have broken his laws and are destined to be separated from Him. But I tell you...trying so hard to believe He does not exist does not give you plausible deniability on judgement day and hope to pass by saying Oh I'm so sorry...I didn't know you exist. Pretending he does not exist will not give you an valid excuse to escape judgement. Tell me again, why are you fighting so hard to remove all these things? You do not see an organization fighting so hard against the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Buddha, or Zues or any of the Hindu gods? But why fight so hard against the Christian and Jewish God? Why?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Article says that Americans would rather have a pot-smoking, admitted philanderer as President than an atheist president. Why are atheists so disliked in America? I have spent quite a bit of time in Europe, and atheists are viewed as ordinary, responsible, trustworthy citizens. In general, why do you think people (or you) dislike or distrust atheists? I am not a bad guy, I promise.

Americans Exaggerate How Much They Go To Religious Services, According To Study

This irrational distrust is really only prevalant in the US which isn't really surprising considering their ignorant culture, Australian's and New Zealanders have voted in atheist leaders for their respective nations in the past without any issue whatsoever.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You believe that taking those things away creates a neutral environment. The 10 Commandments do not promote religion on people. Are you hoping that by removing the 10 Commandment from the Court will enable you to commit murder and since there is no law as it was taken down you might receive a neutral judgement and walk away free? Lol. You may take down the 10 Commandments, try to stop Christmas and Easter. But I tell you one thing...you guys are fighting so hard to remove a God you believe don't exist. Why is it you are so threatened by a God who you believe do not exist? If you believe God does not exist you would not waste breath or energy to remove all these things. The truth is deep down you know God exists and you know you have broken his laws and are destined to be separated from Him. But I tell you...trying so hard to believe He does not exist does not give you plausible deniability on judgement day and hope to pass by saying Oh I'm so sorry...I didn't know you exist. Pretending he does not exist will not give you an valid excuse to escape judgement. Tell me again, why are you fighting so hard to remove all these things? You do not see an organization fighting so hard against the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Buddha, or Zues or any of the Hindu gods? But why fight so hard against the Christian and Jewish God? Why?

You said this...

"The 10 Commandments do not promote religion on people."

Then you said this...

"But I tell you one thing...you guys are fighting so hard to remove a God you believe don't exist."

No one is trying to remove a god. In the example you gave about the 10 commandments, it's the commandments that many atheists would like to remove. If they don't promote/represent god...why would you worry about them being taken down? You can't argue the issue both ways because it's contradictory. You can't say "the 10 commandments are harmless...they don't represent christianity or the will of god." and then in the very next breath accuse atheists of "trying to remove god from the government/courts/etc." It has to be one or the other, either the 10 commandments represent christianity, or they don't.

The second point I'd like to make is that you're completely wrong about atheists. You're projecting your own religious insecurities onto them. Atheists aren't scared of your god or your judgment day. Atheists simply want a government that doesn't favor any religion over any other religions in any way at all. Posting the 10 commandments on court grounds appears to be an endorsement...at the very least.

 

[rcorlew]

I was referring to another member who was comparing atheists to both Stalin and Hitler. I personally don't know what Hitler's religious beliefs were.

By birth Hitler was Jewish, as a child he was raised Catholic, as an adult he practiced a mashup of religions that consisted of paganism, cultist religions and Christianity. Hitler was ultimately referred to as THE Savior towards the end of the Reich. His "treaty" with the Catholics via the Pope was more of the Pope capitulating to pressures from Mussolini and the fascists of Italy than any thing else.

Stalin did indeed study theology, which means very little. Dawkins was an Anglican altar boy and you certainly would not call him a theist would you?

The OP asked why Atheists are so disliked and I merely pointed out two of the biggest reasons. Hitler killed millions of Catholics, Protestants and Jews; Stalin did the same except his camps were the Gulags of Siberia. Ironically, Siberia has a very high Christian population rate because of these efforts.

China would be another good example of why Atheists are so disliked, it's not just atheism it is more anti-theism. You can argue about whether this person or that person was actually an atheist all you want but when you kill millions and millions of theists and refer to yourself as Savior or Supreme Ruler your actions will be perceived in such a manner as to give good reason to doubt a serous theistic position could be held by such a person.

 

[JGG]

By birth Hitler was Jewish, as a child he was raised Catholic, as an adult he practiced a mashup of religions that consisted of paganism, cultist religions and Christianity. Hitler was ultimately referred to as THE Savior towards the end of the Reich. His "treaty" with the Catholics via the Pope was more of the Pope capitulating to pressures from Mussolini and the fascists of Italy than any thing else.

So, virtually anything but an atheist...but wait.

Stalin did indeed study theology, which means very little. Dawkins was an Anglican altar boy and you certainly would not call him a theist would you?

The OP asked why Atheists are so disliked and I merely pointed out two of the biggest reasons. Hitler killed millions of Catholics, Protestants and Jews; Stalin did the same except his camps were the Gulags of Siberia. Ironically, Siberia has a very high Christian population rate because of these efforts.

Wow! He's an atheist again with no warning or justification, just because you say so.

Impressive trick.

 

[rcorlew]

So, virtually anything but an atheist...but wait.



Wow! He's an atheist again with no warning or justification, just because you say so.

Impressive trick.

I did not say he was an atheist, I was merely pointing out the logical argument that people make. He is perceived to be an atheist because of the Holocaust on Judaic peoples.

 

[JGG]

I did not say he was an atheist, I was merely pointing out the logical argument that people make. He is perceived to be an atheist because of the Holocaust on Judaic peoples.

Actually, your explaining why people associate Hitler with atheists. People hate Hitler, people hate atheists. Thus, Hitler must have been an atheist.