Why do Atheist hate God?

[Nithavela]

So you are saying that beating your wife is REQUIRED to be a christian?

You can certainly hate People without resorting to physical violence, but it helps.

 

[Dave-W]

You can certainly hate People without resorting to physical violence, but it helps.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

 

[Nithavela]

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Luke 18:30-31 18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, 18:30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Matthew 10:35-37:
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

[rjs330]

And on what basis do we claim that this applies to all cases of abuse?

Not that it matters. Like I said, your theology is nice, but absolutely not the rule. Serial abusers don't tend to get thrown out of their church communities. Beaten wives often do. Again, theory vs. practice.

But that's the whole point I am making. We are supposed,to follow the teachings of the Scriptures. Serial abusers SHOULD be kicked out not the victim. If the opposite is hapenening then that church is not following the Scriptures. I will keep hammering this home every chance I get. Base your opinions on someone if they're,following scriptures. Don't crucify the Scriptures based on,someone's actions. And if a group or church is violating scripture I will join you in condemning them for not living up to what the,Bible says.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[The Cadet]

But that's the whole point I am making. We are supposed,to follow the teachings of the Scriptures. Serial abusers SHOULD be kicked out not the victim. If the opposite is hapenening then that church is not following the Scriptures. I will keep hammering this home every chance I get. Base your opinions on someone if they're,following scriptures. Don't crucify the Scriptures based on,someone's actions. And if a group or church is violating scripture I will join you in condemning them for not living up to what the,Bible says.

All 33000 doctrines that are separate from yours?

And also, what of the repentant serial abuser? The one who seriously can't understand how it keeps happening again and again, who truly wants to change but every time keeps on getting furious?

 

[rjs330]

All 33000 doctrines that are separate from yours?

And also, what of the repentant serial abuser? The one who seriously can't understand how it keeps happening again and again, who truly wants to change but every time keeps on getting furious?

Do you you have proof of all 33000 doctrinal differences between me and others? [emoji1]

There is no such thing as a repentant serial abuser. If you are truly repentant you stop. You do everything you can to stop. Repentance is changing your mind and your actions. Remember the bible says if we keep on sinning, doing the same thing over and over we are living in sin and are not truley a believer.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Shemjaza]

Do you you have proof of all 33000 doctrinal differences between me and others? [emoji1]

There is no such thing as a repentant serial abuser. If you are truly repentant you stop. You do everything you can to stop. Repentance is changing your mind and your actions. Remember the bible says if we keep on sinning, doing the same thing over and over we are living in sin and are not truley a believer.

People who give in to a particular temptation more then once aren't Christians? I think you'll find that isn't accepted by many other Christians.

 

[bhsmte]

People who give in to a particular temptation more then once aren't Christians? I think you'll find that isn't accepted by many other Christians.

And, wouldn't leave too many Christians, now would it?

 

[The Cadet]

There is no such thing as a repentant serial abuser. If you are truly repentant you stop. You do everything you can to stop.

Doing everything you can to stop sometimes ain't good enough. Just ask the heroin addict who can't get off the drug despite it destroying their life and their family. Every time I get angry and nihilistic about my current situation, I tell myself, "This is unproductive, I have to stop doing this"... But I don't stop, because it's not that easy. It's entirely possible for someone to be truly repentant for behavior, and still do it again.

Do you you have proof of all 33000 doctrinal differences between me and others?

There are 33,000 different declared doctrines of Christianity. What the differences are between any number of them is beyond me, but given that you can chart them into a cladogram...

 

[mikenet2006]

Nicholas Deka

You reply on a sentence by sentence basis, you're not intentionally rearranging them this time as a trick to pull something out of context (i don't think) I'll reread it more extensively. You're still interpreting some of it wrong, other things I just disagree on. I'll sometimes quote a sentence as well, but not the entire post every time. The reason I mention this is because quoting more encourages a response to a full thought, rather than a fragment of one, it also puts things into context for others who may just be entering the debate on a new page. Debate how you want, it just gets a little jumbled up, I have 21 different short quotes of mine in two different replies . Wait Wait, you did pull one from a prior post and rearrange a bit, plus you cut at least one of them before of the end of the sentence. Well well well, don't we mix like oil and vinegar as they say.

I'm doing another partial reply because I didn't give you an Athiest I feel did something important, or good. Even though you failed your end of the bargain, well you did half of it by giving me some examples of Christians.

I'll start with Cameron who's an Atheist, he's my best friends, friend. Before I met Chandler (my best friend), Cameron helped him out when he was homeless. Not only that, Chandler has Autism and there's a number of things he can't do, he's not good at communicating with new people, and very sensitive at times. Cameron helps him out in that area some of the time, and that's what friends do.

Neil Degrasse Tyson, if you don't know of him, think of him like a cheerleader for science, he was widely thought to be Atheist, but he came out publicly as an Agnostic. Atheist would claim him, in a sense, as their own because he's become pretty well respected. Anyway, my hunch over the years was that he leaned towards the Atheist end of things as well, so I'm including him. He's made contributions as an Astrophysicist, and Cosmetologist, but I'd say the most important thing, in my eyes, is that he's getting people involved in Science again.

As for this little challenge of yours, centered around whether or not I'm being hypocritical. I don't want an extended slugfest with you, I do at times lay into someone myself if I feel they're being unfair to someone, but I tend to redirect fast and give credit where credit is due as well. I've learned that prevents an all out derail, and plus it's just a good thing to do in my eyes.

I'm going to address this, then I'm not following up on anymore personal accusations from you, I'm sick for starters but it gets old as well. I'm not a Christian, so I'm not loyal to them, not only have I launched criticisms at them, some of the older criticisms were actually pretty mean looking back at them. I verged on Atheism myself, it's one of the reasons I know how Atheist can be, I said mean things and talked with a lot of others who said mean things, so this forum may in part be about self exploration as well. Not all Atheist are saying mean things, but it's too many, I've seen and heard a lot over the years. Looking back, I may have verged on Atheism more than I thought.

This was me back in 2006...

"God??......... well I use to believe but droped it all when I grew a brain a few years back."

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-do-you-think-about-god.3343260/page-2 Look at post #44

While not at all polished as a debater, I went on to share some fairly decent reasons, things atheist and agnostics often speak of, it got a good response. I didn't think many of the beliefs surrounding various religions were very fair, I still take issue with some of it but have come to ease up a great deal. I do believe in God now, it's not a Christian God, nor does it follow any other religion, but I wasn't as smart as I thought I was, and I was a lot more mean spirited than I thought I was. I can still be that way sometimes, but there's been progress and that's something I hope to continue. While a lot of this mindset had more to do with me, I saw many examples of similar comments as well.

I may get to more of your reply, I don't agree with your assessment of all the links I shared. With that video I shared I'll meet you halfway. Certain and corrigible are two very different words. Certain is definitive and absolute, it's not a word I'd choose if I was open to change.

By the way, I always capitalize the word God, it may not be proper but it's my way of signifying importance. Just a heads up.

 

[mikenet2006]

Once again, I think you should be thanking atheist for not treating believers the way believers have treated atheists for the past 1700 years.

Meantime ... not so much 'pushed into obscurity' but rather the reality that Christianity is just one perspective/belief of many, and that two thirds of the world disagree with it, has become public knowledge and is openly discussed. This is the first time in history that that has happened. If you've been led to believe by every measure that your point of view is the only one, and is necessarily superior and exempt from all criticism - to be reduced to 'just another easily criticised superstition' in the space of 50 short years is a significant blow. Many still can't accept it.

Some of them do though Locutus, did you see the links I shared? Joseph Stalin was brutal, he killed millions and destroyed tens of thousands of Churches and religious communities, there are more examples of these types of things than you might think.

I believe when you look back and see a lot of violence carried out by believers that part of the explanation for this is that there has always been this sweeping majority of believers, so it goes without saying that there'd be ugly things. If Atheist can be as brutal as Stalin a question to ask is what happens if Atheist do achieve a majority, the same thing that's happened for thousands of years? I'm not dismissing religious violence, it's something to be taken seriously but it's a very dynamic situation, the bigger picture and question is why are we doing this as a species, and can it be changed? My fear is that unless everybody believes the same thing then it won't change. Hitler took a stab achieving that and we saw how that turned out.

 

[Moral Orel]

@mikenet2006
I'm sorry you're not feeling well, I really am. My sister in law has fibromyalgia so I'm familiar with how painful that must be for you. And if that is having an impact on how you are receiving my posts, or if my posts are having a negative impact on your current condition, you might want to take some time away from the boards. Or at least away from me, as I am sure I will only aggravate you further. That being said, you might want to stop reading right here and give it some time before you continue to engage with me.

I'm sorry that my posting style doesn't make things easier for you to follow. It seems pretty standard for long posts as far as these boards are concerned, so you might want to start getting used to it now. If that is what the trouble is behind you not being able to follow my argument, then I'll stop doing it. It isn't necessary for me, it is supposed to help you know exactly which part of your post I am referring to and to let you know that I read it closely. As for me chopping up your replies and snatching things from old posts, well, you told me to refer to them, so I don't know what the problem is. I gave you credit for evolving your position to atheists hating God in a roundabout way. It's still wrong, but I guess it's better than saying we directly hate God. So what part of your sentence did I cut off that made all of this so reasonable?

I'll point out my own grammar in terms of God and gods. God is the name of the Christian god. I'll capitalize "God" when I refer to Him, as well as pronouns just like I did there. When I speak of a nondescript god, I won't capitalize it just like you wouldn't when you talk about the Roman gods or when the Bible calls humans "gods". I am very careful with my capitalizations, so you can be near certain exactly who I am talking about when I use the words "God" or "god". If Christians didn't name their god "God" then I would be happy to capitalize it all of the time, but the way I do it can clear up confusion. As an example, I am much closer to certain that there is no God than that there is no god. The Christian God is described in a contradictory manner, and therefore it is easy to conclude that He does not exist, at least not in the way that many of them have determined He does. Perhaps the authors of the Bible did encounter the divine who attempted to guide them, but they wrote it down wrong. However, there being a god is no less probable (and no more probable) than any other theory we have about what happened before the Big Bang. You can't put statistical probabilities on something you know next to nothing about, it just isn't calculable.

I apparently didn't respond to your "deal" properly because, as I stated when I attempted, I didn't understand what you meant. Your snide remarks at my failed attempt to honestly answer a question you vaguely phrased is well noted, however. I don't understand what's wrong with my reply, though. The Pope isn't good enough for you? His liberal attitude hasn't invoked enough thought about social change for you? I still don't see the point though. Am I supposed to think that you don't make sweeping generalizations about entire groups because you pick out a few folks that you consider to be good apples and say, "Hey, there are just a few really great exceptions"? Is that really how you attempt to prove that? How about instead you acknowledge that atheists come from a lot of different places, from a lot of different backgrounds, with a lot of different beliefs, with a lot of different attitudes, and a lot of different temperaments, and the only thing you can say they have in common is a lack of belief in one thing. You want to make these sweeping generalizations based mostly on comments you read on the Internet? It's the Internet, bro, take it with a grain of salt. Almost everyone who has something to say on the Internet is going to be more militant than the average person no matter what it is they feel the need to speak up about.

Your other biggest source is yourself since you used to kind of be an atheist? Really? You don't think that has anything to do with projection, do you? Since now that you are a theist you're accusing other atheists of doing what you used to do and of having feelings that you apparently used to have? I read your old posts that you linked, too. You start in at #31, not #44 though, by the way. And you did the exact same thing back then that you're doing now. You over generalized all theists by stating what they believe, offered the tiniest bit of concession by saying there's assuredly some outliers, and then backed it up some more with the relatively minuscule amount of theists that you have known in your life. You just switched sides now that you're a theist, and now you want to attack atheists. Now that you're on the "other team" of course you're going to notice more posts that say you're wrong in a derisive manner, and you're not going to notice all the posts by Christians that tell the rest of us we're antichrists and fools and heathens and vile and a plague and on and on and on.

You shouldn't be considering my calling your statements and your argument "hypocritical" a personal attack. Don't be so defensive. I didn't call you a hypocrite because I have no idea about you and your personal life or beliefs beyond this thread. That being said, your argument is hypocritical in that it makes sweeping generalizations about a group claiming that they do exactly what you are doing right now: looking at a few bad apples and calling it all nasty. In short, your actions are hypocritical, not your beliefs in who is right or wrong. You can't accuse all atheists of hating God because you have encountered a tiny fraction of them, and misunderstood the vast majority of the ones you did encounter I might add.

Also, the guy in the video that you were so sure proved to me that atheists are certain of there being no god said no such thing. How you would use the word "certain" matters not one bit if he explains how he is using it. And he explained that how he is using it means that he is always open to hear evidence, he just isn't changing his life in any way. Remember, context.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I was recently on Youtube leaving a reply to a video which suggested teaching creationism is bad for children. I'm not religious, but I do believe in God. I had said that nothing should be forced on a child, including evolution. I've always found freedom of thought to be important but I was respectful when I left the comment.

I soon got some ugly comments for the message I had left, I also notice this with others as well, a very harsh attitude for those who believe. I see this in the media with celebrities such as Bill Maher too, it seems pretty common.

Atheist say that they can't hate what they don't believe, but I know many of them do. Many people don't believe in God anymore these days so they seem to have the upper hand already, it makes it hard to understand. I've always had a problem understanding those who are not okay with others having beliefs that are different. Any ideas, or thoughts?

I hate unicorns, leprechauns and graviton fairies.

I wanted to add a thought to the opening post, the idea behind hating something you don't believe in is something I believe can make sense if someone hates the ideas behind something, and the people associated with it. That's what this is about, hatred directed at believers and what they believe. It seems to be directed at peaceful and productive believers much of the time.

As far as more extreme examples of hate goes, beyond Youtube, first off I think Youtube is very revealing in the sense that it's not moderated, and by being separated from those who they're insulting it makes it possible to say anything without consequences. Some of the behaviours surrounding social media is something I plan to write about extensively actually, but if you need more extreme examples of what's hateful beyond that, you're welcome to ask or read some of the replies I've done here. Not all Atheist do this but I feel there is a movement to damage faith-based communities.

Did you also notice that hatred from theists towards atheists?

 

[rjs330]

People who give in to a particular temptation more then once aren't Christians? I think you'll find that isn't accepted by many other Christians.

You misuderstand the scriptures and I probably didn't clarify here so it's my mistake. Let me boil it down,as best I can. As a beliver in Christ we are a new,creation and sin no longer has power over us. However because we are still human temptation can come our way. At that point we can give in to it or not. So for a believer it is even more of a choice than a non-believer because we have the power of Christ in us to defeat temptation. But what happens when we give in? Well we repent and ask God for forgiveness and he forgives us our sin. But what happens when we keep sinning over and over again? The bible talks about a hardness of heart and a seared conscience. Perpetual sin leads us away from God and we stop repenting and stop asking for forgiveness and get a hardened heart towards God and the things of God. Eventually walking away from God. And as the Bible says there remains no more forgiveness of sin. When that occurs exactly is between that person and God. But bottom line is eventually that person is no longer a,believer. Some denominations would say they never were.

The bible also talks about excommunication of unrepentant sinners in a church, as Cadet noted apparently some churches have excommunicated the abused for divorcing the abuser while doing nothing to the abuser. Which I,honestly don't understand at all given what the Bible says about abuse being sinful and obviously in violation of the commands to love each other and how husbands are to treat their wives.

So I guess what I am trying to say that consistent, repetitive sin leads to an unrepentant hardened heart which will lead us away from God and being no longer a believer. I think most Christians will agree to this. As I said some may even say the person was never saved in the first place.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Locutus]

Some of them do though Locutus, did you see the links I shared? Joseph Stalin was brutal, he killed millions and destroyed tens of thousands of Churches and religious communities, there are more examples of these types of things than you might think.

.

If you want to give weight to your argument that atheists currently mistreat believers (which is after all, what you were suggesting), you'll need to use as your example actual current atheists, not last century's lunatics. As in, ordinary, emancipated, superstition-free peoples in democratic nations. As in, Norwegians, Swedes, Australians, Brits, New Zealanders, Danish, etc.

 

[Locutus]

I believe when you look back and see a lot of violence carried out by believers that part of the explanation for this is that there has always been this sweeping majority of believers, so it goes without saying that there'd be ugly things. If Atheist can be as brutal as Stalin a question to ask is what happens if Atheist do achieve a majority, the same thing that's happened for thousands of years? .

Stalin (and the North Korean loons) was a despot who took advantage of a highly superstitious and religious peoples to usurp their faith and replace it with himself as godhead. That is about as un-atheist as it gets.

The reality of an atheist majority can be seen in Scandinavia, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc. Since they are demonstrably the least violent and most socially healthy nations on earth, I will respectfully assume you've not made it your business to look into this, and are relying upon antiquated tropes. Either that, or the reality that secular nations are doing it better is too brutal to accommodate.

 

[Oafman]

If Atheist can be as brutal as Stalin

Religious people can be as brutal as Stalin. Atheists can be as brutal as the Spanish inquisition, or as ISIS.

Good people are good people, whether religious are atheist. Bad people are bad people, whether religious or atheist.

 

[rjs330]

Stalin (and the North Korean loons) was a despot who took advantage of a highly superstitious and religious peoples to usurp their faith and replace it with himself as godhead. That is about as un-atheist as it gets.

The reality of an atheist majority can be seen in Scandinavia, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc. Since they are demonstrably the least violent and most socially healthy nations on earth, I will respectfully assume you've not made it your business to look into this, and are relying upon antiquated tropes. Either that, or the reality that secular nations are doing it better is too brutal to accommodate.

I'm not sure where you get your stats,but the last stats I saw arhiests were not a majority in a,lot of those countries you mentioned. Including the UK which only had about 15%. China and Japan have very high atheist population.

As far as who's persecuting who these days it's the atheistic countries and Muslim countries who are doing the persecuting. China and North Korea are the two major atheistic countries persecuting Christians. The rest of the counties persecuting Christians are Muslim. The countries persecuting atheists these days are Muslim. Your ire ought to be directed where it belongs. Towards Muslims where the real persecution is.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Eudaimonist]

The countries persecuting atheists these days are Muslim. Your ire ought to be directed where it belongs. Towards Muslims where the real persecution is.

Atheists aren't persecuted in the America, but they are stigmatized. That is a cause for concern, even if it is worse elsewhere in the world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[mikenet2006]

@mikenet2006
I'm sorry you're not feeling well, I really am. My sister in law has fibromyalgia so I'm familiar with how painful that must be for you. And if that is having an impact on how you are receiving my posts, or if my posts are having a negative impact on your current condition, you might want to take some time away from the boards. Or at least away from me, as I am sure I will only aggravate you further. That being said, you might want to stop reading right here and give it some time before you continue to engage with me.

I'm sorry that my posting style doesn't make things easier for you to follow. It seems pretty standard for long posts as far as these boards are concerned, so you might want to start getting used to it now. If that is what the trouble is behind you not being able to follow my argument, then I'll stop doing it. It isn't necessary for me, it is supposed to help you know exactly which part of your post I am referring to and to let you know that I read it closely. As for me chopping up your replies and snatching things from old posts, well, you told me to refer to them, so I don't know what the problem is. I gave you credit for evolving your position to atheists hating God in a roundabout way. It's still wrong, but I guess it's better than saying we directly hate God. So what part of your sentence did I cut off that made all of this so reasonable?

I'll point out my own grammar in terms of God and gods. God is the name of the Christian god. I'll capitalize "God" when I refer to Him, as well as pronouns just like I did there. When I speak of a nondescript god, I won't capitalize it just like you wouldn't when you talk about the Roman gods or when the Bible calls humans "gods". I am very careful with my capitalizations, so you can be near certain exactly who I am talking about when I use the words "God" or "god". If Christians didn't name their god "God" then I would be happy to capitalize it all of the time, but the way I do it can clear up confusion. As an example, I am much closer to certain that there is no God than that there is no god. The Christian God is described in a contradictory manner, and therefore it is easy to conclude that He does not exist, at least not in the way that many of them have determined He does. Perhaps the authors of the Bible did encounter the divine who attempted to guide them, but they wrote it down wrong. However, there being a god is no less probable (and no more probable) than any other theory we have about what happened before the Big Bang. You can't put statistical probabilities on something you know next to nothing about, it just isn't calculable.

I apparently didn't respond to your "deal" properly because, as I stated when I attempted, I didn't understand what you meant. Your snide remarks at my failed attempt to honestly answer a question you vaguely phrased is well noted, however. I don't understand what's wrong with my reply, though. The Pope isn't good enough for you? His liberal attitude hasn't invoked enough thought about social change for you? I still don't see the point though. Am I supposed to think that you don't make sweeping generalizations about entire groups because you pick out a few folks that you consider to be good apples and say, "Hey, there are just a few really great exceptions"? Is that really how you attempt to prove that? How about instead you acknowledge that atheists come from a lot of different places, from a lot of different backgrounds, with a lot of different beliefs, with a lot of different attitudes, and a lot of different temperaments, and the only thing you can say they have in common is a lack of belief in one thing. You want to make these sweeping generalizations based mostly on comments you read on the Internet? It's the Internet, bro, take it with a grain of salt. Almost everyone who has something to say on the Internet is going to be more militant than the average person no matter what it is they feel the need to speak up about.

Your other biggest source is yourself since you used to kind of be an atheist? Really? You don't think that has anything to do with projection, do you? Since now that you are a theist you're accusing other atheists of doing what you used to do and of having feelings that you apparently used to have? I read your old posts that you linked, too. You start in at #31, not #44 though, by the way. And you did the exact same thing back then that you're doing now. You over generalized all theists by stating what they believe, offered the tiniest bit of concession by saying there's assuredly some outliers, and then backed it up some more with the relatively minuscule amount of theists that you have known in your life. You just switched sides now that you're a theist, and now you want to attack atheists. Now that you're on the "other team" of course you're going to notice more posts that say you're wrong in a derisive manner, and you're not going to notice all the posts by Christians that tell the rest of us we're antichrists and fools and heathens and vile and a plague and on and on and on.

You shouldn't be considering my calling your statements and your argument "hypocritical" a personal attack. Don't be so defensive. I didn't call you a hypocrite because I have no idea about you and your personal life or beliefs beyond this thread. That being said, your argument is hypocritical in that it makes sweeping generalizations about a group claiming that they do exactly what you are doing right now: looking at a few bad apples and calling it all nasty. In short, your actions are hypocritical, not your beliefs in who is right or wrong. You can't accuse all atheists of hating God because you have encountered a tiny fraction of them, and misunderstood the vast majority of the ones you did encounter I might add.

Also, the guy in the video that you were so sure proved to me that atheists are certain of there being no god said no such thing. How you would use the word "certain" matters not one bit if he explains how he is using it. And he explained that how he is using it means that he is always open to hear evidence, he just isn't changing his life in any way. Remember, context.

First off thanks for the gesture, it's the fibromyalgia along with something else internal, so it's a one two punch that's testing my pain threshold, I can't sit for long, along with other things being hard. I had to leave my apartment to stay with family for a bit until this passes, or we find out what's going on.

I appreciate your point of view on my writings in the manner in which you're approaching me now, well you're still throwing out accusations on personal credibility, but it's a little better. That's the risk you take when you're transparent, whether they're right or wrong someone will always find that flaw to exploit in the character of another. When you threw my Joseph Stalin comment directly after I said it's important to be fair, I believe it was disingenuous given I have said that he's not an accurate representation of all Atheist. I'm being critical but I think if you look a little closer you'll see that I am making that distinction, you've gone from the hypocrisy argument to the generalizing argument now.

I tend to be given credit from others for not doing that much of the time, which I could also give substantiation for from my primary debate site, this is something I've worked on for a few years now, but if your approach is to debunk arguments by going after personal credibility then this will just keep going. Of course I know that not all atheist fit a negative stereotype, but there is the group who push their view onto the Religious and pick apart at what they believe, very similar to what the Religious have done in some cases. Looking through this thread you'll see a lot of comments of posters doing a little bit of grouping together or generalizing. For example look at post #100 where you say...

"most religious people will say there is "no doubt"" "The vast majority of atheists are fine with saying "I don't know" "

I could very easily take this and turn it back on you. You may say, you left a little leeway, then again I do as well the vast majority of the time.

Look at post #131 where Locutus says...

"Once again, I think you should be thanking atheist for not treating believers the way believers have treated atheists for the past 1700 years."

He didn't say some of the Religious are doing this, or many of them do it, he's referring to believers as a group, now it may very well be that he knows it's not all of them, it does kind of drag out an argument if you elaborate every time. Having said that I think it's a good thing to do, and I usually do make distinctions, it's one of the reasons my writings are so long, I put a lot of thought into them. In short please don't hold me up to standards that others aren't meeting, sometimes I will give the short version, but more often than not I elaborate. You failed the deal because it was a two parter, on the first part you did fine, you gave an example of a Christian doing a good or important thing (pretty straight forward) the second part was...

"If you can do this without trying to snip this post apart, or telling me what my motivations are, then I'll give an example of Atheist who I feel the same way about because I feel there are good examples."

You're still laying into my character and that's why you failed. You do okay at sharing some interesting info, but the personal stuff is just going to go around in a loop. I know what I'm talking about here, I see it happen all the time. As I said, I'll comment about someone if I think they're being unfair to someone else, but I try to redirect fast and that's what that challenge was all about, acknowledging the good in those you disagree with and stepping away from the personal stuff. I may come on strong in debates at times but I'm also reasonable.

I think in part what prompted me to do this thread is that I believe nationally we're looking at a situation where the Religious are already well exposed for some of their wrongs and hypocrisies. I consider it very probable that the progressive movement is doing a better job of sticking it to the opposition. Progressive doesn't mean Atheist, but I'd say there's a strong anti-religious element within that's winning the battle.

The question I ask is, is this movement as tolerant and open minded as many within the movement claim? From my experience I don't see it, I think they're very similar in terms of temperament and level of acceptance for others, the difference is that their lack of acceptance is directed at another group, mainly the conservative movement and its ties to religion and traditional values. It's a two-way street with cars flying in each direction, who's more aggressive right now? Well I have my ideas, you may feel differently and that's the way it goes I suppose.

I'll concede on the video I shared, I think the wording is contradictory but I'll let that one go. On the other links I shared, I think they demonstrate there are Atheist who are okay with being certain, having very little doubt or no doubt. I appreciate you trying to differentiate between God and god but regardless the link verified my point. I'd agree that some of the negative energy is more aimed at Religions such as Christianity, but there's no proof for any God or god so I could see how at least some of that doubt or certainty could be aimed at god as well. I'd like to find a poll for that and find some more info, the best I found for now is a Pew research poll showing a very small amount of Atheist who believe in a universal spirit, and more people saying they're 100% sure there's no God, not all of whom capitalize it.

Diverse group but by definition and by practice I think it's apparent that Atheist do tend to lean more towards being closed on the subject and it's obvious that some of them are closed entirely, unless to their surprise something slapped them in the face. Perhaps the ones with the most bragging rights for being open minded are neither Religious or Atheist, I'd give more credit to Agnostics as far as this goes. I saw one Atheist joking around that he'll believe in God if God comes down and shakes his hand, God or god isn't going to do that if it hasn't been done yet, so that about wraps that one up if that's the kind of evidence they need. The overall point is that many Atheist are near certain or certain and I believe it holds up just fine. How many are like this? Well that's up in the air but like I said, "no doubt" is terminology I've heard Atheist use a great deal.

https://www.quora.com/How-sure-are-you-that-there-is-or-isnt-a-God