Why are Atheist angry at believes?

[woodguard]

Something I have noticed that some atheist are very angry and look down at believers.
Do we believers threaten then in some way ? :confused:

I find this odd, I have seen few believers affected but atheists.

I also see many atheist who understand and respect believers.

Some atheist reject god, not his/her existence.

If you reject God then you believe in God.

[JAR]

That a portion of the atheists would be angry at believers and that a portion of the atheists would not be angry at believers is exactly what one would expect would be the case.

One would also expect that a portion of the believers would be angry at atheists and that a portion of the believers would not be angry at atheists.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by woodguard

If you reject God then you believe in God.

What inference will you draw from the response
"There is no credible evidence for god outside of human belief"?
I am no more angry at zealots than I am at anyone contigent upon their social behavior.

[Man of jade]

I would have to agree that at a few, but definitely not all atheists appear to look downon theists/theism. Many/Most, do not.

Just one thing woodguard... Atheists dont believe in God. Rejecting and not believing in the first place are rather different.

[woodguard]

Originally posted by Man of jade

Just one thing woodguard... Atheists dont believe in God. Rejecting and not believing in the first place are rather different.


I know, a true atheists does not accept the existence of God. And I can see their logic.

But some people who reject God call themselves atheists, and they are wrong.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by woodguard
Something I have noticed that some atheist are very angry and look down at believers.

I find the opposite is true. Since we are obviously under Satans' spell and going to 'hell', believers are told to stay away from us. That's why I don't casually talk at work about being an atheist - because who knows...I may lose my job, because my Xian boss cannot abide by me!

Do we believers threaten then in some way ?

Amaze would be a better word

I find this odd, I have seen few believers affected but atheists.

Then you haven't seen the xians I've had foaming at the mouth trying to explain their position. (It's comical when the atheist knows more about the bible then the xian)

Some atheist reject god, not his/her existence.

I have never heard of an atheist believing in god ...and yet denying his authority.

[woodguard]

I am a believer because that is the way my brain is wired.
Good or bad I believe in something without logic.

First rule of life know yourself?


I hit the 50 post mark , is my avatar showing :eek:

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by woodguard
Good or bad I believe in something without logic.

Then don't expect us to take you seriously.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by woodguard



I know, a true atheists does not accept the existence of God. And I can see their logic.

But some people who reject God call themselves atheists, and they are wrong.
That is true. Some who call themselves atheists are actually antitheists (they believe in God, but don't like Him), however I know very few of those. It has also been said by many (mostly Christians) that not all people who call themselves Christian actually are. I'm not sure if that is true or not, since there is no general agreement on what exactly it takes to be a Christian. It would be pretty hard to show, though, that a person who claims they are a theist is not actually a theist.

But there are a lot of angry atheists out there (especially in the US). Many have been demonized, persecuted and slandered for all of their lives. Many (including myself) don't dare reveal our beliefs to our employers or co-workers. I used to be angry too, but I got over it. Now I'm just sardonic. ;)

[JAR]

Originally posted by woodguard
I hit the 50 post mark , is my avatar showing :eek:
Yes, it is.

[woodguard]

Can you control what you believe?

I know you can deny something you believe but can you stop it?

[jj]

Originally posted by woodguard
Something I have noticed that some atheist are very angry and look down at believers.


OOGA
OOGA
STRAW MAN WARNING!


Woodgard, just about all the athiests I know are ONLY disgusted with the people who try to shove religion down their throats.

Let me ask you: Why do thiests get so angry when they hear about an athiest?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by woodguard
Can you control what you believe?

I know you can deny something you believe but can you stop it?
You can become educated. I doubt all your beliefs today are what they were 5 years ago ("beliefs" writ broadly--likes, dislikes, etc.)

Five years from now, who knows what your beliefs will be like?

My journey from born-again to atheist took roughly 5 years.

Can you control what you believe? You can, to some extent, control the arguments you are exposed to (by coming here or not, for instance :D ). Your beliefs will change over time; the extent to which you control the direction this change takes? That is up to you.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by woodguard
Something I have noticed that some atheist are very angry and look down at believers.
Do we believers threaten then in some way ? :confused:

I find this odd, I have seen few believers affected but atheists.

I also see many atheist who understand and respect believers.

Some atheist reject god, not his/her existence.

If you reject God then you believe in God.

I am a believer, albeit of the *liberal* sort, but I have encountered only one atheist on here who was angry at me, and he was just a hurting young man who is no longer on here.

The truth is, I find myself getting more angry than atheists at some things believers promote. Sometimes, I am surprised by how tolerant atheist can be over certain issues that I am irritated about.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Tricky

But there are a lot of angry atheists out there (especially in the US). Many have been demonized, persecuted and slandered for all of their lives. Many (including myself) don't dare reveal our beliefs to our employers or co-workers.

This bugs the snot out of me. Something needs to be done. It's major discrimination to persecute, slander , or fire someone from a job just because they are atheist.

Sorry. I'll shut up now and stop derailing the topic at hand!

[rustypouch]

I have very little problem with what peole want to believe. It does frustrate me to see what some do con themselves into thinking and how dogmatic they can be about their delusions. I might think they are fooish, but that's their descision to make. I get angry and offended when complete strangers insult me for not partaking in the idea that there is an invisible sky daddy who started it all and is looking out for each one of us.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ruby

The truth is, I find myself getting more angry than atheists at some things believers promote. Sometimes, I am surprised by how tolerant atheist can be over certain issues that I am irritated about.

Well, I've often wondered what kind of brotherly love we see in some of our most prominent evangelical "Christians".

It's not like I didn't study the religion, you know. I did. I didn't find very many places in the new Testament where it said "lie about your opponents, manipulate people into discrimination, economic retaliation, and sometimes jail", and so on. Actually I don't recall any in the new testament.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Ruby
This bugs the snot out of me. Something needs to be done. It's major discrimination to persecute, slander , or fire someone from a job just because they are atheist.

Well, you don't have to persecute or fire someone "just because they're an atheist". There are so many excuses to do all of the above.

"Not a team player."
"Unsatisfactory {fill in the blank}."
"We just needed to let someone go. It was you."

Prove it wasn't.

This topic merely harkens back to the "Smart people think they have a right to be mean" thread... but I'm easy.

Basically, it's very simple. I'll try a few simple examples to illustrate my point.


We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.
-- James Watt (Former Secretary of the Interior, under Reagan)


Ah, the doomsday mentality. Screw the whole planet, Jesus is comming any day now, so it doesn't matter.


No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.
-- George Bush, to a reporter in 1988, while serving as vice-president and running for President


Apparently, it's un-American to be an atheist. Naturally, if we substitute 'blacks' or 'jews' into the quote, it would be a career ending quote, rather than a career enhancing one.


I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. But freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, there is a better way.
-- Al Gore, speech at a Salvation Army drug rehabilitation center in Atlanta, Georgia, May, 1999, quoted from AANEWS #808 by American Atheists, August 28, 2000


Another lovely vice-presidential quote. I wonder how many religions are not "good enough" for Algore?


We know that the Constitution wisely separates church from state, but remember: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
-- Joseph Lieberman, campaign speech at Fellowship Chapel, Detroit, August 27, 2000, quoted from AANEWS #808 by American Atheists, August 28, 2000


What is it with vice presidents? It seems like a requirement or something that they make a remark like this.


I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist, [but America's] secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture ... the result is not good.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, backpedaling amidst criticism of his statement blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, quoted from John F. Harris, "God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)


I see. It wasn't *really* religious people that hijacked airplanes and crashed them into buildings, it was ultimately the fault of people not believing in his gods.

Then there's the whole "School Prayer" thing that comes up every so often.
http://www.schoolprayer.com/courts/rulings.html

Most recently the high school football prayer case was essentially all about Baptists in a primarily Baptist community speaking their minds about how Mormons are cultists, and getting cheers at school events, on school property, and amplified by school equipment.
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/6_12/pages/pressure.html

Naturally, to some it's all 'atheists' fault, and they mistreat other Christians by calling them 'atheists' (alas) because nobody ever bothers to read up on the background to this stuff.

Really, to have people believe you're pure "evil" for not believing in their gods is a little petty. Interesting that they seem to respect believing in the WRONG gods far more than believing in none.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by woodguard



I know, a true atheists does not accept the existence of God. And I can see their logic.

But some people who reject God call themselves atheists, and they are wrong.

A buddy of mine calls 'em God Haters. I think it's appropraite. Some atheists out there are furious at what happened to them growing up in Church ('the' Church, a church, whatever) that they channel all that anger towards a being they claim they don't believe in. No matter how many times they claim they don't believe, statements like "God Kills Babies" or "God Oppresses Women" are not the sign of someone referring to a religion that developed around said deity - they're clearly referring to said deity.

There aren't as many as the internet sometimes makes it seem though. Most atheists simply don't believe.

[JoxterTheMighty]

I was impressed once by a co-worker who was a devout believer (Xtian) who found out I was an "unbeliever". We had a great working relationship and had an unwritten agreement to not discuss or even bring up the subject. She impressed me quite a lot with her tolerance. Others just didnt give a darn or were too involved in thier own little world to even notice outsiders. If I had not been married and she also married, something might have happened :p

-Joxter-

[Yahweh]

Something I have noticed that some atheist are very angry and look down at believers.
Do we believers threaten then in some way ?

Well... I guess I would fall into the catergory of atheists whoe are "angry at believers". Although on these message boards I tend to hold myself back quite a bit, I really really pushes me over the edge when someone tells me that I am the one with illfounded beliefs for being an atheist. I hate all nonsense and ignorami.


I find this odd, I have seen few believers affected but atheists.

Any psychologist can tell you that if a persons beliefs are rooted deeply enough or formed early enough during the frail years of youth then they may become almost entirely diluted and fullheartedly believe in the nonsense that they spew out of there mouths.


I also see many atheist who understand and respect believers.
[quote]
Yeah, that would be me most of the time. Until they tell me something like "Why dont you just accept Jesus as your lord and savior"... thats when all that respect I have for them gets scorched out my head, and then I lose all impulse control... and I cant help the things I say when I'm like that. Mostly I try to tolerate about everything I can.

[quote]
Some atheist reject god, not his/her existence.

Well then... they arent exactly atheists are they. They would most likely be some member Satanism (not LaVeyism but the ones where they worship the devil... or just one that rejects god). Sure, if a person rejects god (by the way that is a cliche that has lost all meaning) then they might call themselves atheists to get away from scary words like "Satanist". No atheist believes in god, the existance of god, etc.


If you reject God then you believe in God.

Its against my nature to really 'attack' people when they say things like that. But seriously... how old are you... 15... 15 1/2 which makes you 16 by technicallity. I would define athiest to be more along the lines "One who rejects religion". It makes it more broad. Atheists are fellas who just happen to not believe that there is anything supernatural or sorts. They tend to be pretty logical and also reject "faith" as a means of logic. They like to know how and why things work the way they do. Rejecting god does not make you an atheist. Rejecting claims of the supernatural and faith does.

For me at least, I was raised in a very religious home. We went to a Baptist church every Sunday. I never went by choice. I just couldnt grasp onto a few things that were taught to me from the bible and being presented to me as factual historical accounts.
"Phil, there is an invisible man in the clouds who knows what you are thinking and he can see everything in the whole wide world and if you dont believe in him then you are going to go to hell."
Mommy, I dont believe in Hell.
"Well then it is Satan playing with your brain. He makes you not believe in God. Do you believe in Santa Claus. Everytime you say that you dont believe in Santa Claus he gives you one less gift, Philly."
I dont believe in Santa either.
"Oops, thats one less gift for you. Do you know how a car engine works."
No.
"But you believe in them dont you."
Yeah because I can see them.
"You cant see the wind but you know its there because you can see how it bends trees. Just like god, you cant see him but you can see that he made the earth"

It was for years that logic like that messed me up. I always had to figure out the way things worked. And I kept trying to prove to myself that god was real. Never worked... I really had a hard time with that talking flaming bush story. I learned not to take the bible literally. I didnt know that there was a such thing as atheist until I got older. I remember in the 5th grade I had said something like "I dont believe in god" and my teacher told me "Thats bad." I told that I was bad because I didnt believe in god. I guess it was little things like that made me 'angry' at Christians. Its little things that make me mad. I read about an article on Beliefnet about a boy who risked being thrown out of the boyscouts for being an atheist. Apparently there is some prerequisite on the Boyscout Application Form that says that you must believe in some form of Supreme Divinity or your outta here. Little things like that piss me off.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by woodguard

Do we believers threaten then in some way ? :confused:


Somebody should point woodguard to Foodbunny's post.

(Note: Foodbunny is one of our favorite posters here... several months ago, she posted a history of things that happened to her while she was growing up as an athiest in a deeply religious part of the country... The local minister told his daughter that athiests like foodbunny should be "treated like a dog"; she was regularly beaten up in school, and those actions were ignored by the teachers.)

So yes, some believers threaten athiests.

(anyone have a link to her post?)
Originally posted by woodguard


Some atheist reject god, not his/her existence.

If you reject God then you believe in God.

Bad definition... the term "Atheist" means that you do not believe in the existance of a god/gods.. it does not mean that you belive in one but reject it. (You can call something a 'dog' if you want, but if it has whiskers and goes 'meow', then you don't have a dog, you have a cat... similarly, someone can call themselves 'athiest', but if they believe in a god, but reject him, they are not athiest, but something else entirely.)

[Ladewig]

Believers in the U.S. are more vehement than believers in other industrialized countries. In the 200 years of the U.S. Supreme Court's history, only one case generated more death threats than the school prayer case. I am frightened by people who read the Bible and interpret it in such a way as to allow the making death threats against public officials.

I am bothered by the amount of resources that are wasted fighting people who want creationism taught in public schools.

[Martin]

As requested, Foodbunny's post (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7822).

For what it's worth, here's my opinion -

Some believers hold the position that people I loved, who I cared about more than anything in the world, and who brightened my life beyond measure, are now suffering unimaginable, endless torture, for no crime other than critical thinking. They believe that this is a good thing - that it is the way the world should work, and that my loved ones deserve this. They believe that this is justice.

Well, fsck them. If I were in charge, the only people I would even consider for such a despicable fate would be those who can worship a deity that would inflict that on others.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Martinm
For what it's worth, here's my opinion -

Some believers hold the position that people I loved, who I cared about more than anything in the world, and who brightened my life beyond measure, are now suffering unimaginable, endless torture, for no crime other than critical thinking. They believe that this is a good thing - that it is the way the world should work, and that my loved ones deserve this. They believe that this is justice.

Well, fsck them. If I were in charge, the only people I would even consider for such a despicable fate would be those who can worship a deity that would inflict that on others.

Oddly enough, it is the fear that someone they love might be in hell that is oddly, and to tell the truth, sorta weirdly endearing to some of the more compassionate, accepting, open minded Christians that I know.

The flip side of course is what you mention, yet oddly enough, it again makes me... not accepting, but just not pissed off at their beliefs because again, it's never the compassionate, accepting, open-minded ones who express that 'tude. Let me give you an example from IRL.

I've mentioned before my Orthodox Christian friend who is very skeptical. He and I laugh, nearly 7 years later, at the thought of this stupid fundy who, after having an argument with me about EVILution, started cackling like a fat stupid hen saying, "You'll see.. you'll see..." My buddy to this day, when ever we discuss stupid creduloid fundies imitates her, "You'll see... you'll see..." and we both laugh our asses off.

An Orthodox Deacon and an Atheist laughing their asses off at a stupid fundy... how many of you have ever had that experience? :cool:

[Ipecac]

I only became an atheist within the last couple of years, having spent some 30+ years as a Christian. While I would never attack someone for their beliefs, I am, more or less, silently angry at the religious, especially Christians.

Why am I mad? Because some Christians have a ridiculous social agenda that includes nonsense like prayer in school, enforcing religious ideas in inappropriate areas (the Pledge of Allegiance) and generally base important public policy on outdated superstition.

I'm angry because much of my family is religious and waste a great deal of time and money on nonsense. They make decisions and justify their prejudices on the Bible. They deny actual science and history in favor of one book.

I'm angry because so many people will never think critically about religion, which encourages sloppy thinking about other paranormal ideas.

I hope I'll eventually get over the anger, but right now, I don't think so.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Tricky

I used to be angry too, but I got over it. Now I'm just sardonic. ;)

Good one ;) And it kind of sums up my position. However, I don't have the same work situation. Oddly enough - over the years - I am looked upon fondly by my believing co-workers. It's as if they feel better about themselves - tolerating a non-believer as it were.

Barkhorn.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by woodguard
Something I have noticed that some atheist are very angry and look down at believers.
Not angry - but bemused - and yea there is some condescension in there because your belief system is kind of silly.


Do we believers threaten then in some way ? :confused:
Threaten?? Naw - some of you are annoying tho'.


I find this odd, I have seen few believers affected but atheists.
Probably, because of that darn "unshakable" faith that believers have in their BuyBull.



I also see many atheist who understand and respect believers.
Some I do - I can compartmentalize w/ the best of them.



If you reject God then you believe in God.

You lost me here.

Barkhorn.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
Originally posted by woodguard

If you reject God then you believe in God.

You lost me here. I think what he is saying that in rejecting God, you are acknowledging that God exists in the first place. It's along the lines of, "I know God is there, but I prefer to follow the teachings of Satan" or some such nonsense.

Most atheists, woodguard, don't believe that God exists in the first place. Essentially, we "reject" God because there isn't anything there to accept. We reject the existance, rather than the teachings.

[Dancing David]

It is not so much the concept of 'god' that people reject, although many do outright. It is the consequences of religous belief that make me mad.

But on the god thing: During the period I conceptualize as 'my recovery' I had to face the fact that some very horrible things had happened to me that were very damaging to me and caused me to try to escape from reality. During that period I also was encouraged to believe in a 'higher power', and i chose Health as mine.

Why does Evil exist? If there is a god , then besides being a supreme being they are supremely indifferent to suffering. Why should children starve to death, why should wars occur, why so much suffering.

I find it impossible to believe that god could exist and allow some much bad stuff to happen. It is much easier for me to belive that life arose as a series of fortuitous accidents and that the meaning of life is just living.

Most atheist depise the evil stuff done in the name of god.

One of my friend rejected the title of atheist because of the implied acceptance of god. He chose to be a sinetheist, or one who is without god.

Peace

[Akots]

One can certainly reject the idea or concept of God without validating it. It's a very human belief.

[Mercutio]

Thanks, Segnosaur and MartinM, for respectively requesting and posting Foodbunny's response. Wow.

My daughter was at a friend's house for dinner the other day. In the car on the way home, she said "I was a little concerned, but Lauren told them I was an atheist before they said grace, so it was okay." Having read a couple of threads here about Foodbunny-like atheist growing-up stories, I consider my family extraordinarily fortunate that we live in the community we do, and that we know the people we know. My son and daughter (14 & 12) are both known as atheists among their friends (who are many different religions and atheists). Whether times have changed (which I doubt) or it is just the live-free-or-die NH attitude, so far my kids have not had to deal with what Foodbunny had to deal with. (in fact, right now my son only has a conflict with one religious student, and--as suggested above in this thread--he knows more about her religion than she does, so I'm not worried for him...)

[ImpyTimpy]

I was brought up in an athiest household and I'm still an athiest. I went to a school with a lot of kids who believed in God so I'd often get into discussions about God and heaven. When I was really young I remember asking them where exactly does God exist and when told in heaven I'd say so why when we go into space we haven't found God there? :p

I never really gave a crap either way whether someone believed in God or not but if they wanted to convert me I'd always present my side and try and get them to look at their beliefs from a more critical point. The problem I found was with the parents of the believers - they just didn't like me. Their kids were told not to play with or near me. I was no longer allowed to stay at their houses or they stay at mine.

This was fortunetly only in the early years of my childhood but it still upset me that my ideas were somehow wrong or that questioning things was somehow evil.

So it seems to me the hatred is more on the part of believers then athiests...

[synaesthesia]

I am angry and look down upon believers because I haven't accepted Jesus into my heart.

Subsequently, he doesn't shine the light of his love into me and I am a mean, bitter, evil person.

I feel threatened by believers because if I should see the truth, all the evil deeds I commit would crush me with guilt. Thus I resist seeing the truth, that god actually exists and loves me and is hurt by my nefarious deeds.

[iankaplan]

I'm an atheist, and believers often make me sad, amazed, and sometimes a little angry.

I am angry at believers because they arrogant. Of course, they're angry at me because I am arrogant.

I am amazed at believers because they put fish on their cars without realizing it's an ancient pagan symbol for the vagina.

I am amazed at people who get ash on their foreheads once a year. I am a mean person, I guess, because I always want to say, "Hey, bub, you got some schmutz on your head." Or maybe I'm not mean because I never actually have said anything remotely like that. But I want to.

I enjoy the IDEA of making believers mad by ridiculing their beliefs. BUT, I never actually do it. I guess I must have picked up some of that morality stuff that only exists in the Bible.

I have received two Bibles this year. Both times I was respectfully grateful to the giver.

So, although I am angry at believers, I seem to be nice to them and they like me. So I must be a good actor. Or maybe I'm just a nice guy with weird thoughts running through his head. I might be possessed by a demon actually.

[LW]

Originally posted by iankaplan




I am amazed at believers because they put fish on their cars without realizing it's an ancient pagan symbol for the vagina.

And swastika is an ancient lucky symbol. Are you amazed that some people think it is an evil symbol?

Christians have been used fish as their recognition symbol for over 1900 years now. I have seen no compelling (or more precisely, any) evidence that early Christians associated a sexual meaning for it.

As Freud might have said it, "Sometimes a fish is just a fish."

[jj]

Originally posted by Akots
One can certainly reject the idea or concept of God without validating it. It's a very human belief.

Here, here.

An example:

Let us say that a belief system proposes that somewhere on or in the moon is a bit of green cheese.

If one rejects that idea, howEVER is one validating it?

It's typical believer doublethink to claim otherwise.

[jj]

Originally posted by LW


And swastika is an ancient lucky symbol. Are you amazed that some people think it is an evil symbol?

Christians have been used fish as their recognition symbol for over 1900 years now. I have seen no compelling (or more precisely, any) evidence that early Christians associated a sexual meaning for it.

As Freud might have said it, "Sometimes a fish is just a fish."

Well, my fish has 2 arms, 2 legs, and holds a wrench.

[Akots]

I'm saying your NOT valdiating it by saying it's nutty.

Heck, it works both ways. A person can be Christian, without taking the word of the bible as historical fact.

[Yahzi]

woodguard
Something I have noticed that some atheist are very angry and look down at believers.
Do we believers threaten then in some way ? :confused:
Moderators, could we please have Foodbunny's post made sticky? Apparently the naivete of our Christian audience is inexhaustible.

Read this:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7822&post=173142#post173142

Oh and then you might want to read how Presidents get into trouble for calling reporters "**********," but nobody quibbles when they call atheists "non-citizens." Oh and the Crusades. And the rest of Christian history.

[Edit: I should read the entire thread before responding. Doh! Nonetheless, Foodbunny's post is so signficant I am going to leave this as it stands.]

I find this odd, I have seen few believers affected but atheists.
Because you haven't been looking.

I also see many atheist who understand and respect believers.
When was the last time you saw a believer who understood and respected athiests?

Some atheist reject god, not his/her existence.
No. The term for a person who believes in the existance of gods, but rejects your god, is "heathen" or just "a different religion." It is not atheist.

[/QUOTE]If you reject God then you believe in God. [/QUOTE]
If you reject Santa Claus, then you believe in Santa Claus. Do you believe in Santa Claus?

Can't we all just get along? Really..

"Apparently the naivete of our Christian audience is inexhaustible."

You're not helping here. Be nice. Be fair. Be tolerant.

"When was the last time you saw a believer who understood and respected athiests?"

Nor here.

"Do you believe in Santa Claus?"

Or here.


-Who

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Whodini
Can't we all just get along? Really..

"Do you believe in Santa Claus?"
Actually, I thought this was a fair comparitive example, taking the context out of religion to a more neutral topic.

[LW]

Originally posted by jj


Well, my fish has 2 arms, 2 legs, and holds a wrench.

... and sometimes a fish is not a fish.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by iankaplan
I am amazed at believers because they put fish on their cars without realizing it's an ancient pagan symbol for the vagina.


<sniff>

<sniff sniff>

I'm smelling something, and it sounds more like revisionist history than something that can be verified.

Can it be?

[evildave]

Hard to say.

A fable about some dork who got nailed to a stick and came back to life sounds a little revisionist, too.

If it's OK for the religiously afflicted to make up elaborate tales of babies born of virgins and demons driven into pigs and trees withered by a word, and to coopt the holidays and holy places of their conquered victims, why not a little speculative history of the fish as a fertility symbol? Especially when fish do appear frequently in ancient religious symbols of various kinds.

After all, if it smells like a fish....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm

[iankaplan]

My comment about the fish symbol was merely unsubstantiated hearsay. "Someone once told me so" is about all I can say. I will try to refrain from such remarks in the future.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by iankaplan
My comment about the fish symbol was merely unsubstantiated hearsay. "Someone once told me so" is about all I can say. I will try to refrain from such remarks in the future.

Thanks. No need to cut back on those sorts of things, just preface sharing them by noting it's anecdotal. I start of stuff I share with, "I saw this on TV once.." with no possible way to support it.

And Evildave, the fact that you turned my question around for yet another rabbit punch at the Christers smacks of exactly the same attitude the original poster was referring to.

Sorta...

[evildave]

Rabbit punch? Well, I don't mind taking the cheap shots here on occasion. It's recreational.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by evildave
Hard to say.

A fable about some dork who got nailed to a stick and came back to life sounds a little revisionist, too.

If it's OK for the religiously afflicted to make up elaborate tales of babies born of virgins and demons driven into pigs and trees withered by a word, and to coopt the holidays and holy places of their conquered victims, why not a little speculative history of the fish as a fertility symbol? Especially when fish do appear frequently in ancient religious symbols of various kinds.

After all, if it smells like a fish....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm
"dork who got nailed to a stick"... come on evildave. I believe the politically correct term to use is "tacked up on a 't'".

[LW]

Originally posted by evildave




If it's OK for the religiously afflicted to make up elaborate tales of babies born of virgins and demons driven into pigs and trees withered by a word, and to coopt the holidays and holy places of their conquered victims, why not a little speculative history of the fish as a fertility symbol? Especially when fish do appear frequently in ancient religious symbols of various kinds.

Well, if creators of Christian mythology are the kind of persons that you want to emulate, then feel free to do so.

But anyway, the argument on the web page is very weak and essentially it says "Pagans used fish. Christians used fish. Therefore, Christians copied fish from pagans." They quote B.G. Walker and write:

[Fish symbol] was so revered throughout the Roman empire that Christian authorities insisted on taking it over, with extensive revision of myths to deny its earlier female-genital meanings.

And what's the problem here, I hear you ask. Well, when Christians started to use fish as a recognition symbol, Christianity was a fringe cult and there weren't any "Christian authorities" at all. The fish was used already in the first century. Widespread Christian hijacking of pagan traditions began in the fourth century when the church got an official status. The Christians of the first century formed so miniscule proportion of the society that arguing that they were trying to eradicate the pagan meaning of the fish symbol sounds, well, quite fishy. And since none of the contemporary writers associate fertility rituals with early Christianity, I find it hard to believe that they would have used fish as a fertility symbol. I find independent creation much more proable hypothesis for the origins of the fish symbol.

[UnrepentantSinner]

LW, I have a thread in Banter about historical revisionism and one aspect I cover is feminist neo-paganism. This is exactly the sort of crap I was talking about.

The whole group A used rock as a building material, group B used rock as a building material, therefore group B stole rock as a building material from group A, just don't ask me to provide evidence to that fact - is the precisely the sort of creduloid action that skeptics should be fighting against...

...not embracing.

[evildave]

But after a fashion, much of archaeology and the anthropology based on it is speculation. We can come up with well documented cases for civilizations with a lot of surviving records. Egypt left a lot of stuff buried where wave upon wave of believers with hammers and matches didn't have access to it, so we discover they had a lot of gods, and even have information about what many of them were about. Other cultures which didn't have as many, or as durable records, we end up having to use records of other competing civilizations about, and get only the propaganda left over from the "winners" who survived, which are a touch biased.

For instance, just read up in the bible about the city states that were destroyed by God's holy rollers. Heathens and sinners and idolators to the last, and all killed for God's divine judgment, plan, chosen people, etc.

So, yes, the fish could be unrelated, and yes, the fish could be related. The evidence for womb/fish being 'the same word' (Delphos) in Greek (and Christianity has a lot of Greek influence), the presence of Greek gods and demigods predating the savior on a stick which have more or less the same story as him, the use of fish symbols in Roman pagan artifacts, and heavily used in Egyptian religion (which influenced the Greeks when they conquered Egypt 300 years before 'God Jr.') all of that (admittedly circumstantial) evidence could be totally unrelated to the 'fish' being adopted by Christians. Of course, all we have is "No it's not! How dare you even imply it?" as evidence from the Christians that the fish was uniquely and 'divinely' inspired to them.

Anyway, all comparisons between Christianity's symbols and other cults that used them provokes outrage, and really, provoking that sort of mindless outrage from an innocent little hypothesis is worth backing it up a little research to produce more comparisons, and it's unfortunate that so many sites don't cite where they did any of theirs, and yet more is in copyrighted/printed materials that are as yet still awkward or impossible to access on the internet.

It doesn't really matter where the fish they tacked on their car came from. (A plastic mold in a factory, actually.) It only matters that it is such fun mentioning it to them and comparing them.

Here are a few of the sites I visited with background info.
(Cool fishy amulet for Hathor)
http://www.duke.edu/~jls26/egypt.html
(The Greek Pantheon)
http://www.theoi.com/Pantheon.htm
(An interesting article about surviving documents)
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/rule.html
(Alexander the great - on a free encyclopedia)
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
(The holy database of all known gods! But apparently, their (beta) search engine is broken....)
http://www.godchecker.com/database/all_egyptian_gods.html

[Fun2BFree]

Why I call myself an Anti-theist and I do many anti-theism not against God because the whole idea is a human creation and a stupid, hateful, destructive idea. Beyond useless it is useful best as a way to hold man back...I do hate religion and religious thinking ( I hate the sin not the sinner--ok if the sinner does a really bad sin (9/11)-- I hate them too)

Religion is bad. It is anti-freedom, institutionally established arrogance, anti-reason, anti-man, anti-reality. It is a tyrrany over the mind of man. It is opiate for the masses (thank you Jefferson and Marx). IT has stood in the way of human development to its full potential.
Religion has been used to hold power over people not to free them. It dictates submission to higher power...submission to tradition not what works best but maintaining the status quo--these are the ideals--not independence, liberty, free thought--ideas whose by products are all the greatness man has achieved. In feudal times miserable peasants were kept in line by the promise of an eternal salvation that the promiser never had to pay off--no religion and those lords and kings would have been replaced far sooner in order to allow equal freedom and the Dark Ages could have been a lot shorter...who knows what a few hundred years headstart might have done for us now....it is tillused to today to keep the gullible in line for those willing to exploit the frailty of human reason.
Religion supposes that the world exists as you believe instead of as it must be proven...it is the ultimate in arrogance to suppose that something is true just based on you believing it to be so. It claims to be about love but evidence shows it is used to hate and destroy the OTHER non-believer time and again. Any claims to be about loving your fellow man are over-ridden that there is something more important than man--God...and since his existence is only in the head of the believer this allows the critical thinking (or lack thereof0 for all immoral behavior from the "troubles" of Ireland and the middle East- thru all Islamic terrorism, Christian atrocities (withchhunts, crusades, Inquisitions, etc, etc,)

It is such an insidious, ingrained and devious institution that it has taken over the very language we speak creating doublespeak to propigate and promote itself (to have faith= good, to rationalize = bad???!)

I cannot be a man in favor of our best and look at people who support such a system and not be angry.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by evildave

If it's OK for the religiously afflicted to make up elaborate tales of babies born of virgins and demons driven into pigs

Evil,

I don't know if you are aware of this, so I thought I'd pass this on in case you never heard it:

In 70 AD, the Romans sacked Jerusalem. The Roman Legion [Legion - about 2000 men] that was stationed in Jerusalem after the fall had as their symbol - represented on their Unit Flags - a pig!

Mark 5:9
And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

5:10
And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.

5:11
Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.

5:12
And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.

5:13
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

This is one of the things that let us know Mark was written after 70 AD.

[evildave]

It's an interesting interpretation, but I recommend you tell the Southern Baptist convention about it. They believe the bible is the literal word of god.

Like the Jesus fish discussions in other topics, there's no way to conclusively prove the Romans had anything to do with the demon story, and it should be pointed out that demons were universally thought to be literally real until recent centuries.

Your interpretation best supports the case for 'Jesus' being a symbol of some political trouble-makers. Sort of like the many other characters invented for other fictions to act out the political fantasies of the now long-anonymous writer, and of course, anything that would reflect that has got to be pure heresy.

[Liamo]

triadboy
Originally posted by triadboy
In 70 AD, the Romans sacked Jerusalem. The Roman Legion [Legion - about 2000 men] that was stationed in Jerusalem after the fall had as their symbol - represented on their Unit Flags - a pig!
Where did you get that figure (2000 men)? Any sources?
At the time of the Judaean revolt, the Roman Army consisted of 28 legions spread across the Empire, together with auxiliary units. Each legion was composed of about 5,500 men, all professional soldiers who signed on for terms lasting 25 years.
source (http://members.aol.com/FlJosephus2/romanArmy.htm)

Liam

"Religion is bad. It is anti-freedom,"

What about freedom of religion? You might not like believing, but not everyone is you.

You might have religion confused with politics. Tell me, how do you differentiate?

-Who

[evildave]

Well, some people mix religion in with their politics, and other people mix politics in with their religion.

Quite the mish-mash. Once someone's pissed in the lemonade, just how do you get it out?

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Liamo

Where did you get that figure (2000 men)? Any sources?

I'm sorry, I mis-wrote that. The 10th Legion was reduced to about 2000 men after Masada. This would have been the Legion that Mark wrote about.


"By 70 AD the Roman forces had taken all of Israel. Jerusalem was once again conquered by a foreign army, and the Temple was destroyed. In the end, all that remained was the rag-tag garrison atop Masada. Nevertheless, the Romans were about to find that the last hold-outs were not going to go down without a fight.

On paper, the outcome of the struggle would normally have seemed relatively certain - the Roman Tenth Legion of nearly 15,000 experienced troops (see Roman Legions), against less than 1,000 Jews, many just ordinary people with no military experience.

It took the Romans almost two years to conquer Masada, at the cost of many casualties, ..."

[BillyJoe]

Okay, you've scared him off, woodguard hasn't been seen for four days, well done lads.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by evildave
.

Quite the mish-mash. Once someone's pissed in the lemonade, just how do you get it out?

You can use catalysts to break the solution down into its' component parts.
You wouldn't have the lemonade anymore but you'd have gotten the urine out anyway.

[thaiboxerken]

Something I have noticed that some atheist are very angry and look down at believers.

Some might, but I'm not angry. I do look down upon the believers, but this is simply because I find belief in superstitions foolish. I suspect this is the same way many christians look at the voodoo practitioners as well.


Do we believers threaten then in some way ?

Everyday the christian right is trying to gain more power over the government in order to promote "morality" in accordance to christian doctrines. I find this very threatening. Texas refuses to give full rights to homosexuals, the government now gives churches money, abstinence only (christian) programs are funded by the federal gov't while sex-education programs are being taken away. A christian named Rudolf decided to take justice into his own hands. A lady drowned her kids to rid them of demons.

Yes, believers not only threaten atheists in a way, but they threaten each other based on those beliefs as well.


I find this odd, I have seen few believers affected but atheists.

You really should look at history and current events.

I also see many atheist who understand and respect believers.

This is true, there are many. I respect believers as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and don't take violent action because of them. I do not respect the beliefs, however.

Some atheist reject god, not his/her existence.

One cannot believe in a god and be atheist.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Whodini
"Religion is bad. It is anti-freedom,"

What about freedom of religion? You might not like believing, but not everyone is you.

You might have religion confused with politics. Tell me, how do you differentiate?

-Who

Where is there anything I wrote against freedom of religion? Freedom means free to make the wrong choice...as I see it religion is a wrong choice...is it so wrong that I would outlaw it? Never! I think I have made it pretty clear that I am convinced that all evidence supports the best systems for allowing man to reach his full potential are those founded on the freedom...That freedom is vital and as you can see by my name it is fun...
Religious thinkers are not free thinkers...they are not allowed to consider things freely as the evidence dictates they must conform to the religious way of thinking...always trying to make the evidence fit rather than freely following where the evidence leads...so I really don't see any basis for your question either based on anything I have written or otherwise.

[woodguard]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Okay, you've scared him off, woodguard hasn't been seen for four days, well done lads.

Hi, no I am still here. I do like to read more then write.
And I have no more dumb questions at the moment.

[Yahzi]

woodguard
Did we answer your question? Do you see now why atheists so often seem angry?

Did you read Foodbunny's post? Are you aware that it is not unique, or even rare?

[woodguard]

There is no question about most believers not angry at Atheist but out right hatred toward them.

But believers also don’t like other believers too. :(

Whenever any group of believers gets too much power they will try exterminate freedom and people, by order of God.

Personal I am not angry at Atheist.
But I do understand you a little better!

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by woodguard
There is no question about most believers not angry at Atheist but out right hatred toward them.

Whenever any group of believers gets too much power they will try exterminate freedom and people, by order of God.

Ahem... those two lines right there would seem to be sufficient reason for atheists to be angry at believers. Given that you apparently already knew these facts, one wonders why you asked the question?

So your question really is:

Why are people angry at a group that hates them and trys to enslave or exterminate them?

And the answer is:

Um. Doh?

[LW]

Originally posted by evildave
But after a fashion, much of archaeology and the anthropology based on it is speculation.

True.

So, yes, the fish could be unrelated, and yes, the fish could be related.

Yes, we agree here. They can be related and they can be unrelated. But on what to say beyond that we disagree.

The evidence for womb/fish being 'the same word' (Delphos) in Greek (and Christianity has a lot of Greek influence),

I don't know much about ancient Greek (very, very little, in fact) but I find it interesting that the English - Literary Greek (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform) dictionary of the Perseus Digital Library (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu) gives "womb" as the only translation for "delphus" and even though it finds 293 matches for "fish", not one is close to "delphus" (closest is "delkanos"). Any Greek-speakers in the house?

Likewise, I tried to google for a picture of the Diana of Ephesos who was supposed to be wearing a fish but at least all online pictures showed her multi-breasted and wearing a long dress. Things like this combined with the one quote that is clearly wrong makes me wonder the reliability of the site.

[Of course, all we have is "No it's not! How dare you even imply it?" as evidence from the Christians that the fish was uniquely and 'divinely' inspired to them.

I have been under the impression that a person presenting a claim should be the one to give supporting evidence. I think that in this case the null hypothesis is that the Christian fish is independent, and the burden of proof is on those who want to establish a link. Simply saying that "it could have happened and you can't prove otherwise" is not enough.

To reiterate, the fish symbol was around before Christianity started its campaign to assimilate pagan traditions. Its use differed in meaning from the existing symbolism. There are several "natural" explanations for fish as Christian symbol (acrostics, "fishers of men", five breads and two fish).

I think that you would be hard-pressed to come up with even one simple symbol that doesn't have any existing religious meanings at all. Consider, for example, the rainbow. An old Christian symbol for God's mercy (rather ironically, IMO, since it came just after world-devastating flood), nowadays largely affliated with homosexuals. Do you think that Gilbert Baker thought about the Christian mythology when he designed the Rainbow Flag?

It doesn't really matter where the fish they tacked on their car came from. (A plastic mold in a factory, actually.) It only matters that it is such fun mentioning it to them and comparing them.[/b]

Well, if you are into that sort of fun, why don't you also explain to them that Satan has given you a power to make miracles.

In my opinion, a much more fruitful case can be made against Christmas, since its pagan origins are undeniable.


(Alexander the great - on a free encyclopedia)
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

An interesting article, sure, but I don't see how it relates to this discussion.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Liamo

Where did you get that figure (2000 men)? Any sources?

I'm sorry, I mis-wrote that. The 10th Legion was reduced to about 2000 men after Masada. This would have been the Legion that Mark wrote about.

..about Legion numbers and the Jewish Revolt of 66CE to 73CE
1. One of the symbols of the 10th Legion was the Boar - a bit more macho than the pig - but probably as offensive to the Jews.
2. There were 4 legions involved in the siege of Jerusalem, along w/ various auxiliaries and allies. These were;
Legio V = Macedonica
Legio X = Fretensis
Legio XII = Fulminata
Legio XV = Appolinaris
3. An imperial Legion consisted of 10 cohorts, 9 of approx. 480 men each - and the 1st cohort of about 960 - nobody really knows why the 1st was twice as large as the other (oh, those crazy Romans!). W/ attached cavalry and artillery the total count was approx. 5,500, as stated earlier - at full strength.
4. The figure of 2,000 for Legio X in Jerusalem probably represents the 4 or so cohorts garrisoned in the city, as occupation duty would normally see a legion broken up and stationed among key towns in a territory.
5. Likewise the figure of 15,000 represents a - more or less - full strength Legio X w/ attached auxiliaries and allies.
6. All figures from ancient sources must be taken w/ a large grain of salt as ancient author's (here, primarily Josephus) were notorious for playing w/ the numbers to make their patrons look good.

On paper, the outcome of the struggle would normally have seemed relatively certain - the Roman Tenth Legion of nearly 15,000 experienced troops (see Roman Legions), against less than 1,000 Jews, many just ordinary people with no military experience.

It took the Romans almost two years to conquer Masada, at the cost of many casualties, ..."

Correct - the fortress of Masada - built by Herod Agrippa (yes the Herod of the bible) was a tough nut to crack as it was built on top of a mesa and was all but unapproachable. The Romans were forced to build a huge ramp so that their siege towers could be winched up to the walls. The fact that the fortress was in the middle of the desert and that the Romans had to pack in food and water to sustain 15,000 men over a 2 year period only added to Roman difficulties.

Finally, there was no pitched battle at the end as once the Roman's completed their ramp, the Zealots - realizing that there could only be one outcome - decided to commit mass suicide rather than adorn some Roman general's triumph.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[calladus]

I'm not angry at believers in general - As an atheist, (Freethinker) I tend to try to judge each person on his or her individual merits. In some case, I will lump a group of Theists together, but usually only when that group is self-identified.

I do, however, have some anger at individual theists - like the anonymous jerk that keyed my car the week I put my Darwin Fish on it.

Had that car for 3 years with no damage, didn't change any of my driving or parking habits. What a coincidence.

I think it may be more appropriate to ask why some xtians are so angry at eveyone that doesn't believe as they do?

Calladus

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Martinm
As requested, Foodbunny's post (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7822).

For what it's worth, here's my opinion -

Some believers hold the position that people I loved, who I cared about more than anything in the world, and who brightened my life beyond measure, are now suffering unimaginable, endless torture, for no crime other than critical thinking. They believe that this is a good thing - that it is the way the world should work, and that my loved ones deserve this. They believe that this is justice.

Well, fsck them. If I were in charge, the only people I would even consider for such a despicable fate would be those who can worship a deity that would inflict that on others.

My usual argument is that God apparently created me with a rational mind and the ability for critical thinking, and as a result of that ability, I do not believe God exists. To actually believe in God despite the lack of rationality would mean that I am not using my God-given gift to its full extent, which would be a sin. Thus, if God exists and is my creator, it would be a sin for me to believe it.

To address the topic, let me say it in a way that christians can understand: I'm not angry at believers, I am just angry about the things that some of them do (i.e. hate the sin, love the sinner)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by evildave
So, yes, the fish could be unrelated, and yes, the fish could be related. The evidence for womb/fish being 'the same word' (Delphos) in Greek (and Christianity has a lot of Greek influence), the presence of Greek gods and demigods predating the savior on a stick which have more or less the same story as him, the use of fish symbols in Roman pagan artifacts, and heavily used in Egyptian religion (which influenced the Greeks when they conquered Egypt 300 years before 'God Jr.') all of that (admittedly circumstantial) evidence could be totally unrelated to the 'fish' being adopted by Christians. Of course, all we have is "No it's not! How dare you even imply it?" as evidence from the Christians that the fish was uniquely and 'divinely' inspired to them.


Moreover, we have plenty of clear examples of early christians adopting pagan traditions as their own. The celebrations of Christmas and Easter, to start.

Christians borrowed heavily from pagan culture. Is it a shock to learn that they borrowed the fish symbolism, too?

[Martin]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
My usual argument is that God apparently created me with a rational mind and the ability for critical thinking, and as a result of that ability, I do not believe God exists. To actually believe in God despite the lack of rationality would mean that I am not using my God-given gift to its full extent, which would be a sin. Thus, if God exists and is my creator, it would be a sin for me to believe itIt's a good argument. Somewhat related to this one:

God, being omniscient, knows what it would take to make me believe.

God, being omnipotent, has the power to provide that.

Therefore, if God wants me to believe I will.

And yet, I don't.

Therefore, God does not want me to believe.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Martinm
It's a good argument. Somewhat related to this one:

God, being omniscient, knows what it would take to make me believe.

God, being omnipotent, has the power to provide that.

Therefore, if God wants me to believe I will.

And yet, I don't.

Therefore, God does not want me to believe.

I would modify the last sentance slightly:

Therefore, God, if he exists, doesn't want me to believe. His will be done.

Very similar to the one I gave, yes.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by calladus


I do, however, have some anger at individual theists - like the anonymous jerk that keyed my car the week I put my Darwin Fish on it.

I think it may be more appropriate to ask why some xtians are so angry at eveyone that doesn't believe as they do?

Calladus

Vandalism of that sort can be done by any generic idiot.
I'm willing to bet MOST fundies wouldn't know that symbol from another.
It's long out of date but one of my favorite bumper stickers was prevalent in the late 70's and early 80's.
"The moral majority is neither."
Short, sweet and to the point.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by calladus
I do, however, have some anger at individual theists - like the anonymous jerk that keyed my car the week I put my Darwin Fish on it.

That's why I don't put anything on my car. There's no telling what will set someone off. People get 'eat up' with strange stuff. But don't worry about that jerk - he's on his way to hell. ;-)

[Loki]

MartinM,

To the heart of the matter, as always!

------------------------------------------------

Syn,

Thanks...I needed the laugh.

[calladus]

Originally posted by justsaygnosis


Vandalism of that sort can be done by any generic idiot.
I'm willing to bet MOST fundies wouldn't know that symbol from another.
It's long out of date but one of my favorite bumper stickers was prevalent in the late 70's and early 80's.
"The moral majority is neither."
Short, sweet and to the point.

I agree, it is possible that it was just a coincidence.

MY favorite bumper sticker is usually, 'No Gods, No Masters.' But I don't dare use it here in California's bible belt. Maybe if I moved to the coast.

[LaserCool]

I'm sure there is more than one atheist who has "outright hatred" for Believers, whatever Believer means. I'm more inclined to the "hate the sin" variety as proposed above.

If my born-again sister wishes loudly that I find Jesus, I quitely chuckle. It's quaint, amusing and mostly harmless. I'm more concerned with how she raises her two kids, and what kind of f*cked-up values they will have.

But, and here's the big thing, I have unbounded hostility towards the people who justify harm towards non-Believers (there's that word again), and have the temertity to justify it with "and it's for your own good".

That sort of driving-home of the message, that the collective or God knows better what's in your interests is the part that really rankles. It's been used to justify any level of abuse from Foodbunny's example, to our good friend Rev. Phelps (the God Hates Fags guy) to the institutionalisation of racism (Jesus expounds upon how to treat a slave in the Gospels, and those ******* were just getting too uppity "for thier own good").

The FYOG message can justify anything, just as it can take away every ounce of independence from you. Somehow, devoid of God, believers think you can't possibly act FYOG. And somehow, with God, believers think not only can they manage thier own lives, but the have the duty and right to change you FYOG. The less a Believer objectively controls his own life, it seems, the more he's likely to try to control you FYOG.

The atheist is something of a cultural outlaw, and by his very existence is a reminder to the Belivers that something is fundamentally flawed in thier outlook - that somehow, mastery over aculturation, indoctrination and control were not flawless, and someone got through the cracks.

I'm amused to this end by how much the movie The Matrix, can serve as an example, but I'll leave that to you to imagine.

This leaves believers with a quandry - either listen to the atheist and see if any of his arguments are valid, or shut him out.

Believers have an inherent distrust towards reason, because it's anathema to faith in critical areas. Listening and considering reasoned critical arguments exposes a major flaw in faith, specifically the fact that the methodology of faith is not how the Universe operates.

The universe operates on the methodology of logic and causation, and reason is the only tool that humans have to understand logic and causation in any meaningful way. Therefore, faith is not sufficient to operate in the Universe.

This destroys the foundation of faith, and by extension, the foundation of the Believer.

The only alternative the Believer has is to silence, smother or diminish the atheist, not only for his own good, but for the good of the community. I've met Believers who truly felt that atheism would destroy civilization if it were allowed to be given equal space. It's FYOG run amok.

So if there's hostility from atheists, I submit it's the wary eye of someone who's had to fight the intellectual, emotional, economic and in some cases physical opression and assaults that the Belevers launch to "protect" themselves and thier interests.

[triadboy]

www.landoverbaptist.org has the best and funniest stuff

[UnrepentantSinner]

Some links on the fish story.

Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm) where evildave seems to have gotten his info.

Christianity Today (http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/features/ask/2001/oct26.html) which offers the fact that other religions used the fish would make it an obvious choice for a persecuted religion.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by woodguard
Something I have noticed that some atheist are very angry and look down at believers.
Do we believers threaten then in some way ? :confused:

I find this odd, I have seen few believers affected but atheists.

I also see many atheist who understand and respect believers.

Some atheist reject god, not his/her existence.

If you reject God then you believe in God.

Some atheists are very angry at believers, but for the most part, the atheists I know that behave so, are angry for some very valid reasons, such as having religion jammed down your throat in your government, schools and daily life.

Do believers threaten atheists? Not in the sense that we are afraid that your religion is true, but more in the sense that George Bush senior stated that atheists should be permitted to be citizens of the United States.

I don't know any atheists, and trust me I know a lot, that reject god; they (myself included) simply do not see any evidence of such a nonsensical being.