"Is knee-jerk dislike of atheists warranted? Not even close."

Oh, and Abby too!

King Dave,
Awww shucks..
*blushing athiest over here*

I wonder if the aggressively intolerent are so because they have unresolved issues about their own faith. The majority of religious people I've had contact with, feel the need for interaction with those like minded. Freedom of religion is/can be freedom from religion as well.

Dear Friend DocPhil: As you correctly pointed out, some of us religious folks do welcome all into our family of humanity, what ever their beliefs or disbelief's.

Hell is not a universally agreed upon concept or held belief. Neither is the idea that because someone believes differently than do we, something bad will happen to them. Neither is the idea that they are incomplete, deficient, or evil if they opine as we don't.

For those of us who are moderate, wherever we fall on the spectrum of opinion metaphysically, we findourselves being disrespected by the more extreme who tend to overgeneralize. This applies to believers and non-believers equally.

Please see the article Al-316 and I co-authored in religion, our columns. Digging for Truth, andThe Cherokee Lodge today. You and all here are cordially invited. Your input is welcomed.

Your Friend, Enoch.

I've been exposed to very few Atheists and Agnostics in the course of my life, as a career military man, it doesn't matter what you believe in an emergency as long as you take care of the person next to you. My greatest exposure to Atheists and Agnostics has been here on the vine and I have to say that many (not all) are very insulting to people that don't agree with them or their beliefs (or non-beliefs?). I've seen this repeatedly, much in the form of trying to start arguments with people that believe in a higher power. It's sad to see that kind of intolerance also.

I've been exposed to people like Encoh and Al316 who exemplify what I believe religion should be about and what I believe G-d wants from us. If you disagree with this, I'm fine with that, but don't stoop to insulting me because you disagree.

My greatest exposure to Atheists and Agnostics has been here on the vine and I have to say that many (not all) are very insulting to people that don't agree with them or their beliefs (or non-beliefs?).

If I judged humanity, or any subset group of, by what I have seen here on Newsvine (or anywhere on the internet for that matter), I would lose all faith and start wishing for a nuclear apocalypse.

Internet anonymity does not provide a conducive atmosphere for civil intercourse.

SpikeGary

I'm hoping that you are finding the conversation / debate on this topic to be more civil and respectful. It is my experience that there are great people on the vine who are both believers and non-believers. Do they frequently get into heated discussion? Of course! Religion and politics are the two areas everyone loves to disagree on.

As for the insulters on either side. It is my feeling that these are generally people who are insecure about either their arguments or their faith so they resort to ad hominem arguments full of insults. The other problem is what people see as intransigence. When questions are posed and answers are constantly repeated citing the same scripture or the same invective against religion, the questioner frequently gets angry and the debate deteriorates rapidly.

I'm afraid we've all fallen into this trap on occasion. These discussions, however, bring us back to what the vine should be.

DocPhil,

Most of the discussion here on this article to this point is civil, which is appreciated. I don't understand why either side of this coin would find it o.k. to insult the other as to their beliefs, though I tend to agree with your thoughts on it. As I progressed farther and farther down the comments on this article they seem to get more and more rigid in their postures and less and less civil. Seems like more of a need to 'win' rather than understand other people's points of view.

The real problem, is religion is not structured to accept a two way street!

That's true in principle but there are religious people that are not judgmental of people of other faiths or no faith at all. I actually feel that Christians in this category are living much more in line with their faith than the intolerant fundamentalists that seem to get far more attention.

I live in Florida so yes, as an agnostic, I have had more than a few run-ins with fundies over the years. However, most of the people that I work with go to church regularly. They all know what my spiritual beliefs are and none of them treat me any differently because of them.

As far as prayers before public events go, I'm not really bothered by them. I just stand silent and let them go for it.

I've never understood why holding a prayer upsets so many atheists. And I think this is particular to atheists, I don't think any of the agnostic people I know get terribly upset by other people participating in some sort of prayer. Although, to be fair, there is nothing commanding an atheist to not be judgmental. So while all judgmental Christians are hypocrites, only judgmental atheists who complain about judgmental Christians are hypocrites.

Although, to be fair, I'm a scientist and I've lived in on of the most liberal cities in the United States for all of my adult life. If I had to guess, I'd say that 60% of the people I know are agnostic or atheist, maybe 10% are conservative Christians and the remainder are moderate or liberal Christians or Muslims. So, maybe if I lived in a more overtly religious environment, I would understand.

I've never understood why holding a prayer upsets so many atheists.

When conducted in a public school, where children are forced to attend, it creates an environment that separates religious from non-religious and I can speak from personal experience that this environment can be dangerous to the non-religious (or to those of differing religions).

When conducted in a public school

That's completely unacceptable. I was referring to public events like races.

I wasn't thinking about prayer in public schools. Prayer in a public school does bother me. I was referring to public events such as baseball games also.

But also, if a conservative Christian republican wanted to have a prayer at some political function I wouldn't be particularly bothered. I'm not terribly offended by the idea of adults disagreeing or in some cases conflicting over religion in a public space. I find prayer in public schools unacceptable because putting kids in a position where choosing not to participate in a religious display could subject them to some social stigma is unacceptable.

On the other hand I expect adults to be mature enough to be able to conduct themselves appropriately. Although, I will admit, that for some people this can be too much to ask.

I've never understood why holding a prayer upsets so many atheists.

I was referring to public events like races.

May be a slight tangent, but I can say I don't get upset by it but experience a sense of bewilderment over it. It's....nonsensical. I tend to question anything that doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't openly advocate against it because it causes me no harm, and in the end it's a business doing something it thinks caters to the bulk of it's customers.

Even public schools can have a lot of religous indoctrination in them. Admittedly, I went to high school in the 80s, and in the backwoods of Oregon (so my experience may not be reflective of contemporary reality in more non-redneck areas), but I remember two key examples.

First, in English, before we read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible," we were shown a film that presented witchcraft in the 17th century as a significant rival and threat to Christianity. Thus, the film said, the witch hunts were justified.

Second, in the sex ed test for health class, we had three questions that had specific Christian answers. I don't remember two of them, but the one I can remember was something like, "If your boyfriend/girlfriend is pressuring you to do something physical, should you a) Do what they want you to do? b) follow your own conscience? c) Do what the Bible says?

The correct answer, and the only one that scored you points on the test, was "c, Do what the Bible says."

People also got mad when I would sit down and read Heinlein during the "moments of silence" that were, of course, supposed to be prayer time.

I think because it publicly supports religious faith (usually Christian) instead of freedom of belief...it does do harm.

There is a fine line for sure...for myself, I don't sweat the small stuff, like a 30 second invocation at the beginning of a sporting event. It simply isn't worth my effort. I tune it out and 5 minutes later I can barely remember it even happened. That being said, it's still a head-scratcher for me, and I can't see anyting wrong with your suggestion. It seems much more sensible in an alleged land of diversity.

Fundamentally there is a difference when it is being done by a business instead of a government function. I have the easy and direct option of not supporting the business, whereas with a government function that option is much more difficult. But I do understand that if one were to opt out of going to all events that did that, and for that reason, there would be very few to go to, and that would feel a lot like doing harm. I get that.

I would also prefer a moment of silence where each person can conduct themselves according to their own beliefs. But there is an inherent conflict if community prayer is important to a group of people, it's not possible to simultaneously satisfy both demands. So, while I might prefer a moment of silence, my preference isn't so strong that I feel upset, insulted or otherwise harmed when the reality doesn't conform to my preference.

It just depends on the situation in which prayer is thought of.

Taxpayer funded council meeting? Unconstitutional and wrong.

Private Business or Event? Constitutional, but it may be in bad taste, depending on who is there and so on.

Yes - bring them to non-belief so they can be as *ahem* "open minded" as they are.

I can't agree more it's a 2 way street you're right. If I'm at work or class and someone is wearing a cross or a t-shirt with John 3:16 on it, I'm not calling a militia strike to get it out of my airspace.

I'm not particularly religious either but not that many self-professed Christians ever give me a hard time if I'm civil to them.

And atheism to me is a private affair just like any spiritual religious expression. So getting hounded either by Christians or atheists is at least equally distasteful.

markpup

I also find - to be fair - certain atheists are essentially religious in their adherence to it and would also "bring them in" if they could.

I think there is a degree of truth that atheists would prefer to see people live rational, fact-based lives rather than basing them on mythology. "What is God's position?" doesn't seem a very productive way to make decisions that effect other people in a shared society. There are issues such as who gets to be married, or what intoxicants one may use, that are not based on any particular harms they do, but because they are theologically offensive. A religious outlook also frequently amplifies the "us vs. them" perspective of many people.

Admittedly, there are some atheists that do go out of their way to ridicule religious people and it's really not fair because they can't prove that there is no higher power any more than a religious person can prove that there is. That being said, it's been my experience that most atheists don't really spend much time thinking about religion. The subject most often comes up in places like this in discussions about groups like the American Family Association trying to promote legislating their interpretation of Christian morality on everyone else.

redphish you're so right - but my point is there's no lack of atheists who express spooky levels of self-righteousness eerily similar to the self-righteousness they accuse the religious of having. And often they're not even aware of it they're being "open minded" unlike the rest of "us".

The atheists who don't spend much time thinking about religion - I like them.

Correction: religion was NOW something that HAD to be discussed by normal people.......

Because these cults are all "MALE "based.....

Last posting but this may help explain it:

There IS a reason Mensa Members are NOT religious.

(ie. The more you know is VERY threatening to mans cults...)

There is a reason Mensa members in the United States are not religious, but I'm not sure it's exactly what you think. The correlation isn't actually with not being religious, the correlation is between education and holding an unpopular position. Basically, the average person tends to accept the dominant belief system without critically examining the belief structure. So, in a society where the majority of people are atheists/agnostic, education is correlated with religious belief. Although, in that case it might not be as dogmatic as we see around here.

There is definitely a fear among some religious fundamentalists that education undermines religion. But that's mostly because they try to interpret the bible in a literal fashion. If your religious beliefs are contradicted by the prevailing scientific consensus, that's a problem. On the other hand, if you interpret the bible as a set of stories, metaphors and symbols, then there is no necessary conflict. And the religious people that I know in the second group embrace education just as much as the agnostics and atheists I know.

The following are examples of IMPORTANT things that have happened just recently and which the average "religious" person is probably not even aware of, sadly.

1. On September 2, 2010 the genius Professor/Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking gave the BBC an interview: "God Did NOT Create the Universe." (He also has many Nobel Laureate followers)

2. We have the former 14+ year Priest Father Alberto Cutie of Miami, Florida (who resigned the priesthood on his own in 2009) writing in his recently released book that: "The Catholic Church would have to shut down literally if it were forced to eliminate the high numers of the gay clergy since they extend all the way to the top hierchy and there would be none left."

He also states in his book that " It is a totally MISOGYNISTIC culture." (Why who knew that...)

3. Just a few weeks ago a certain Catholic Bishop was all over the media (television interviews, newspaper interviews, etc. stating/admitting that:

"Hell was invented to keep the masses under control."

THESE are simply recent examples of generic "admissions" from clergy that the average person is probably NOT even aware of so you can IMAGINE what would happen if they actually were EDUCATED. Nuff said.

Religion has always played upon the SELFISHNESS of MAN, ie. ME, ME, ME,ME.

"This life isn't good enough for me - I want it even BETTER in some next life."

(Which is why it was and is such a "BIG Seller", it's TOTALLY selfish.)

It is the antithesis of Humanitarianism, and is dooming MANKIND.

JohnRussell

What I have a problem with is the arrogance and attitude of superiority that many modern day atheists show. And most of them that I see have an extremely superficial understanding of the purpose and benefits of religious belief.

To the contrary, John, I think that most atheists have a deeper understanding of religion than many self-declared religious people because it was examined before being rejected. Many religious people I know are either ignorant of, or ignore, many points of their religious doctrines.

Also, there seems to be an attitude in religious belief that those beliefs should be immune from criticism; that criticism by it self, even absent name-calling or ridicule, is itself an intolerant offense.

I think the thing to remember about atheists is that the Bible or Koran are seen in much the same way that tales of the Norse or Greek gods are seen; interesting fables with some nuggets of truths, but a whole lot of contradiction and temperamentalism.

Atheists attack the veracity of "the Bible" or "the Koran" , as if pointing out contradictions in these "holy book" invalidates the religious impulse. It is a small way of looking at belief. Atheists picture "God" as the old white haired man sitting in the clouds ruling and judging humans". No serious Christian scholar believes this or portrays the meaning of Christianity in this way.

Atheists attack the veracity of "the Bible" or "the Koran" , as if pointing out contradictions in these "holy book" invalidates the religious impulse.

I'd like to start out by pointing out the terminology of 'holy book' isn't something atheists dreamt up.

They are critical of the veracity of these books because followers of certain religions put forth these books as holy and infallible words from their deities.

It is a small way of looking at belief.

Any serious interaction with an atheist I've seen acknowledges (and frequently has to point out) that Judeo-Christian and Islamic belief systems are a subset of overall possibilities.

Atheists picture "God" as the old white haired man sitting in the clouds ruling and judging humans". No serious Christian scholar believes this or portrays the meaning of Christianity in this way.

I don't know why an atheist would care about a physical portrayal of the deity, other than to borrow it from the religious who've presented it in such a way in jest.

The "ruling and judging humans" parts seems pretty clearly from the stated beliefs of Christians and Jews.

Nope, I'm not kidding. Obviously you are clueless about theology. I guess you draw your picture of Christianity or religion from TV evangelist programs. That's your problem.

Atheists attack the veracity of "the Bible" or "the Koran" , as if pointing out contradictions in these "holy book" invalidates the religious impulse.

Doesn't the entire basis of these faiths come from these holy books?

If so, then it does technically do so. Reading the Bible destroyed my faith in Christianity, for example.

Had to return one more time since yours made me chuckle.

What the Living Legend Criminal Defense Attorney and Best Sellling Author, Gerry Spence, calls:

"The Glorious Gift of Rejection."

(And why he never lost a case.....LOL)

Most people's minds are too closed by religion to be realists.

can you tell me what happened before the beginning of existence?

If not a theory on the table is that an all powerful being created it.

I would say that not being open to the possibility is the definition of a closed mind.

I'm not saying I believe or that you should.

I am just saying that we don't know the answer to the ancient philosophical question "what came first the chicken or the egg".

can you tell me what happened before the beginning of existence?

What leads you to believe that existence had a beginning?

If not a theory on the table is that an all powerful being created it.

If this being was already in existence, then his act of creation was not the beginning of existence.

I would say that not being open to the possibility is the definition of a closed mind.

Who's not open to the possibility? The typical atheist merely requires evidence for such conjectures.

I'm not saying I believe or that you should.

That is most appreciated.

we don't know the answer to the ancient philosophical question "what came first the chicken or the egg".

Actually, we do. The egg appeared many millions of years before the chicken did.

to clarify a little first religion and god need to be separated because they do not necessarily co-exist.

I have been reading "physics of the future" in that book Kaku talks that within the next century or so that technology will make the average person indistinguishable from a Greek god. He also talks about "Type III — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single galaxy". With such magnificent power possible theoretically I can not take a god of the table. What we think of as god could be highly advanced civilization customizing a universe. The ultimate sims game. How this civilztion interacts or does not interact would then be up for debate. this theory could be happening and religion could still be a functional delusion or this could be happening and religion is a method of discrete communication. God could be a purley rational and scientificaly provable idea or he may not. Some day Science may find the answer but until they do God is a working theory.

I do not understand people who claim to be Christians who are always praying for others. This is against the direct teaching of Jesus who discouraged prayer and said that if you must pray, only the Lord's Prayer with its emphasis on forgiveness. Of course, this prayer should be said in private.

TryUsingLogic,

I mean no disrespect. I would not pray over you or ask you to pray with me and if that is how you understood my post, I apologize. My prayer would be in private between me and my God. I would not even mention it to you unless you asked if I was praying for you. I understand that you may feel I am disrespecting your beliefs but you have to realize that you also disrespect my beliefs by denying Gods existence. This is one of those areas that, for the sake of harmony, we will each have to suffer a little disrespect.., respectfully.

I was going to say that I don’t pity you but I do have compassion for you but I looked up the definitions and they are the same, so to have compassion on someone is to pity them from a dictionary point of view. However, I believe you meant it in this way: pity; to feel sorrow for someone with no action, compassion; to feel sorrow for someone and take action to help them. I will be working off of these definitions. We do not have the power to bring someone closer to God, only God can do that. Since we can’t do it we ask the one who can, it is the only thing we can do, so it is compassion (regardless if we are right or wrong we believe we have done something to help.) Now when it comes to worldly things like poverty or hunger it is good to pray and we should, however, we are commanded to help also. So if all someone does in these cases is pray then yes that would be pity, because we are capable of doing more.

samenshow,

The Lord's Prayer from Matthew 6: 9-13 is a model pray, a template if you will, it is not meant to be "these are the only words said" kind of thing. So you can say more things then just those. Here is a link that talks about public and private prayer: (sorry for some reason my linking ability is down.) http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/20070107.htm

I will take the simple direct words of Jesus rather than some justification not to follow them. Jesus did not say it was a template. It was a prayer to say IF you MUST pray.

The rest of the chapter deals with those who make a big show of their beliefs and who insist on praying like pagans.

Your logic fails you. You assume I am a Christian. I am Gnostic.

samenslow,

It was not an "if you must" but a "when you do" Mat 6:5 and it was a template "After this manner therefore pray ye" Mat 6:9. If it was to be an exact prayer He himself disobeyed it in every other prayer He said in the Bible and He also said many prayers in public John 11:41-43 as an example. Also if the Lords Prayer is to be taken as a "you only do it this way" statement then the only place you can pray is locked in your closet Mat 6:6. I am currently in Germany, they don't have closets, where do I go to pray?

I agree He did go on to talk about big shows of belief and how they, the religious leaders, desired to be seen of men that was the whole point of the chapter to not do things to be seen but to do things for God, it wasn't that if you are seen doing thing for God that it was wrong.

I have said my peace on this subject. I understand if you do not agree but I will not take up more of TryUsingLogic's thread on an issue that is off topic. I would gladly debate you further on a thread concerning this issue if we ever find ourselves on one.

TryUsingLogic,

And I will always strive to protect our freedom to believe as we wish, also.

Peace to you.

Good for him.

I had a theology professor in college (a priest, no less), who spent the bulk of a semester systematically shredding all of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. (He was, however, a big fan of Sir Alfred North Whitehead's argument, which I'm not entirely certain I remembe with any degree of accuracy today).