That's absurd. The Republicans do try this line of attack all the time.
Why do Americans still dislike atheists?
- Thread starter Fraggle Rocker
- Start date
That's absurd. The Republicans do try this line of attack all the time.
But Muslims are an even more popular hate target, so they've concentrated on tarring him as a secret Muslim.
I have to say, no matter which end of the matter is raised, it looks equally bizarre to me
When Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh went to France, he discussed the "turban issue" with Sarkozy
The thing is I see religious discimination/oppression on both ends of the spectrum. And for what? Some hypothetical notion of how ALL people should be the same?
*************
M*W: Preaching.
*************
M*W: That goes for religionists too. People of religion boast about their beliefs. Christians especially brag about their own salvation. Been there, done that, was one, knew multitudes of them. You described christians perfectly, "bigoted, proud, obnoxious, and violent...".
As opposed to. . .
Get it straight. Stop being such a religious-phobe that you can't spot wisdom where it lay. I would not cast pearls before swine. Fraggle is a good man, and an extremely intelligent one too. I do not subscribe to any religion. It does not mean however that I will fall prey to an argumentum ad hominem fallacy and reject the wisdom of a spiritual teacher because I reject all religion. I recognize wisdom where ever it can be found. Only the ignorant will reject knowledge based on the source rather than it's content.
Matthew 7:6, and stop preaching.
Meh, Theists/Atheist's are both "Right" and "Wrong".
A "God" is just a mythical entity with a lot of fable and fantasy obfuscation.
however a "Company" can be classed as a singular entity, it can be tried as an individual and held accountable as an individual.
Now lets imply this, if you take a large "Organisation" of people and call their organisation an "Entity", if the people that make up that entity make autonomy based decisions on behalf of that entity, their actual "Organisation" could be the "God" they seek.
(After all this "Organisation" could fund research, the research is owned by the "Entity" and not the individuals however the fruits of that labour is Shared by all since that entity has no need for selfish greed. The Entity is "Godlike" because it can do things that no single individual would ever be able to do alone.)
In a scientific sense this implies that their is a feasibly that a "God" could exist, however it's "Not the god the theists were initially looking for".
A "God" is just a mythical entity with a lot of fable and fantasy obfuscation.
however a "Company" can be classed as a singular entity, it can be tried as an individual and held accountable as an individual.
Now lets imply this, if you take a large "Organisation" of people and call their organisation an "Entity", if the people that make up that entity make autonomy based decisions on behalf of that entity, their actual "Organisation" could be the "God" they seek.
(After all this "Organisation" could fund research, the research is owned by the "Entity" and not the individuals however the fruits of that labour is Shared by all since that entity has no need for selfish greed. The Entity is "Godlike" because it can do things that no single individual would ever be able to do alone.)
In a scientific sense this implies that their is a feasibly that a "God" could exist, however it's "Not the god the theists were initially looking for".
The first premise mentioned in this article is somewhat wrong.
Some White-Americans (I'm not going to call them "Americans" because that suggests they are "standard" and everybody else isn't a part of the American standard) are still relatively hostile and disrespectful towards Black-Americans, Jewish, and homosexuals.
Furthermore, I've never observed any outright hatred towards atheists - more like it just triggers proselytism at the water cooler. I have yet to see or hear of any atheists homes being burned down or anti-atheist hate graffiti spray painted on anything.
Possibly. For every preacher spouting bullshit, we need a scientist talking reason. If you don't want to listen to him, avoid googling him.
I'm not so sure about this. A lot of the atheists I have met are just as aggressive as proselytizing Christians. I want to make clear the point that not all, but a lot of them are that I have met.
I don't like or dislike atheists any more or less than I like or dislike religious people. What I do dislike is the mentality of someone who has the attitude of "my spiritual beliefs are right and yours are wrong, and I'm gonna tell you why yours are wrong and try to convert you to my method of thinking." I think this is terribly rude and close minded. I've met a number of atheists who have this attitude, and I see the mentality as no different from Christians.
I respect all spiritual beliefs and do not hold a persons spiritual beliefs against them. What I will hold against someone is their behavior, and if someones spiritual beliefs cause them to behave in a certain way, that is a problem.
Having worked in the mental health field, I have seen the amazing healing power of spirituality. Even if the patient adopts atheism. Just having something to believe in works wonders on a persons psyche. One other strange thing I did notice in the field, is that if a person came in who was already a Christian, and particularly a Christian who believes that all others should believe as they do, they were almost always the ones to make the least amount of progress. But a person who just creates and adopts a form of spirituality for themselves makes the most progress.
Stalin was an atheist. Although atheists claim to be scientific and rational, Stalin showed that neither of these criteria really have to be in effect to be an athiest. He was paranoid and aggressively persecuted those his paranoia said were a threat such as religion or anyone talking out. People see the modern atheists being paranoid and aggressive against what they feel is a threat. People see the smoke and mirrors of the atheist rational claim.
As a cross section, these forums show how rational atheists get irrational during the discussions with name calling part of their rational science method.
When I was younger, I became an atheist (previous religion) because it helped to overcome inhibitions and guilts created by religion. This is why criminals tend to prefer atheism over religion. Atheism is a parasite religion which say X if religion says Y. This make its easier to do crime with conscience. The only punishment is in this lifetime, but that is only if you get caught and/or fail to get the best lawyer. There is no afterlife to answer to when you don't get caught.
Atheist smoke and mirrors will attribute crime to religion, if the criminal had any religious training as a child. But the irrational atheists will fail to include conversion to the animal standards of atheism, which makes criminal behavior much easier relative to religion.
Don't get me wrong there is also religious criminal behavior, but such behavior is not about me, but will usually be in honor of God. If the criminal does not include "for God" it is about atheism. This is how you tell the difference. The suicide bombers do crime based on their believe in God. But the serial killer is not about god. It is more about ego-centricity and atheism. If you figure it that way, atheism is responsible for the increase rate of crime by removing the spiritual inhibitions.
There is a saying you can take a person out of religion but you can't take religion out of the person. Atheism is a religion on the inside even if the surface does not appear to fit the criteria. The rational claim and irrational behavior is part of that illusion, with the religious effect part of the compulsion.
As a cross section, these forums show how rational atheists get irrational during the discussions with name calling part of their rational science method.
When I was younger, I became an atheist (previous religion) because it helped to overcome inhibitions and guilts created by religion. This is why criminals tend to prefer atheism over religion. Atheism is a parasite religion which say X if religion says Y. This make its easier to do crime with conscience. The only punishment is in this lifetime, but that is only if you get caught and/or fail to get the best lawyer. There is no afterlife to answer to when you don't get caught.
Atheist smoke and mirrors will attribute crime to religion, if the criminal had any religious training as a child. But the irrational atheists will fail to include conversion to the animal standards of atheism, which makes criminal behavior much easier relative to religion.
Don't get me wrong there is also religious criminal behavior, but such behavior is not about me, but will usually be in honor of God. If the criminal does not include "for God" it is about atheism. This is how you tell the difference. The suicide bombers do crime based on their believe in God. But the serial killer is not about god. It is more about ego-centricity and atheism. If you figure it that way, atheism is responsible for the increase rate of crime by removing the spiritual inhibitions.
There is a saying you can take a person out of religion but you can't take religion out of the person. Atheism is a religion on the inside even if the surface does not appear to fit the criteria. The rational claim and irrational behavior is part of that illusion, with the religious effect part of the compulsion.
Most convicted criminals are religious.
The genital mutilation community is almost exclusively religious, something no human being would think of doing in most circumstances without religion.
As an example of criminal religious behavior, I don't have to look farther than the headline news:
Atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%)
The genital mutilation community is almost exclusively religious, something no human being would think of doing in most circumstances without religion.
As an example of criminal religious behavior, I don't have to look farther than the headline news:
A man has killed and beheaded a British woman in a supermarket on the Spanish holiday island of Tenerife.
The man attacked the unnamed 60-year-old woman in a Chinese supermarket in the resort town of Los Cristianos, Arona, severing her neck with a knife and then rushing on to the street carrying the head.
Passersby and security guards tried to stop him and he was eventually caught after an Italian man on a motorbike knocked him to the ground by hurling a helmet at him. The man tripped over and fell to the ground, with his pursuers managing to restrain him until police arrived.
The alleged killer is an unemployed Bulgarian apparently well known in the town and occasionally given to loudly proclaiming himself to be God on earth. The 28-year-old man lives in the town.
The man attacked the unnamed 60-year-old woman in a Chinese supermarket in the resort town of Los Cristianos, Arona, severing her neck with a knife and then rushing on to the street carrying the head.
Passersby and security guards tried to stop him and he was eventually caught after an Italian man on a motorbike knocked him to the ground by hurling a helmet at him. The man tripped over and fell to the ground, with his pursuers managing to restrain him until police arrived.
The alleged killer is an unemployed Bulgarian apparently well known in the town and occasionally given to loudly proclaiming himself to be God on earth. The 28-year-old man lives in the town.
Last edited:
Yup.
You of all people say that?
You even use your position as a moderator to evangelize your cult of scientism.
Dawkins was a Christian in his youth. Why isn't he called religious now? If a criminal started out being raised in church but left the church to pursue crime, using athesim to appease guilt and inhibition, why isn't he called an atheist?
The impression I get from atheism, is that it uses a criteria is similar to the old fashion racist criteria of the past that was used to differenitate white from black. If I am not mistaken, even 1/32 black was enough to be lumped into black. The atheist criteria may be 1/32 religion and 31/32 atheist will still be religious if bad. If it is positive, atheism will exempt it to claim credit.
The impression I get from atheism, is that it uses a criteria is similar to the old fashion racist criteria of the past that was used to differenitate white from black. If I am not mistaken, even 1/32 black was enough to be lumped into black. The atheist criteria may be 1/32 religion and 31/32 atheist will still be religious if bad. If it is positive, atheism will exempt it to claim credit.