i dnt hate jesus i just gave up on him not answering my prayers...People say he doesnt answer them in 1 nite... wat about year? ...(
Remember that sometimes the answer is "NO."
Why do atheists hate Jesus?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
Remember that sometimes the answer is "NO."
And Microsoft is the question.
What about questions that aren't answerable by "yes" or "no"?
I believe in lots of higher powers, gravity, mass, nuclear, magnetism...
Think about it, whenever someone asked Jesus a question, he would say something you wouldn't expect. "Is there a God?", you might say. "Look not for Gods here and there, but the God in your own eyes", he would say, or something. I really doubt his views of God were in the least bit conventional. They could have been more deist, or even atheist.
Ah, the old "yes, no or later" gag.
Common theist idiocy at it's finest. They don't seem to realise that yes, no or later can never ever fail. It works for anything as well.
You can come round here and pray to my cup of tea. It always answers either yes, no or later. Try it out, (with anything), and you'll see it never ever fails. If for instance you ask for a job. If you get one you'll say "see, the tea cup answers prayers", if you don't get a job you'll say "the tea cup does answer prayers but didn't want you to have a job", and if you get a job in a years time you'll say "see, the tea cup answers prayers, sometimes it takes time".
What a pile of old horse manure, (you can pray to that too).
Why do non-atheists assume that atheists hate so aptly? And why Jesus specifically? Imo, any religion is equi-deserving of ridicule, not just Christianity. I am a fairly recent proclaimed atheist, though my thoughts and notions have been migrating in that direction for quite some time. I grew up in the Christian church, and yes, any bitterness in my tone is a result of my unpleasant experiences with it. I don't see a problem with that, much like anyone wouldn't need excuse to be bitter towards a particular disease that is inflicting the masses. Having said that, the church IS NOT like a club. At all.
It's an arresting argument that for such polar beliefs, atheists and theists behave in very similar ways; both are known to disrespectfully shove their viewpoints on the other...they are all the same (certainly agnostics will echo). But this seemingly ground-leveling assertation is, if given a moment's thought, nothing but a placebo. This is why:
It is considered taboo to impose upon someone's religious beliefs. One could have an economical idea and you could disagree with it and argue it, and it be a productive and dispassionate conversation. But the moment the topic changes to religious beliefs, an air of respect is given out, injudiciously. The exceedingly productive and beneficial intellectual foundation of challenging and scrutinizing ideas seems to be lenient towards religion; "you can question my political, economical, and scientific claims, but don't you dare question my God". You can think someone's crazy for flipping a light switch 8 times before they can leave it on, but when somebody says they can't use electricity on this day because it's a sabbath, the response is more commonly along the lines of "I respect that." It's no secret that religious thought gets a free ride to respect and acceptance rather than any other kind of idea, which has to undergo rigorous scientific testing in order to be regarded as sound.
Why is this? Namely, it's because many of these religious ideas are, even in the mind of the believer, admittedly ridiculous. So out of propriety and politeness, these embarrassing topics are avoided.
This is surely a nice place to be for the religious (hey, I don't have to defend my beliefs!) but it's by the very same reason, in my opinion, that they shouldn't be given default respect. That separates the imposing atheist argument from the imposing theist argument. The theist argues strictly out of ambiguous and unprovable beliefs while the theist (if properly educated) constructs his argument upon a tremendous body of scientific evidence and understanding. So the respect for beliefs lies only within the theist, which is a unjustified and false to begin with.
So, as kind and understanding of a person that I am, I will not show any biased favoritism towards religious views of any kind, nor handle them with kid gloves, and any fair-minded, educated, and intelligent person (aka an atheist ) should do the same.
For the record, I don't hate Jesus, I think his character is fascinating. I echo the sentiments of an earlier post in that I wish more people were like him.
Alright, now I'm going to go back and read the rest of all this
It's an arresting argument that for such polar beliefs, atheists and theists behave in very similar ways; both are known to disrespectfully shove their viewpoints on the other...they are all the same (certainly agnostics will echo). But this seemingly ground-leveling assertation is, if given a moment's thought, nothing but a placebo. This is why:
It is considered taboo to impose upon someone's religious beliefs. One could have an economical idea and you could disagree with it and argue it, and it be a productive and dispassionate conversation. But the moment the topic changes to religious beliefs, an air of respect is given out, injudiciously. The exceedingly productive and beneficial intellectual foundation of challenging and scrutinizing ideas seems to be lenient towards religion; "you can question my political, economical, and scientific claims, but don't you dare question my God". You can think someone's crazy for flipping a light switch 8 times before they can leave it on, but when somebody says they can't use electricity on this day because it's a sabbath, the response is more commonly along the lines of "I respect that." It's no secret that religious thought gets a free ride to respect and acceptance rather than any other kind of idea, which has to undergo rigorous scientific testing in order to be regarded as sound.
Why is this? Namely, it's because many of these religious ideas are, even in the mind of the believer, admittedly ridiculous. So out of propriety and politeness, these embarrassing topics are avoided.
This is surely a nice place to be for the religious (hey, I don't have to defend my beliefs!) but it's by the very same reason, in my opinion, that they shouldn't be given default respect. That separates the imposing atheist argument from the imposing theist argument. The theist argues strictly out of ambiguous and unprovable beliefs while the theist (if properly educated) constructs his argument upon a tremendous body of scientific evidence and understanding. So the respect for beliefs lies only within the theist, which is a unjustified and false to begin with.
So, as kind and understanding of a person that I am, I will not show any biased favoritism towards religious views of any kind, nor handle them with kid gloves, and any fair-minded, educated, and intelligent person (aka an atheist
) should do the same.For the record, I don't hate Jesus, I think his character is fascinating. I echo the sentiments of an earlier post in that I wish more people were like him.
Alright, now I'm going to go back and read the rest of all this
Last edited:
Do you not see the inherent idiocy in this statement? Because people want to hear the same thing over and over, their beliefs become petrified and stagnant. In doing so, they essentially break their own intellectual legs!
"Not about learning anything," of course it isn't. If people learned, they wouldn't be there.
I'm more interested in what Wisdom Seeker said, I've come to the conclusion myself that to contradict oneself from day to day is to live and grow. This is the beauty found in science as opposed to religion. Science accepts the fact that "fact" itself is subject to change, but this could never ever be applicable in a religious setting. Can you imagine the reaction if a preacher said, "The things I was telling you last week, I'm not so sure about anymore. My beliefs are changing."? That church would be empty the following sunday. Religions themselves rely heavily upon a pillar of unchanging belief; if it were allowed to be malleable, the religion would crumble upon itself with each new thought.
Science is founded upon the rigorous testing of new ideas whereas religion is founded upon the stubborn preservation of ancient ones.
Morality is not dependent on a religion or a god in any way. It stems merely from higher intelligence as something that is beneficial for the individual and the species as a whole. I take it that if there was no God, you would have no problem with murdering, raping, and stealing? It seems as though the only reason you are moral is because of fear of "the great surveillance camera in the sky" (Dawkins) which is just as, if not less contemptible than those who don't have a morality at all.
Wow you are so uneducated on this, it's disgusting. Just read a book, I recommend The God Delusion...or is that too intimidating to your beliefs already?
Why do Christians hate Zeus?
Is it some inferiority complex?
seriously, you better hope your God isn't the omniscient kind, lest he see your far-from-genuine morality for what it really is.
*************
M*W: Congratulations on your recent personal acceptance of atheism, and welcome to sciforums.
I agree with you that theists label atheists as 'haters.' They believe, and continue to repeat their erroneous belief on this forum that "all atheists hate Jesus." I don't understand this logic (or lack thereof) that they associate atheism with hate and immorality.
You have used another word we see frequently on this forum, and that is "bitterness." If we don't believe in Jesus, then atheists must be "bitter." It's just not so. Atheism does not equate with bitterness.
IMO, I don't understand how someone can hate a fictional character. As far as literature goes, I believe it is certainly possible to dislike certain characters that are portrayed as evil but still have the understanding that they are fictional. In other words, wasting energy on hating a fictional character is futile.
By the same token, I don't hate Jesus nor do I hate the stories about him. Having been a christian, I understood them from a religious standpoint, and accepted the stories as inrefutable truth. Now, as an atheist, I have a deeper cognizance of the meanings of the stories about Jesus. The difference in understanding the religious stories is that as a christian, you believe what you're told and you search no further than your bible. As an atheist, the door is opened to a more complete understanding of the stories, and you have no fear of going further and deeper into the interpretation.
It is really impossible to hate Jesus. Just as it is impossible to hate Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Winnie the Pooh.
The greatest thing about being atheist is the lack of fear about learning the truth.
Does that make it a good law? Leviticus (a religious law) says that cursing your parents is worthy of the death penalty, do you think anybody still thinks like that?
Last edited:
I couldn't be in more agreement with you, I find myself in the same boat. The reason they tag atheists as immoral satan worshipers stems from a serious lack of understanding (hence the reference to satan, a supposed deity) and fear. The whole scenario reminds me of Stockholm syndrome, they would rather a gun be pointed at their heads to motivate morality than intelligence.
I love that last sentence of yours. What's really ironic is that these theists who unmitigatedly claim a monopoly on truth shy away from opposing ideas. If what you believed in was true, then wouldn't any argument, even an opposing one, only reinforce that truth?
If by funny, you mean scientifically supported, then yes, it is funny.
But ignoring that bigotry-saturated statement, atheism isn't the belief in nothing, it's a rejection of belief altogether. You're thinking of either agnostics or nihilists. All of these are better alternatives to the one you so obviously and shamelessly support.