Are Atheists obsessed with religion?

[Atonement]

Or at what level does "interest" turn into "obsession"?

 

[Solo]

I take it that some are bitter and hate Christianity because of a satanic influence, and mean to disrupt whatever they can; while others are those that are checking from time to time knowing that there is no heaven and praying that there is no hell as the Earth, Wind, and Fire song goes.

 

[ChristineES]

I can't say this about all atheists, but there seems to be a fair number of them who don't want Christians (or any other religion) to believe in God anymore. I don't see how it effects them for people to believe in God.

 

[Guest]

I have been thinking about this morning when I was reading some posts on here.

If there is one thing that does bother me is the blanket judgements. And I realize that this can happen on both sides.

Yes - I realize that there have been "christians" and are "christians" that give the rest of us a bad name.

However, I would appreciate from those who disagree with Christianity - that they would show respect and "judge" people based on their individual action and not that of the whole.

 

[Solo]

I can't say this about all atheists, but there seems to be a fair number of them who don't want Christians (or any other religion) to believe in God anymore. I don't see how it effects them for people to believe in God.

30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Matthew 12:30

 

[jgredline]

 

[Featherbop]

Something I find that many christians do not understand is that an atheist(say in the United States) is vastly outnumbered by theists who are offended at the existence of atheists. From the inside of theism, this can be hard to see.

Also, there is to consider that many atheists deconverted from a monotheistic religion. So, there are often many remnants of indoctrination left from childhood and earlier life.

Anyway, atheists are pretty much the most discriminated against group in the U.S. and many people apparently don't even know much about atheism. Atheists are not really a "group." That makes about as much sense as putting all people who do not believe in tooth fairy into one group.
Another issue theists seem to have is the morality thing. Atheism is not a moral code. Atheists do not draw morality from atheism, much as someone wouldn't draw morality from not believing in Thor or Santa Claus.

So I think many, and certainly I, keep an eye on religious people, groups, ideas and the like. It could be dangerous not to. The "obsession" is often a form of trying to understand and keep watch over the dangerous religious aspects. Just like an American would(I hope) stay vigilant for protecting the liberty of people.

So, if atheists can be said to be obsessed with religion, it is because religion is obsessed with them.

 

[handy]

"Anyway, atheists are pretty much the most discriminated against group in the U.S."


In what way?

 

[Featherbop]

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rel...ewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

Atheists are the least trusted group in the U.S.

And as many atheists could tell you if you will ask them, they face discrimination and hate or dislike from theists who are offended at their existence.

 

[Solo]

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rel...ewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

Atheists are the least trusted group in the U.S.

And as many atheists could tell you if you will ask them, they face discrimination and hate or dislike from theists who are offended at their existence.

Your perception is tainted with an anti-Christian perspective. Jesus loved atheists so much that he gave his own life for them. Some atheists come to the Light, and others do not.

Jesus spoke the truth in this factual statement, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad"(Matthew 12:30).

Jesus discriminated as does everyone as defined below:

dis·crim·i·nate(d-skrm-nt)
v. dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates
v.intr.

1. • To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
     [/*:m:8be9c]
   • To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.[/*:m:8be9c]
   [/*:m:8be9c]
2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.[/*:m:8be9c][/list:o:8be9c]v.tr.
   1. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: discriminate right from wrong.
      [/*:m:8be9c]
   2. To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate: unable to discriminate colors.
      [/*:m:8be9c]
   3. To make or constitute a distinction in or between: methods that discriminate science from pseudoscience.[/*:m:8be9c]

 

[handy]

Gee, a University study. That proves everything.

Sorry, my apologies for the sarcasm.

For the sake of argument, OK, the UofMN got it right and atheists are the least trusted. Least trust does not in any way equate the the most discriminated against. I'm unaware that atheists are unable to adopt children, attend loved ones in hospitals, or marry. So, I'm sure that GLAD would disagree about who 'the most discriminated group in the US' is. Folks are not calling their congressmen in droves to kick atheists out of the country. So, I'm sure that the 'undocumented workers' would disagree about who the 'most discriminated group in the US' is.
Atheists, while admittedly are a small minority in the general population, do not comprise the largest group in prisons, or lead the nation in drop-out rates, unemployment, and fractured families. So, I'm sure the NAACP and Al Sharpton would disagree about who the 'most discriminated group in the US' is.

And, atheists have not had their freedom of speech and expression curtailed by the Supreme Court, so I'm sure that Christian public school students who want to mention God in their valedictorian speeches or draw a picture of a baby in a manger for art class during The Winter Holiday Season would disagree about who the most discriminated group in the US is.

Featherbop, somehow between the time I was a kid back in the dark ages and the present, it has come to pass that any disapproval, any disagreement, any kind of criticism has somehow become "discrimination" and is to be considered "dangerous".

As for the atheists who "face discrimination and hate or dislike from theists who are offended at their existence", let me suggest an experiment for you: Go to any university campus such as the UofMN, UofCA, Harvard, whatever is closest to you. Stand in the quad of any of these campuses, and start talking about how much Christ loves everyone, and that Christ wants everyone to believe in Him and receive His gift salvation which He gives freely to all. Take along a Bible with you and hold it while you speak to the other students. You'll see very quickly that atheists aren't the only ones who face hatred, dislike and have someone offended at their existence.

The thing is, Featherbop, humans have prejudices against humans and treat others unfairly and badly because of them. It's part of our nature. It's part of what Jesus died for.

 

[Featherbop]

Gee, a University study. That proves everything.

It is evidence. See, that is what people use to help discern fact from falsity.

For the sake of argument, OK, the UofMN got it right and atheists are the least trusted.

They pretty much just got it right regardless.

Least trust does not in any way equate the the most discriminated against.

I do suppose it is tricky with atheists. There are no easy indicators that an individual is an atheist(about as easy to tell as being able to tell whether or not one disbelieves in the tooth fairy). So, unless a person lets it be known, they may be safe from bullies, and angry theists.

So, I suppose that would limit discrimination.

And, atheists have not had their freedom of speech and expression curtailed by the Supreme Court,

Not by the government as much. However, I live in the bible belt. If I were to walk around this town with it known I do not believe in gods...let us just say it would not be safe. Free speech is not free if speech is threatened by violence.

so I'm sure that Christian public school students who want to mention God in their valedictorian speeches or draw a picture of a baby in a manger for art class during The Winter Holiday Season would disagree about who the most discriminated group in the US is.

A christian can do those things. The god reference in valedictorian speeches is pretty common.

Featherbop, somehow between the time I was a kid back in the dark ages and the present, it has come to pass that any disapproval, any disagreement, any kind of criticism has somehow become "discrimination" and is to be considered "dangerous".

I was unaware of this. Disagreeing with someone is not discrimination in and of itself(although it could be done to that end) as criticism is not either.

You'll see very quickly that atheists aren't the only ones who face hatred, dislike and have someone offended at their existence.

I never said atheists are the only ones who face hatred and the like.

However, an example of a christian evangelising at a college campus may be met with resistance. Often, christians proselytize others and this is the problem: Many claims and threats made, and an attempt to get others to accept something without evidence. This being done at places of(sadly, not always the case) idea exchange.

So that is silly of christians that do that. Go to a place and proselytize people, then face dislike. They ask for it with such antics.

Same with me if I were to stand on the street corner and try to convince everybody walking by to be an atheist by being forceful and coercive.

The thing is, Featherbop, humans have prejudices against humans and treat others unfairly and badly because of them.

Yes. And we never seem to learn or practice otherwise for the most part.

Regardless of faith or reason, it seems that prejudice dies hard. It isn't changed by a belief or philosophy except in the mind.

 

[Quath]

As for me, I deconverted and slipped into ambivalence about religion. Every now and then it would pop up as a Christian would denounce something I saw was silly from nude sunbathing to Dungeons & Dragons to teaching of evolution. But for the most part, I had the religious attitide "Don't bother me and I won't bother you."

I think a lot of atheists have that attitude. Atheism itself is not much of a rallying cause. It would be like forming a club based on people who do not like NASCAR. The main thing you have in common is a lack of interest in something. So atheists by nature do not congregate.

The exception is when atheists face discrimination or have to deal with a society that forces religious values on its citizens. Then they either hide in the closet or they come out. Coming out will draw the ire of many religious people. You stand up for yourself or shut up and stick to the shadows.

My perspective changed when my grandmother sent me book after book of Christian conversion stuff. But it had the opposite effect. I saw so much bad stuff that had never realized. I saw direct lies and misrepresentation of statistics and distortion of science. Then I saw all the injustice done in the name of god(s). The more and more I read, the more I began to wonder if religion itself was the mechanism for a lot of human misery.

From what I have seen, atheists tend to get along very well with pagans but not as well with the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim religions. The main difference is that pagans (from Wiccians to Buddhists to Hindus) do not push their religon on others and may even be accepting of nonbelievers. However, the Big 3 religons tend to push their beliefs upon others and try to force others to their way of thinking.

So I think if Christianity were less intrisuve, you would have less atheists feeling they need to stand up for themselves.

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Matthew 12:30

I counter your intolerance quote with two of tolerance:

For he that is not against us is on our part. - Mark 9:40

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. - Luke 9:50

 

[Solo]

If atheists are wrong in their unbelief they will be in deep doodahday!
If I am wrong in my belief I will be no worse off than the atheists.

 

[Quath]

If atheists are wrong in their unbelief they will be in deep doodahday!
If I am wrong in my belief I will be no worse off than the atheists.

Unless we both wind up before Odin.

 

[lovely]

Quath, I think that whenever you have such a diverse society as ours, you have world-views that are intrusive to others...and atheism is no exception.

While I don't believe that ALL people that are atheistic hate believers, I do think that many at least feel superior to them (or at least they are taught to feel this way in general), and that many may hate religion overall, or at least find it ridiculous. Check out my thread in the Science area, "Should Science Speak To Faith?". It speaks to this very topic...it's very revealing of the hearts of the men involved.

Atheists even feel the need to monitor our words, and deeds, because they find us dangerous...this is the greatest form of bigotry, I think, and it makes them sound like the secret police of the Nazi regime. What's the next logical step after the monitoring? Suppressing? I think that is why the separation of church and state distortion is so prevalent in our society right now...It's the desire of some to limit believer's in education, and in policy making positions, and the desire of believers to fight for rights the feel they are losing. I have an opinion of how I think believers should respond to this, but that is for another thread.

I would like to point out that the groups that preach tolerance tend to only apply it to themselves, not Christians, and they also distort the meaning of the word. In fact, I think that they overtly show intolerance to believers to try and force them to stop believing...especially teachers and professors...in the name of tolerance. It has become okay (overlooked mainly) to ridicule, and exclude, them openly in schools, in libraries, in the workplace, in books, in the media, and even in entertainment. Why is this accepted by groups who claim to endorse tolerance so strongly? Maybe it's accepted because they believe that Christians have been intolerant to them, and deserve it...a good dose of their own medicine, maybe, as a from of revenge. Some may realize this, and others may not. Christians tend to be blamed for every evil event in our history and every error in science as an argument against them, their beliefs...even though it's OUR history, and OUR scientific history. I don't doubt that religion has been exploited and used, and that specific religious systems have even controlled and suppressed, but while in one breath unbelievers will say that our early founders, and early scientists, weren't all Christians, in the very next breath they have no problem calling them Christians when the history, or science, is bad. I think it is an attempt to demonize believers to justify a double standard...one for believers (who are ignorant and have dangerous beliefs), and another for everyone else (Those who believe they have been victimized by Christians).

I guess unbelievers would say it's hard for us (believers), being involved in religion, to see the truth of the situation, or to look at it objectively, but they never seem to apply that line of reasoning to their own world views. It's as if they do not believe that they have been indoctrinated with their world view, or as if their views are the only valid ones. I would say that this line of thinking contradicts their own 'religion' on it's most root level...that we should all question beliefs, tolerate beliefs of others, consider all the evidence, and arguments of others, objectively. I would say that this standard is not applied to believers, but it is certainly expected to be upheld by believers.

If most atheists were really trying to be rational, and interpret the evidence for the purpose of getting to the genuine truth (which is what most claim), then they should be the last group twisting the beliefs of others, or their theories, or denying the validity (merely ignoring it, really) of a book that supports the current scientific evidence, supports history as verified through various types of confirmation, like secular records, and archeology, and has given us an account of many true things in all areas of life, but really they should be investigating it without prejudice and in a sincere manner...and definitely without the overtones of bigotry (the word pseudoscience comes to mind)...to the point of excluding believing scientist in attitude, and with man-made limits like the Scientific Method. I think earlier scientists were successful in practicing science without the scientific method, and probably would not have tolerated being limited at all. I believe that atheistic philosophy has spread into these areas so much that now we are all guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water where God is concerned. It's a shame really, because we can no longer hear one another, and information will not be exchanged because of it...and many good scientists will not have opportunity, or resources, because they will not deny Christ. We have all chosen philosophy over science to a degree, and I don't think that that is completely wrong, but I believe the atheists who deny they do it are the most guilty of doing this in these modern times. They have taken the place of the church systems that were once in control, and have stooped to using the same tactics through the Universities and media...Dawkins is evidence of that trend. I don't think that any person who can brush the Bible, or an entire group of scientists, aside is truly being objective and rational, no matter how long the scream and stamp about that they are.

I don't hate atheists, even those that hate me...though I admit I struggle to pray for Dawkins at times...and I believe that if Christ can die for them, as Solo pointed out, then I can love them genuinely...especially when I think of what is at stake, and where I once was myself. I don't think that they are all bigots, and I don't think that the words of a few represent every one of them, but I don't, however, have to agree with them, or feel that their knowledge is superior to God's. I don't feel as if I have to hang my head in shame and label myself as someone who is less intelligent, ridiculous, intolerant, or a even a bigot who has victimized them...just because they accuse me of such things, or feel the need to monitor my speech. (I am speaking generally here, btw.) I don't have a need to look to them for validation. I am Christ's, and I don't feel shame over being counted with Christ and trying to follow after Him...the source of all information, knowledge, and wisdom.

The Lord bless you.

 

[Rhetorickety]

An awesome dude once quoted another dude who said this and the awesome dude used it for his paper, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, darned lies, and statistics."

Anyway, Jesus taught that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and when He was questioned by the Saduccee who asked, "And who is my neighbor?" He told the parable of the righteous Samaritan, and when those other guys walked away from the guy who was robbed and beaten, (I'm not judging them, Jesus taught that too) and the Samaritan helped him out, He said to the Saduccee (I don't know how to spell that!) in response to his question, "Who was a neighbor to him?" So since everyone around us is either our neighbor or our enemy, how is it that Jesus discriminates? No, it is because He is the Lord that He said that whoever is not with Him is against Him, and that whoever does not gather to Him is scattered abroad, since anyone who accepts Him accepts the Father, and anyone who denies Him denies the Father. Anyway, Quath, the people who discriminate against you are not right in doing so. But if you see one of us shouting at you in the street corner, getting dirty looks, it's probably not just because he wants to annoy you.... Were you the one you said that? I don't know, and my browser isn't displaying the replies.

 

[Quath]

While I don't believe that ALL people that are atheistic hate believers, I do think that many at least feel superior to them (or at least they are taught to feel this way in general), and that many may hate religion overall, or at least find it ridiculous. Check out my thread in the Science area, "Should Science Speak To Faith?". It speaks to this very topic...it's very revealing of the hearts of the men involved.

I know many atheists/agnostics. I see several kinds of reactions. For example, on the way back to lunch, we passed a church that had the sign "If man came from apes, why are there still apes around?" One guy just laughed and said "If Americans came from the English people, why are there still English people around?" A good laugh was had by all. But what we all laughed at was the ridiculousness. As scientists we understand how science works and what constitutes good evidence. So evolution just seems very common sense to us. To see people deny it is like seeing people deny a round earth. As polite as you may try to be, you find such beliefs to be crazy.

But I am sure the feeling is returned. I have talked to Christians that feel sorry for me that I can not understand God exists. They feel I must be blind or a fool not to see this.

Atheists even feel the need to monitor our words, and deeds, because they find us dangerous...this is the greatest form of bigotry, I think, and it makes them sound like the secret police of the Nazi regime.

I don't see this the same way. What I see atheists doing is making sure Christians are held to the same rules as everyone else is. In general, Christians have been the priviledged religion of the US. Bringing balance tends to upset those losing the extra perks they once enjoyed. However, most atheists I know are all for free speech and that includes religious free speech. As an example, the ACLU sued a school that would not let a child publish a Bible verse as her favorite quote in the yearbook. They also sued a school that would not let a child read the Bible during free reading time.

If most atheists were really trying to be rational, and interpret the evidence for the purpose of getting to the genuine truth (which is what most claim), then they should be the last group twisting the beliefs of others, or their theories, or denying the validity (merely ignoring it, really) of a book that supports the current scientific evidence, supports history as verified through various types of confirmation, like secular records, and archeology, and has given us an account of many true things in all areas of life, but really they should be investigating it without prejudice and in a sincere manner...and definitely without the overtones of bigotry (the word pseudoscience comes to mind)...to the point of excluding believing scientist in attitude, and with man-made limits like the Scientific Method.

What we see is the product of rational thinking. For example, Christians use to believe that diseases were caused by demons. Now we know they are caused by germs. We do not even attempt to teach the demon theory of disease anymore even though some people believe this stuff still. What we do is try to find people who know science in a specific field and see if a strong majority believe a theory. If they do, it is taught as science. The science can be challengedm but it has to be with rationality and observation.

I think earlier scientists were successful in practicing science without the scientific method, and probably would not have tolerated being limited at all.

Not really. One of the biggest scientific understandings is that reality is what it is, not what we think it should be. Science goes badly when people guess at truth instead of trying to measure observables. Einstein overthrew conservative thinking with his special relativity. He came up with it because he focused on what can be observed instead of what the universe should be. However, Einstein fell into this same trap when he could not accept quantum mechanics. Einstein believed the universe to be deterministic and could not believe in Quantum Theory despite all the proofs.

No, it is because He is the Lord that He said that whoever is not with Him is against Him, and that whoever does not gather to Him is scattered abroad, since anyone who accepts Him accepts the Father, and anyone who denies Him denies the Father.

So what do you make of Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50? Do you think Jesus meant them? Do you think that a baby that does not know Jesus and is thus not for him, against Jesus? Are the people that lived before Jesus against Jesus as well? Are people that has never heard of Jesus against him?

But if you see one of us shouting at you in the street corner, getting dirty looks, it's probably not just because he wants to annoy you.

I don't think it was me. I stood up for a street preacher against some kids that were picking on him. I told them if they did not like his message, they should prove it with words instead of threats.

I like Voltaire's belief that we should stand up for each other's right to speech. What I go against is when people try to force me to follow their religion. For example, I no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance because it sounds like a prayer. I sometimes cross out the "T" in "In God We Trust."

 

[lovely]

Hi Quath,

I know many atheists/agnostics. I see several kinds of reactions. For example, on the way back to lunch, we passed a church that had the sign "If man came from apes, why are there still apes around?" One guy just laughed and said "If Americans came from the English people, why are there still English people around?" A good laugh was had by all. But what we all laughed at was the ridiculousness. As scientists we understand how science works and what constitutes good evidence. So evolution just seems very common sense to us. To see people deny it is like seeing people deny a round earth. As polite as you may try to be, you find such beliefs to be crazy.

But I am sure the feeling is returned. I have talked to Christians that feel sorry for me that I can not understand God exists. They feel I must be blind or a fool not to see this.

My point is, for the non-christian groups that hang high the banner of tolerance (as they define it) and accusing belivers of being intolerant, all the while mocking or hating believers is a bit hypocritical of them....though they think/say it isn't because it is merely being directed at an 'irrational' (as they define it) group of Christians.

I don't see this the same way. What I see atheists doing is making sure Christians are held to the same rules as everyone else is. In general, Christians have been the priviledged religion of the US. Bringing balance tends to upset those losing the extra perks they once enjoyed. However, most atheists I know are all for free speech and that includes religious free speech. As an example, the ACLU sued a school that would not let a child publish a Bible verse as her favorite quote in the yearbook. They also sued a school that would not let a child read the Bible during free reading time.

I don't remember having any extra perks growing up, and I have been a believer since I was very young. As far as believer's filing lawsuits, I am not sure I agree they should be doing so, but I understand why they desire to. The rights and perks I do have, like voting, were not given to me because I am a Christian, but because I am a citizen of the United States where I was born. Historical monuments and historical writings are not perks for a certain group...they're history. Much like monuments of historical figures, buildings, war's, and so on. Our society past and present is what it is, and again it is a history that belongs to ALL of US...good or bad, not just one specific group.

Thanks for the discussion, Quath, and the Lord bless you.

 

[Quath]

My point is, for the non-christian groups that hang high the banner of tolerance (as they define it) and accusing belivers of being intolerant, all the while mocking or hating believers is a bit hypocritical of them....though they think/say it isn't because it is merely being directed at an 'irrational' (as they define it) group of Christians.

I think part of the confusion is that tolerance has several meanings we throw around. On one level it means to accept unconditionally. I don't think anyone is really proposing that.

On another level is means to put up with another. I think this is the level of tolerance liberals are talking about.

Another level is trying to restrict people from doing things you do not like but tolerating that such people exist. I think this is the level liberals are preaching against.

The way we can see this is that Christians will try to stop gays from marrying even though it doesn't directly affect them. Liberals would be hypocritical if they denied Christians could marry in response. However, they tend to follow the middle level of tolerance.

I don't remember having any extra perks growing up, and I have been a believer since I was very young. As far as believer's filing lawsuits, I am not sure I agree they should be doing so, but I understand why they desire to. The rights and perks I do have, like voting, were not given to me because I am a Christian, but because I am a citizen of the United States where I was born. Historical monuments and historical writings are not perks for a certain group...they're history. Much like monuments of historical figures, buildings, war's, and so on. Our society past and present is what it is, and again it is a history that belongs to ALL of US...good or bad, not just one specific group.

Just a few instances. Atheists were not allowed on juries for the longest time. Within the past few decades this rule has been removed. The first nonthiest congressman ever in the United States was proclaimed this year. Sometimes politicians or judges try to get its citizens to pay for new religious stuff like Ten Commandment statues or crosses. Schools try to get students to pray. Back in the 1950's students were expelled if they did not say the pledge and their parents were arrested.

Lately, things are getting better for atheists, but that is because Christian groups are slowly losing power so they are equal to any other religion (or lack of religon).