Atheists dont hate religion ... they hate Christians

[cardinalking.livejournal.com]

https://www.facebook.com/pamela.sloanbaker?pnref=lhc

Comments

[usekh.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't except they try to force their morality on the rest of us.

[cardinalking.livejournal.com]

Those arent Christians; theyre fascist demagogues like the muslims. And atheists try to force they beliefs onto Christians by coercive means

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Ah, the "no true scotsman" argument. Always effective.

And what 'beliefs' and 'coercive means' are these? The law?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

1) No true Scotsman argument.
2) I'm Catholic. We've definitely been forcing the One True Church on others for years - and we are True Christians. So, no, you're wrong.

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

Because, my dear child, "He" is more dangerous than Father Christmas.

[torylltales.livejournal.com]

True: helium actually exists.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I care because your prayer is connected to a raft of other ideas, some are benign, but some are malignant.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

Does not mean that your thoughts aren't connected to a raft of other ideas as well, some benign, some malignant.

Fact is, human is human. If one wants to be an extremist, you can manage that no matter your religion or other views of the world.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Sure.

But few ideas are as dangerous as there being some sky-daddy with a list of rules that if you fail to obey, he might destroy the whole city your living in.....one idea that is nearly as dangerous as that is the idea of an afterlife, and as if any of us have any fucking idea what happens after we die. Anyone at all who says they know what happens after death is a fucking liar. Believing liars is a terrible, terrible habit for people to have.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

Raising some difficult themes here. ^_^

Said list of rules is the first agreement of humanity what is okay and what is not. Religion was the cultural vehicle with which these rules were transported through the ages. Very effectively, I might add.
"Thou shall not kill," etc. is after all still known to all of us and usually to be accepted as a standard rule. But that does not mean that it always was a rule of common sense and as such they have had their place.

That said, in industrial countries we have the luxury of not needing those religious rules as a basic anymore, because we have a functioning government. But:
a) that does not mean the rest of the world has it.
b) in the future that can also change again.

The afterlife idea gives people assurance. Sometimes the assurance to walk into their deaths with eyes open, mind clouded, and a bomb strapped to their chest, yes. But also a much quieter assurance for normal people when they die. I'm talking about those, who die quietly, in pain, of old age. It is a comfort to them. It is very human to say to some one dying "It will be okay. Close your eyes, we see each other again." For me, that human comfort it the most difficult moments one can ever experience is the reason why we have a belief of an afterlife. That makes it a statement of humanity, and not of liars.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"we see each other again."

That is the lie. And I've lost people near and dear to me, so this ain't like I haven't experienced those moments where *IF* the afterlife was a thing it would have re-assured me, but it's a fucking lie and fucking liars have been telling it to us for a long time. The lies need to stop.

I'd rather we focus on creating functioning govts and we ignore those fairy tales that we've been told for hundreds or thousands of years. At least the Jews got it right, they don't really talk about the afterlife. To them there's something after this life, but they don't really talk about it cause none of us really know. At least they are honest.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

These fairy tales give hope and peace of mind to those who need it. Obviously you do not need it, but that does not make other's needs and wishes irrelevant or unimportant. And as long as this lie or fairy tale harms no one and is not used to control others, it should be allowed to do it.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"obviously you do not need it"

No, I suffered and hurt and cried and mourned and felt like a piece of my very own self went missing, when those I love died. I, like anyone else in moments of mourning, want, NEED, comfort.

I do NOT want comforting lies, however. They are lies.

Once you are willing to accept this or that lie for a little comfort, how far will you go? How many lies will you accept? How divorced from reality do you want to be?

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry for your losses. I hope I did not wake up bad memories and I hope you received the comfort you needed.

It was not that kind of need I meant. Grieve is horrible, yes, and for some religion can be a comfort, for some not. I think, if I would have to say how religion can help with grief, I would point towards the rituals. They can be very elaborate and if wished for by the relatives, there can be small rituals for quite some time. The reason is simple, it designates times and days where it is okay and even expected to cry, to break down, to let go. Even later it can give a socially accepted time, where you can simply cry and you are not expected to do anything else.

Those lies are a false hope, maybe. But they are a hope. If you having nothing else, if you work a 12h day and have only enough food for you or your kid, if you hands are infected and you wonder if suicide would take away the pain - that's the moment of belief and more, of religion. Religion converts people not when they sit in their own houses, with enough food, coca cola and internet access. It converts people on their knees, wondering if they can survive the next few months. It converts people who feel helpless, are in pain, and afraid.
It is no accident, that the countries with the highest atheist rates are industrialised countries with great social benefits. People there do not need religion and belief and, yes, lies of comfort.

How many lies would you accept? We all accept lies, every day. Sometimes we notice, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we try to convince other that their belief in say gun-carry is false. But they believe that it is their right to carry guns. So how far will they go? How long will US-Americans accept their deathrate that is higher than in any other industrial country?
Religion is not the only belief or lie. But at least it comes with the intention to do more good than bad in the long run. It comes with a set of laws, it comes with examples of justice, it comes with warnings. Some very much antiquated, yes, but that's why we seperated religion and state. As long as religion does not have real power, especially not absolute power, I do not see the harm it can do.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

" If you having nothing else, if you work a 12h day and have only enough food for you or your kid, if you hands are infected and you wonder if suicide would take away the pain - that's the moment of belief and more, of religion."

Yes, it is even more deeply problematic that religion preys off people who in a bad situation. Instead of talking about an afterlife and any sort of "other world" how about we focus on making sure people have enough?

If religion is just how to keep poor people happy, I am even more disgusted by it than if it was mere lies.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

how about we focus on making sure people have enough?

Churches in the poorest areas of the world, focus exactly on that. They do not waste time with theoretical maybes or something, they try to provide food, blankets, roofs.

The moment the state steps in and fills every single corner where the churches provide something of true value to the people - that is the day we can really start the debate, if we need religion/ churches/ belief anymore.

If religion is just how to keep poor people happy, I am even more disgusted by it

You say "just" as if it was an easy, or lesser task.

[garote]

If "the state" stepped in and did the same thing as a church, it would be another church.

The modern state exists mostly for the purpose of doing what the church used to have a monopoly on (organize people, create and enforce rules, regulate and shape the distribution of wealth) without the "religion" part of the church.

It's the "religion" part of the church that's the problem, not the organizational part.
And so, the debate has already started - and been long underway. It's been underway since the first republic was formed.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

The church never had a 100% monopoly on these things. There were kings and nobles who had their fair share as well and more than once did not agree at all, even when the church was at its most powerful. It was just that for a long time, church and aristocracy helped each other along in suppressing the rest. Which was no accident, as the leader of the church were nobles...

And so, the debate has already started - and been long underway. It's been underway since the first republic was formed.

I would dare to say even longer. But since the republic at least some countries agree that church and state have to be separated. It should not matter what religion a politician has, or if s/he follows it. Religion should not have any power to force people to do anything. If they want to do it, okay. But they have to be able to walk away at any time. Which is by the way, why I think home schooling is dangerous. There is a danger that it is too one-sided and that the children are forced to remain in their communities, because of a lack of education.

[garote]

Well, is that home-schooling that's to blame, or it that home-schooling PLUS religious convictions that's to blame?

My older sister home-schooled her boys for several years, before eventually enrolling them in high school (age 14). Seemed to work rather well, especially since "home-school" took the form of a community organization primarily concerned with field trips, science and math education, and live presentations.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

I think home-schooling is a bit like a gamble. It can turn out a lot better than what state school offers, but also a lot worse. It's a matter of the parents, of their education and their convictions. Home-schooling turns really bad, when it is used in an enclosed community as a measure of control, or when it is used to hide things like abuse, etc.

It reads like your sister did everything alright, when her boys managed to have more fun, more activity and a comparable solid education all at the same time.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

As for:

"As long as religion does not have real power, especially not absolute power, I do not see the harm it can do."


Tell that to my friend who was dis-owned by his parents because he left the church. Go on, tell me how it did not cause any harm.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

Let me tell you, his parents do not deserve any polite words on this planet. There are no excuses.

Might be that their confession demanded it, maybe not (because I can't think of any pastor I ever had who would've demanded this, but then it's far to common here to even talk about it). Maybe his parents might also have disowned him, if he had been gay... or married the wrong person... or something else.

But if their love was conditional, then it does not matter what that condition were. It was not the love a parent should give to its child. No matter confession, or religion.

[garote]

Fairy tales give hope and peace of mind, but it's false hope, and peace of mind based on deceit.
Obviously not a good thing.
Why are you advocating that people "need" to be lied to?

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

Hi, welcome to the discussion. :)

I do not advocate people "need" to be lied to.
I'm saying that some people want it and are happier if they have hope that there is something more out there and that this is not a bad thing.
I'm not even saying that this group is the majority in any way or shape. But they are the people that bring talismans to exams, make paper cranes when someone is sick or have little rituals in their normal day, because it comforts them.

Generally, I think that you classify it as "lie" and "lie = bad" to easily.

Let's take for example alien hunters. They believe that aliens are out there, even though there is no proof. Some even believe that aliens are on earth. Is it a lie? Is it a bad thing they believe it? Not really. After all, we know that it might be possible that there are aliens out there and on earth. Or there might not be. Whatever the case, so far it has no impact at all on our lives. But the alien hunters are a bit happier, because they have something "more" out there.

[garote]

You keep changing the subject. I'm not interested in debating whether lying, in general, is universally bad. That's a silly thing to debate.

I am interested in debating whether the lies enshrined in church doctrine, and taught as fact in church ceremony, are more a positive force, or a negative force. And I contend they are a negative force.

Would you tell a terminal cancer patient that she is totally fine, because it will make her "feel better", rather than telling her that she will probably die in six months so she can get her affairs in order? Of course you wouldn't.

But would you tell a terminal cancer patient that she has six months to live, but then tell her that she'll meet all her friends in the afterlife and dance on a cloud playing a harp for eternity, because it will make her "feel better"? Perhaps you might, anticipating that such a story might not change her behavior but only change her feelings.

But the church doesn't stop there. The church says, among other things, that you stand a better chance of that happening, if you donate all your worldly possessions to the church, rather than leaving them to your heirs.

That is a lie that causes real damage, and I find it absolutely abhorrent. The church has laid claim to "the power to bind and loose", the metaphorical keys to the afterlife, for its entire existence. Untold riches have been tithed and donated and granted to the church, for its alleged "good works", and the majority of that money has gone towards self-aggrendizement and enrichment so that the church retains it's central position.

Better that money become taxes, to a non-religious state, whose charter confines it only to earthly matters, and leaves the spiritual alone.

[garote]

I like how the creator of this didn't even bother to disguise his comic-sans style font.

Too lazy to write the words out himself. And too lazy to make a coherent statement.

[interdictor.livejournal.com]

Because irrationality is offensive. If you want to be an irrational, superstitious dirt-worshipping monkey, go do it in the jungle or someplace where the rest of us don't have to listen to it.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

I hate how religion degrades humanity.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Very few atheists care if anyone prays to anything. We only care if said prayer violates the U.S. Constitution. We only care when religious people try to force us (or our children) to pray. We only care that Christians in America care more about crushing all dissent than following Matthew 6:5. If they didn't try to force their religion onto others, no one would complain.

But nice strawman argument. Got any real ones?

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

"Very few atheists care if anyone prays to anything."

Just read the comments above you.

"If they didn't try to force their religion onto others, no one would complain."

That is not true. Or rather, nothing in my experience supports it. I live in an area, where religious people are becoming a minority. So, we have atheists sueing that the bell is too loud while freely admitting that they don't really care about the noise. But it's a church bell and they don't ever want to hear it again. I had atheist teachers in school that devoted an enitre lesson to explaining why they're atheists, why god is stupid and in the end forcing pupils to raise their hand if they were atheists. Unsurprisingly, everyone did besides maybe 3 kids. It goes on.
And just for your information, I'm undecided currently on the whole issue of God.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

I live in an area, where religious people are becoming a minority.

What is this area?

So, we have atheists sueing that the bell is too loud while freely admitting that they don't really care about the noise.

In what district is this case?

I had atheist teachers in school that devoted an enitre lesson to explaining why they're atheists, why god is stupid and in the end forcing pupils to raise their hand if they were atheists. Unsurprisingly, everyone did besides maybe 3 kids.

What school did this occur in?

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

Forgive me for not exactly answering your questions, because I have no desire to splash my private life here. But I will try my best.

What is this area?

Germany. 2012 the spiegel wrote "If atheismn were a religion, it would be the strongest in Germany." 53 percent of all Germans do not believe in any god.

In what district is this case?

Funnily enough, it was in Bavaria, the area which is counted as "very" catholic. Which is probably the reason it made news at all.

What school did this occur in?

In my 9th grade, middle school.

[garote]

Wow, Germany's pretty awesome!

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

I love Germany and are very happy here. :)

I know this might be a personal question, but do you believe that atheists in very religious countries are more "radical" and aggressive an in their views because they have to defend them against the majority?

[garote]

No. But I do believe that they are described in more radical terms, and driven farther underground, the more religious the country is.

Take Saudi Arabia, for example, where publicly declaring that you are an atheist will get you beheaded.

Where I live, it is not considered "radical" to walk out into the street waving a sign that says, for example, "there is no god". Or even "allah does not exist". There are many people who would consider it poor taste or perhaps a waste of time, but it would not lead to a beheading.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Oh, so not the USA. Never mind.
What you describe does not happen in the USA. I have no knowledge about other countries and do not care about the issue in other countries, as there is no 1st Amendment protection outside of the USA.
If you have a problem with atheists in Germany, then have the German government declare an official religion and enforce that religion's dictates.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't dare to get into a discussion about the 1st Amendment of the USA in regards to religion. We have other protections, though.

The government shouldn't touch religion at all.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

In addition to farchivist's questions, even assuming that what you say is true:

The anecdotal existence of few bad actors you might have encountered does nothing to change the general data that atheists are in the minority, that all too often simply asking that Christians follow the law results in death threats and other abuse, and that, regardless, the Constitution says what it says, and the law is the law for a reason. The laws exist to protect both believers and non-believers, and the moment we allow believers to ignore the law, we run the risk of allowing situations such as existed in England pre-America: where one Christian denomination achieved power and began persecuting all others. That is the reason for our Constitutional statements on religion, and they protect everyone, both believers and non-believers.

The people right now flaunting the law don't care because they are the ones currently in power. They should not be so foolish as to forget that these laws exist to protect them as well, should they one day fall out of power. They should know better than to erode these protections, and should welcome the efforts of those who strive to keep everyone honest.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

It is true.

I actually choose anecdotal references, because everyone else I read in this threat did as well. It did not feel as if their anger at believers had a logical background.

Atheists are not in the minority in my area, aka Germany. Yes, most are still part of the church here, but that's because most like to marry in a church. The end. In 2012, the Spiegel published a piece in which it said that 53 percent of all Germans are atheists. Furthermore that atheists see themselves here as a major political movement, bigger than the churches.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/atheisten-gottlose-fordern-moral-monopol-der-kirche-heraus-a-835692.html
It's in German, but google translater will work well.

Yes, I get it, that you probably thought I was talking about the USA, but I didn't. Might have clarified that in my first post. You applied your experiences to the rest of the world and all atheists.
The majority is always arrogant and atheists are not excluded. That was the point I originally wanted to make. And in Germany the majority is atheist by now.

On a side note, your Constitution is a wonderful thing, and when it was written very, very modern. And I agree that maybe religion is a tad too important in your country. It's strange to see some of your politicians talk about religion in a political context, like it should and has to matter if people vote for you or not. In comparison, I can't tell you the religion of more than two of our politicans - one of them is Merkel, though I'm quite sure she is by now atheists. But I do not know for cetain, because she rarely talks about such things and is never really asked.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, most Catholic parishes in Germany have pretty dwindling numbers for decades. That's why Pope Benedict was on a mission to stress the European significance of the Catholic Church.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

Pope Benedict tried hard and... well, he tried.
At least broke up the Italian chokehold on the church enough for Pope Francis to be voted in.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

Pope Benedict tried hard and... well, he tried.
At least broke up the Italian chokehold on the church enough for Pope Francis to be voted in.

[pepsquad.livejournal.com]

lulz, i know many atheists don't give a shit about xistans or any other faith for that matter. the issue is when those of faith try to horn their faith into the public arena.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

I'm not even an atheist and *I* hate that!

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

You think it's the praying that's the problem? Also, why just atheists?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

If I met her at a party, I very much doubt Pamela Sloanbaker would be a person with whom I would enjoy conversing.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

[kirstennnnnn.livejournal.com]

I don't care if people pray. In fact, I think it is a coping mechanism that genuinely helps some people deal with their lives. I personally am only annoyed by religious people when they try to force their opinions onto me by making their opinions into laws that they require me to follow. Well, they also annoy me when they feel justified in harassing me just because I don't have the same viewpoint on certain issues. Atheists and non-Christians are annoying when they pull that crap, too. I am an equal opportunity atheist.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule, right? To me that means that we should be respectful and compassionate of the humanity, even if the ideas of a specific person are not what you believe. And, give other people enough space to thrive within their own free will. I really appreciate what some of my pagan friends used to say, "Do as you will, as long as you don't hurt others.". Debate about what constitutes harm to others will be an inevitable source of contention, but that is why an impartial law is supposed to exist.