Atheists why do you all hate Christians?

[The Alma Mater]

I have a problem with the use of the word "hate". It is not just a dislike, but it is intense dislike or loathing. I, as an atheist may find Christian beliefs silly or childish or lacking in common sense, but no atheist would ever loathe christianty, unless the Christian had loathesome personal qualities---which would surely disqualify him/her as a Christian?

A number of posts in this very thread put a lie to that statement.

Indeed. I certainly loathe certain commandments in the Bible.
Does not mean I loathe Christians though; although it does make it hard for me to respect them.

[F1-Insanity]

I have a problem with the use of the word "hate". It is not just a dislike, but it is intense dislike or loathing. I, as an atheist may find Christian beliefs silly or childish or lacking in common sense, but no atheist would ever loathe christianty, unless the Christian had loathesome personal qualities---which would surely disqualify him/her as a Christian?

A number of posts in this very thread put a lie to that statement.

Indeed. I certainly loathe certain commandments in the Bible.
Does not mean I loathe Christians though; although it does make it hard for me to respect them.

I utterly loathe christianity (and islam and judaism as well). No good has EVER come off any of these intolerant and supremacist ideologies. I feel sorry for people who got suckered into those despicable cults.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

No good has EVER come off any of these intolerant and supremacist ideologies.

Wrong.

[Dyakovo]

I have a problem with the use of the word "hate". It is not just a dislike, but it is intense dislike or loathing. I, as an atheist may find Christian beliefs silly or childish or lacking in common sense, but no atheist would ever loathe christianty, unless the Christian had loathesome personal qualities---which would surely disqualify him/her as a Christian?

A number of posts in this very thread put a lie to that statement.

Indeed. I certainly loathe certain commandments in the Bible.
Does not mean I loathe Christians though; although it does make it hard for me to respect them.

I utterly loathe christianity (and islam and judaism as well). No good has EVER come off any of these intolerant and supremacist ideologies. I feel sorry for people who got suckered into those despicable cults.

I feel sorry for intolerant bigots regardless of their religious ideology.

[F1-Insanity]

No good has EVER come off any of these intolerant and supremacist ideologies.

Wrong.

please enlighten me then...

[EvilDarkMagicians]

No good has EVER come off any of these intolerant and supremacist ideologies.

Wrong.

Please enlighten me then...

Countless charities were based off the Christian ideals.

Many people have stopped themselves from doing certain unlawful things because of their god ('Rape, murder... etc.)

[Dyakovo]

No good has EVER come off any of these intolerant and supremacist ideologies.

Wrong.

please enlighten me then...

he new Christian method of learning was influenced by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) from the rediscovery of the works of Aristotle through Medieval Jewish and Muslim Philosophy (Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes) and those whom he influenced, most notably Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure and Abélard. Scholastics believed in empiricism and supporting Roman Catholic doctrines through secular study, reason, and logic. They opposed Christian mysticism, and the Platonist-Augustinian beliefs in mind dualism and the view of the world as inherently evil. The most famous of the scholastics was Thomas Aquinas (later declared a "Doctor of the Church"), who led the move away from the Platonic and Augustinian and towards Aristotelianism. Aquinas developed a philosophy of mind by writing that the mind was at birth a tabula rasa ("blank slate") that was given the ability to think and recognize forms or ideas through a divine spark. Other notable scholastics included Roscelin, Abélard, and Peter Lombard. One of the main questions during this time was the problem of universals. Prominent opponents of various aspects of the scholastic mainstream included Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Peter Damian, Bernard of Clairvaux, and the Victorines.

In the 12th century, the Cluny monks promoted ethical warfare

[The Tofu Islands]

please enlighten me then...

Evidence-based and experimental medicine, for a start.

Plus there are various religious charities that do good stuff.

[Central Slavia]

No good has EVER come off any of these intolerant and supremacist ideologies.

Wrong.

Please enlighten me then...

Countless charities were based off the Christian ideals.

Many people have stopped themselves from doing certain unlawful things because of their god ('Rape, murder... etc.)

Wrong.
There is nothing good out of those that does not come from nonreligious sources as well.
I do not know that the murder rate in Czech republic being mostly atheist is any bigger than in USA (hint hint it is the opposite)
Besides charites are bad - government should take care of everyone, that actually works

[Central Slavia]

please enlighten me then...

Evidence-based and experimental medicine, for a start.

Plus there are various religious charities that do good stuff.

Evidence based, experimental medicine began despite religion, not because of it.
Hell fanatics were even against vaccination when it was invented.

[Dyakovo]

please enlighten me then...

Evidence-based and experimental medicine, for a start.

Plus there are various religious charities that do good stuff.

Evidence based, experimental medicine began despite religion, not because of it..

Fail

[The Tofu Islands]

There is nothing good out of those that does not come from nonreligious sources as well.

Irrelevant.

Simply because there exist secular charities does not make the work that religious ones do any less helpful or good.

Evidence based, experimental medicine began despite religion, not because of it.

Maybe. From what I recall, the early doctors were somewhat inspired by the passage of the Koran that is something like “there is no disease that God has put on the Earth for which he has not provided a cure” (exact phrasing may vary).

[The Alma Mater]

Evidence based, experimental medicine began despite religion, not because of it.

Maybe. From what I recall, the early doctors were somewhat inspired by the passage of the Koran that is something like “there is no disease that God has put on the Earth for which he has not provided a cure” (exact phrasing may vary).

Actually, it was better described by paraphrasing the great prophet DeeDee:
"Ooooh, what does THIS do ?"

But yours helped

[Central Slavia]

There is nothing good out of those that does not come from nonreligious sources as well.

Irrelevant.

Simply because there exist secular charities does not make the work that religious ones do any less helpful or good.

Evidence based, experimental medicine began despite religion, not because of it.

Maybe. From what I recall, the early doctors were somewhat inspired by the passage of the Koran that is something like “there is no disease that God has put on the Earth for which he has not provided a cure” (exact phrasing may vary).

Relevant fail
If there was no religion, all those things would still function, and better. What you are stating is the irrelevant fact as religion is neither sufficient nor even required condition for those

[F1-Insanity]

please enlighten me then...

Evidence-based and experimental medicine, for a start.

Plus there are various religious charities that do good stuff.

Evidence based, experimental medicine began despite religion, not because of it.
Hell fanatics were even against vaccination when it was invented.

Exactly. And the church held monopoly over science for a long time, and held much of it back because it didn't fit the right 'world-view'.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Wrong.
There is nothing good out of those that does not come from nonreligious sources as well.
I do not know that the murder rate in Czech republic being mostly atheist is any bigger than in USA (hint hint it is the opposite)
Besides charites are bad - government should take care of everyone, that actually works

I fail to see how you have dis-proven my point.

[The Alma Mater]

Wrong.
There is nothing good out of those that does not come from nonreligious sources as well.
I do not know that the murder rate in Czech republic being mostly atheist is any bigger than in USA (hint hint it is the opposite)
Besides charites are bad - government should take care of everyone, that actually works

I fail to see how you have dis-proven my point.

HIs argument is "the good things religion has brought would have happened anyway without religion. Religion therefor does not add anything, but it does defintely substract due to (insert list of religious evils of your choice here)".

The flaw in that reasoning is of course that we do not know what would have happened without religion. We can guess, but there is no way to test the validity of those guesses.

[Imsogone]

Wrong.
There is nothing good out of those that does not come from nonreligious sources as well.
I do not know that the murder rate in Czech republic being mostly atheist is any bigger than in USA (hint hint it is the opposite)
Besides charites are bad - government should take care of everyone, that actually works

I fail to see how you have dis-proven my point.

Religious charities have hooks. You have to listen to their screed as a condition of receiving the charity. Those charitable Catholic monks actually forcibly converted thousands of non-Christians as a condition of their being allowed to live in abject poverty and servitude. A lot of Christian charities only serve other Christians.

Secular charities may have hooks, but I don't think so - if you have a need, they'll help you with it. Actually, the only hook I've seen in many secular charities is that they require that you learn how to help yourself as a condition of getting help from them.

Religious charities don't generally promote self help, they promote dependence because if you're dependent, you have to keep coming back, it keeps you vulnerable and susceptible to their preaching.

You know, I've watched this on numerous occasions. A person or a group undergoes a traumatic experience, say the death of loved ones. The ministry of a particular sect goes into action. In the guise of giving comfort, they approach the bereaved. After a period of hand-holding, head-patting and prescribed platitudes, which doesn't let up, they go in for the kill. Before you know it, in the face of all that prescribed,unrelenting, phony kindness, the bereaved succumbs and converts. It's a false conversion, usually, done in a moment of vulnerability and suggestibility, but it's another notch on the pulpit.

[Dyakovo]

Wrong.
There is nothing good out of those that does not come from nonreligious sources as well.
I do not know that the murder rate in Czech republic being mostly atheist is any bigger than in USA (hint hint it is the opposite)
Besides charites are bad - government should take care of everyone, that actually works

I fail to see how you have dis-proven my point.

Religious charities have hooks.

Generalizations do you no good...
Not all religious charities require you to listen to their sermons or convert. The Salvation Army is an example of one that does not.

[Spetsnazastan]

Take a look at 19th centruy imperialism. The Europeans tried to convert the poor natives to Christianity, then, when they retaliated against the missionaries, the European governments used it as a pretext to intervene and slaughter them and force western civilization down their throats. I don't know how those missionaries could be considered good at all since they imposed their religion on the poor natives.

Not all religious charities require indoctrination, but from my experience, for every one that doesn't indoctrinate, there are twenty more that do. Charity isn't inherently bad, but forcible indoctrination is awful.

I personally think that no religion should be allowed to proselytize other people, but they can believe whatever stupid nonsense they want as long as they don't bother me.

[The Alma Mater]

Not all religious charities require you to listen to their sermons or convert. The Salvation Army is an example of one that does not.

Threatening to close all the soup kitchens if legislation would be passed requiring organisations working with civil authorities to recognise domestic partnerships, including those of gays, is indeed not a cnversionhook in any way.

[Dyakovo]

Not all religious charities require you to listen to their sermons or convert. The Salvation Army is an example of one that does not.

Threatening to close all the soup kitchens if legislation would be passed requiring organisations working with civil authorities to recognise domestic partnerships, including those of gays, is indeed not a cnversionhook in any way.

Correct, it isn't.

Oh, I'm sorry, were you trying to imply that it was?

[The Alma Mater]

Not all religious charities require you to listen to their sermons or convert. The Salvation Army is an example of one that does not.

Threatening to close all the soup kitchens if legislation would be passed requiring organisations working with civil authorities to recognise domestic partnerships, including those of gays, is indeed not a cnversionhook in any way.

Correct, it isn't.

Oh, I'm sorry, were you trying to imply that it was?

Nope. Just that the Salvation army is not above using its influence to manipulate the political process to promote its Christian agenda.
Or to rephrase in this specific case: less willing to help people that are not married, but do live together. Especially if they are gay

[Kryozerkia]

They don't hate christians; they hate how christians think a single book of fiction counts as sufficient evidence to prove everything they believe in.

Well, I hate Christians because they think a single book of fiction counts as sufficient evidence to prove everything they believe in.

You just put the whole Atheist argument into one sentence. Well done.

Anyway, we don't hate christians, we hate ALL religion, because it's bullshit.

Then what does that make me if I'm not atheist nor agnostic and think all religion is bullshit?

You are most likely a Deist. Deism is the belief that there is a supreme/superior force in the universe while rejecting the notion that any divine intervention or miracles exists. It doesn't rely on faith or religion.

I just acknowledge God. I'm not spiritual at all. That's about it. God will always be lowest on my list of things to think about. Also I tend to agree with atheists more since they are actually logical and don't interpret things literally or make up their own bullshit. Like Christians who say anti-abortion messages are in the bible even though it is never mentioned.

Which is pretty much with Deism is, an acknowledgement of god and not much else. You had asked what it would make you if not atheist nor agnostic. This is probably the closest thing. That is, if you want a label to make it easier to describe to people where you stand.

[Dyakovo]

Not all religious charities require you to listen to their sermons or convert. The Salvation Army is an example of one that does not.

Threatening to close all the soup kitchens if legislation would be passed requiring organisations working with civil authorities to recognise domestic partnerships, including those of gays, is indeed not a cnversionhook in any way.

Correct, it isn't.

Oh, I'm sorry, were you trying to imply that it was?

Nope. Just that the Salvation army is not above using its influence to manipulate the political process to promote its Christian agenda.
Or to rephrase in this specific case: less willing to help people that are not married, but do live together. Especially if they are gay

And yet in practice they do not ask about.