Atheists why do you all hate Christians?

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

It's a source of some amusement to me in this thread, that the staunchest advocates for the good that religions can do... have been Atheists.

[Nordicus]

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.

It's not even a very good book.

Come now it has everything, love, relationships, deceit, revenge, action, war, drama.

Pretty much every genre is covered in it.

Especially fiction.

Oh, it's not that. But calling the Bible fiction blatantly when it is categorized as non-fiction?

1) It wasn't called fiction when you responded about it being offensive.
2) Last I checked, the Bible is usually stocked in a "Religion" section in both books and libraries, which is not considered to be part of either fiction or non-fiction.

*laughs* But there's so much geological evidence supporting the flood!

Nope. There's a little bit of discredited information which is used by unscrupulous people in the Creationist camp to make it look like their is evidence for the flood.

But for good, decent fossils to be formed the organism must undergo a quick burial. Correct?

*Sigh*

Fossilization still doesn't support a Great Flood hypothesis, since all the fossils would be on the bottom. If the world is flooded for an entire year, you aren't going to have a gradual series of slightly different animals in ever higher strata; they'd all be mixed in the bottom couple of layers, with more strata being deposited on them in the later months of the flood. Even if, by some miraculous chance, you did have a large number of the drowned animals floating around for months before finally settling to the bottom, they wouldn't be "good" fossils for the exact reason you noted--they wouldn't have a quick burial, they'd be decomposing while they floated.

[Albia land of norns]

Its not just you Christians, its all religions. Please consider the amount of witch hunts, exorcisms, cleansing, Jihads, suicide bombings, Disgusting acts of guilt tripping $$ out of the people that cant afford their next meal so a teleavangalist can buy his 3rd benz, Child sacrifices, mutulations, molestations, and Wars are committed in the name of God. This is a very short list of the really fucked up things that are done in the name of Faith.

How many people have been killed in the name of God. Name me an organization that is responsible for the deaths of more humans than Christianity. Jesus got on the cross for what (not that Jesus actually existed, but if he did it was all in vain).

Man would be better off without Religion!!

I think you might like life in THE ATHEIST EMPIRE, a reagond I created aloung just those ideas. It's got a very good econamy and is extreamly peaceful. I agree on what you have just posted.

[The Alma Mater]

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.

It's not even a very good book.

Come now it has everything, love, relationships, deceit, revenge, action, war, drama.

Pretty much every genre is covered in it.

Especially fiction.

Science fiction even. They imagined TANKS.
All hail the mighty iron chariot

[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.

It's a source of some amusement to me in this thread, that the staunchest advocates for the good that religions can do... have been Atheists.

And especially since one of them is me, considering the fact that people have been using "christianity did this" as proof that all religions are bad... And I am certainly no fan of christianity.

[Imsogone]

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.

It's a source of some amusement to me in this thread, that the staunchest advocates for the good that religions can do... have been Atheists.

And especially since one of them is me, considering the fact that people have been using "christianity did this" as proof that all religions are bad... And I am certainly no fan of christianity.

In several contexts, organized religion is not good. If you believe, as I do, in spiritual growth - organized religion is bad - by placing restrictions on how you grow, what you do to grow and, indeed, what constitutes growth. Everything is in a nice, tidy little box that allows for little deviation. If you believe, as I do, that freedom of expression is a requirement for a full life - organized religion is bad - it places restrictions on your expression and what is appropriate and not appropriate in that religious context. There are several other contexts in which organized religion is detrimental to the life experience. Admittedly, people in organized religions do grow spiritually and do express themselves freely, but they do this in spite of the their religions, not because of them. Even the most liberal religions - for example, the Episcopalians or the Buddhists or even neo-pagans - have restrictions on how you do things that are independent of their moral stances.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

It's a source of some amusement to me in this thread, that the staunchest advocates for the good that religions can do... have been Atheists.

And especially since one of them is me, considering the fact that people have been using "christianity did this" as proof that all religions are bad... And I am certainly no fan of christianity.

In several contexts, organized religion is not good. If you believe, as I do, in spiritual growth - organized religion is bad - by placing restrictions on how you grow, what you do to grow and, indeed, what constitutes growth. Everything is in a nice, tidy little box that allows for little deviation. If you believe, as I do, that freedom of expression is a requirement for a full life - organized religion is bad - it places restrictions on your expression and what is appropriate and not appropriate in that religious context. There are several other contexts in which organized religion is detrimental to the life experience. Admittedly, people in organized religions do grow spiritually and do express themselves freely, but they do this in spite of the their religions, not because of them. Even the most liberal religions - for example, the Episcopalians or the Buddhists or even neo-pagans - have restrictions on how you do things that are independent of their moral stances.

But, overall, religion is not intrinsically bad, no?

[Imsogone]

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.

It's a source of some amusement to me in this thread, that the staunchest advocates for the good that religions can do... have been Atheists.

And especially since one of them is me, considering the fact that people have been using "christianity did this" as proof that all religions are bad... And I am certainly no fan of christianity.

In several contexts, organized religion is not good. If you believe, as I do, in spiritual growth - organized religion is bad - by placing restrictions on how you grow, what you do to grow and, indeed, what constitutes growth. Everything is in a nice, tidy little box that allows for little deviation. If you believe, as I do, that freedom of expression is a requirement for a full life - organized religion is bad - it places restrictions on your expression and what is appropriate and not appropriate in that religious context. There are several other contexts in which organized religion is detrimental to the life experience. Admittedly, people in organized religions do grow spiritually and do express themselves freely, but they do this in spite of the their religions, not because of them. Even the most liberal religions - for example, the Episcopalians or the Buddhists or even neo-pagans - have restrictions on how you do things that are independent of their moral stances.

But, overall, religion is not intrinsically bad, no?

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

[Dyakovo]

But, overall, religion is not intrinsically bad, no?

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

So,that would be a no?

[Grave_n_idle]

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

Religious people try to convert me, also. Not just people from the more oganised religions - I've had solitary Wiccans try to convince me of the theological supremacy of their position.

And yet - many religiously based groups clothe the naked, feed the hungry, build schools in third world countries, disseminate medicine in parts of the world most of us will consider ourselves lucky to never have to visit...

I don't care if you ask for a prayer when you feed the hungry. Just so long as you feed them. That can't be bad.

[Dyakovo]

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

Religious people try to convert me, also. Not just people from the more oganised religions - I've had solitary Wiccans try to convince me of the theological supremacy of their position.

And yet - many religiously based groups clothe the naked, feed the hungry, build schools in third world countries, disseminate medicine in parts of the world most of us will consider ourselves lucky to never have to visit...

I don't care if you ask for a prayer when you feed the hungry. Just so long as you feed them. That can't be bad.

If the prayer is a requirement for getting the help it is bad.

[Imsogone]

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

Religious people try to convert me, also. Not just people from the more oganised religions - I've had solitary Wiccans try to convince me of the theological supremacy of their position.

And yet - many religiously based groups clothe the naked, feed the hungry, build schools in third world countries, disseminate medicine in parts of the world most of us will consider ourselves lucky to never have to visit...

I don't care if you ask for a prayer when you feed the hungry. Just so long as you feed them. That can't be bad.

On behalf of the Wiccan, I apologize, they aren't supposed to do that. Charitable work notwithstanding, it is not good to restrict people spiritually, intellectually or in any other sense, in the name of a religion.

[Grave_n_idle]

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

Religious people try to convert me, also. Not just people from the more oganised religions - I've had solitary Wiccans try to convince me of the theological supremacy of their position.

And yet - many religiously based groups clothe the naked, feed the hungry, build schools in third world countries, disseminate medicine in parts of the world most of us will consider ourselves lucky to never have to visit...

I don't care if you ask for a prayer when you feed the hungry. Just so long as you feed them. That can't be bad.

If the prayer is a requirement for getting the help it is bad.

It's less than ideal, I can't bring myself to condemn it too strongly.

Of course, it depends - 'would you join us in prayer' versus 'this is the new national, official religion, etc'. Degree matters.

[Grave_n_idle]

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

Religious people try to convert me, also. Not just people from the more oganised religions - I've had solitary Wiccans try to convince me of the theological supremacy of their position.

And yet - many religiously based groups clothe the naked, feed the hungry, build schools in third world countries, disseminate medicine in parts of the world most of us will consider ourselves lucky to never have to visit...

I don't care if you ask for a prayer when you feed the hungry. Just so long as you feed them. That can't be bad.

On behalf of the Wiccan, I apologize, they aren't supposed to do that. Charitable work notwithstanding, it is not good to restrict people spiritually, intellectually or in any other sense, in the name of a religion.

But is it an overall 'bad'?

I'm obviously aware of the crimes of churches, over... well, recorded history - but I'm also aware that, without religion, our world would probably have been devoid of many of it's great advancements in art and architecture, for example. I'm aware that - while religious dogmatism has held back advance in areas at various times, religion has also propelled advances in other places, and at other times. Wars have been fought in the name of religion - but they have also been avoided in the name of religion.. although, that news obviously gets less press.

In general, I tend to think of religion - even (perhaps, in some ways, especially) organised religion, as an overll positive influence on the species.

[Blouman Empire]

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.

No good has EVER come from making generalisations.

Including this one.

[Spetsnazastan]

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

Religious people try to convert me, also. Not just people from the more oganised religions - I've had solitary Wiccans try to convince me of the theological supremacy of their position.

And yet - many religiously based groups clothe the naked, feed the hungry, build schools in third world countries, disseminate medicine in parts of the world most of us will consider ourselves lucky to never have to visit...

I don't care if you ask for a prayer when you feed the hungry. Just so long as you feed them. That can't be bad.

On behalf of the Wiccan, I apologize, they aren't supposed to do that. Charitable work notwithstanding, it is not good to restrict people spiritually, intellectually or in any other sense, in the name of a religion.

But is it an overall 'bad'?

I'm obviously aware of the crimes of churches, over... well, recorded history - but I'm also aware that, without religion, our world would probably have been devoid of many of it's great advancements in art and architecture, for example. I'm aware that - while religious dogmatism has held back advance in areas at various times, religion has also propelled advances in other places, and at other times. Wars have been fought in the name of religion - but they have also been avoided in the name of religion.. although, that news obviously gets less press.

In general, I tend to think of religion - even (perhaps, in some ways, especially) organised religion, as an overll positive influence on the species.

Name one specific time that war was avoided because of religion.

[Grave_n_idle]

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

Religious people try to convert me, also. Not just people from the more oganised religions - I've had solitary Wiccans try to convince me of the theological supremacy of their position.

And yet - many religiously based groups clothe the naked, feed the hungry, build schools in third world countries, disseminate medicine in parts of the world most of us will consider ourselves lucky to never have to visit...

I don't care if you ask for a prayer when you feed the hungry. Just so long as you feed them. That can't be bad.

On behalf of the Wiccan, I apologize, they aren't supposed to do that. Charitable work notwithstanding, it is not good to restrict people spiritually, intellectually or in any other sense, in the name of a religion.

But is it an overall 'bad'?

I'm obviously aware of the crimes of churches, over... well, recorded history - but I'm also aware that, without religion, our world would probably have been devoid of many of it's great advancements in art and architecture, for example. I'm aware that - while religious dogmatism has held back advance in areas at various times, religion has also propelled advances in other places, and at other times. Wars have been fought in the name of religion - but they have also been avoided in the name of religion.. although, that news obviously gets less press.

In general, I tend to think of religion - even (perhaps, in some ways, especially) organised religion, as an overll positive influence on the species.

Name one specific time that war was avoided because of religion.

When Henry VIII didn't go to war with the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V?

[Imsogone]

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

Religious people try to convert me, also. Not just people from the more oganised religions - I've had solitary Wiccans try to convince me of the theological supremacy of their position.

And yet - many religiously based groups clothe the naked, feed the hungry, build schools in third world countries, disseminate medicine in parts of the world most of us will consider ourselves lucky to never have to visit...

I don't care if you ask for a prayer when you feed the hungry. Just so long as you feed them. That can't be bad.

On behalf of the Wiccan, I apologize, they aren't supposed to do that. Charitable work notwithstanding, it is not good to restrict people spiritually, intellectually or in any other sense, in the name of a religion.

But is it an overall 'bad'?

I'm obviously aware of the crimes of churches, over... well, recorded history - but I'm also aware that, without religion, our world would probably have been devoid of many of it's great advancements in art and architecture, for example. I'm aware that - while religious dogmatism has held back advance in areas at various times, religion has also propelled advances in other places, and at other times. Wars have been fought in the name of religion - but they have also been avoided in the name of religion.. although, that news obviously gets less press.

In general, I tend to think of religion - even (perhaps, in some ways, especially) organised religion, as an overll positive influence on the species.

Name one specific time that war was avoided because of religion.

When Henry VIII didn't go to war with the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V?

That was just common sense on the part of a man who was outgunned in bed and on the sea.

Please understand, Christianity is a religion, it is not all religion. While I'm not particularly fond of 99.9% of the Christian sects, cults, churches and subsets, I do not equate them with all organized religion. And while I argue that Christianity, as it's practiced by the current crop of Christians (the practice of Christianity having absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Christ) is unhealthy and an incredibly bad influence on the world at large, I also argue that Islam and Judaism are equally bad. I further postulate that the larger, more organized and more influential any religion becomes (Abrahamic or otherwise) the more potential for evil it obtains. Religion needs to revert back to being individual and non-organized for it to regain it's integrity. As it stands now, no organized religion can lay claim to any sort of integrity because they're all too busy selling out for political clout.

[Grave_n_idle]

Insofar as organized religion and religious people try to convert me or, in any way, restrict what I think, believe, know, want, need and so on, yes, it is both intrinsically and extrinsically bad.

Religious people try to convert me, also. Not just people from the more oganised religions - I've had solitary Wiccans try to convince me of the theological supremacy of their position.

And yet - many religiously based groups clothe the naked, feed the hungry, build schools in third world countries, disseminate medicine in parts of the world most of us will consider ourselves lucky to never have to visit...

I don't care if you ask for a prayer when you feed the hungry. Just so long as you feed them. That can't be bad.

On behalf of the Wiccan, I apologize, they aren't supposed to do that. Charitable work notwithstanding, it is not good to restrict people spiritually, intellectually or in any other sense, in the name of a religion.

But is it an overall 'bad'?

I'm obviously aware of the crimes of churches, over... well, recorded history - but I'm also aware that, without religion, our world would probably have been devoid of many of it's great advancements in art and architecture, for example. I'm aware that - while religious dogmatism has held back advance in areas at various times, religion has also propelled advances in other places, and at other times. Wars have been fought in the name of religion - but they have also been avoided in the name of religion.. although, that news obviously gets less press.

In general, I tend to think of religion - even (perhaps, in some ways, especially) organised religion, as an overll positive influence on the species.

Name one specific time that war was avoided because of religion.

When Henry VIII didn't go to war with the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V?

That was just common sense on the part of a man who was outgunned in bed and on the sea.

Nonsense.

[Ashaven]

Um, they don't, for the most part. I'm a Christian, and have nothing against Atheists (mind you, most people would say I'm a bad Christian due to my analytical nature towards Theology, but I believe nonetheless!) unless they try to force their beliefs upon me. Then again, I'd hate just about anyone who does that.

Now, people who don't bother searching for an answer to life, the universe, and everything I have a different opinion. I just don't see why you wouldn't care about such an important concept...but that's another topic for another thread.

[Meoton]

There are two types of Christian Missionaries.
1)Converts by example. They help people, build schools, dig wells, provide medical aid, etc... without requirements by those they help. They simply help those in need and when asked why, they simply say because of my faith.
Good.

2)Others that offer aid, but only if you bow down and suck God's dick. Then you and your children can eat.
Bad.

I can respect the former, but not the later.

If they want to teach a Holy Story Book as Scientific Truth, then I have a problem with them.
If they want to withhold civil rights from people and make the rest of society conform to their own religious views of morality, then I have a problem with them.
If they want to censor or rewrite history to make it more in line with their personal and religious beliefs, then I have a problem with that.

[Nordicus]

Now, people who don't bother searching for an answer to life, the universe, and everything I have a different opinion. I just don't see why you wouldn't care about such an important concept...but that's another topic for another thread.

I don't search for the "answers" because I don't believe there is even a question. Why is it necessary that there be some overarching purpose for everything? Is life not amazing enough by itself, so you feel the need to have some grand secret reason for it?

[Bottle]

Now, people who don't bother searching for an answer to life, the universe, and everything I have a different opinion. I just don't see why you wouldn't care about such an important concept...but that's another topic for another thread.

I don't bother searching for any of those things, because I think it's ridiculous to even assume there IS "an answer" to any of them.

[Grave_n_idle]

Now, people who don't bother searching for an answer to life, the universe, and everything I have a different opinion. I just don't see why you wouldn't care about such an important concept...but that's another topic for another thread.

Ironically - I think that's probably a better description of most of the theists I've met, than of atheists I've met.

[Imsogone]

Um, they don't, for the most part. I'm a Christian, and have nothing against Atheists (mind you, most people would say I'm a bad Christian due to my analytical nature towards Theology, but I believe nonetheless!) unless they try to force their beliefs upon me. Then again, I'd hate just about anyone who does that.

Now, people who don't bother searching for an answer to life, the universe, and everything I have a different opinion. I just don't see why you wouldn't care about such an important concept...but that's another topic for another thread.

I do search for those answers, and like many, I consider that religion is not a good place to look. It's too restrictive. It assumes that the answers are all find in a tiny little box that's been created by human beings. When you posit that the answer is "my religion, my take on deity, my notion of spirituality all of them as handed down to me by my accepted authority" you aren't giving real answers, you're just repeating hand-me-down dogma. I wonder at so many "religious" people - their refusal to jump out of the box and start exploring. I think it's fear.