"Why are atheists so toxic"

[sealybobo]

I see this question asked by religious folk frequently. I do disagree with some of the harsher anti-religious sentiments, at least as far as tone is concerned, but I understand exactly where those attitudes come from. Christians (speaking from the USA) have a harder time seeing the hold their religion has on our society and the actual harm it can do. When they are faced with the topic of crimes and abuses committed by other Christians, I commonly hear that the perpetrators were not "true Christians."

What is a true Christian? If a person, even if they are a criminal or an abuser (or, heck, just a run-of-the-mill wacko), professes belief in Jesus as the son of God and the savior of humanity, and accepts the Bible, then are they not a Christian? When asked how to become a Christian, is that not exactly what one is told? "To accept Jesus Christ in your heart, as your Lord, and Saviour"? The same people who are quick to point out that others are not true Christians are, more often than not, just as quick to point out the beliefs of other wrongdoers - Muslims and so-called "Satanists," for example. All people are capable of committing crimes, regardless of belief, but those who commit them in the name of their religion should not be ignored or brushed off as "not true believers." Just as it provides light and hope to some, there is a dark side to religion that people should acknowledge, too.

So back to the question of why atheists are so "toxic." Some among us have been hurt and abused by religion and religious people. Many see the religious attempting, at the expense of other people, to impose their standards of morality on others through law and social norms. Why are we told we need to "respect the beliefs of others" when ours are denigrated?

These areas are for us to freely vent our frustrations, as well as share our experiences with others of like mind. Atheists should not have to be polite about religion even in a space made for themselves. Certainly people should be able to freely believe what they like in their homes and in their hearts, but that doesn't mean religion should be free from criticism, and it doesn't mean religion is 100% good all the time. Nothing is.

Keep in mind, this is a forum for Religion and Ethics. Like it, or not, the question of ethics does not belong solely to either the religious, not to any one particular religion.

Atheists aren't toxic. Militant atheists maybe, but not atheists in general.

This is pretty simple, you are here for the express purpose of ridiculing people who don't think like you do. You actively seek out these situations in an attempt to subordinate religion. What did I get wrong?

And yet, here you are, coming to a discussion, clearly about atheists, to bitch about how mean atheists are to Christians....

Hmmm...

Really? That is what this thread is about?

No it's what you've made it about. He's saying that's why you are here

 

[MaryL]

Toxicity comes in so many different brands and nuances. 20 centuries of religious oppression and suppression let alone wars and rivalries. Protestant VS Catholic, Shia Vs Sunni. Which brand of hoodoo is more toxic here?

 

[Czernobog]

No, they haven't. But countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland have. How's that working out for them?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. They haven't. That is wishful thinking on your part. Let me know when they abolish religion and belief in God.

You seem to think that the goal of secular government is to abolish religion. It isn't. It is to remove the influence of religion from governance of society, which is what those nations have successfully done. I look forward to the day that we achieve that.

Nope. Secular government, at least those that will last, will allow people to worship, or not worship as they wish. It is only progressive, militant atheists who are pushing for the abolishment of religion. And it is those governments that have also inflicted the most atrocious acts of mass murder the world has ever seen.

Sure. That's what I am saying. I don't want to abolish religion. I want to abolish religious governance. There's a difference. And whether anyone wants to admit it, or not, we are still infected, at all levels, with religious influence in our government. It is that influence atheists want removed. We could care less about religious practice.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What religious influence?

 

[MaryL]

I like god, my most favorite invisible friend. Always there when I pray, least responsive when I need him. I am a pathetic atheist. I want to believe in god, any god. he/she/ them never seems to be there when I need em'. Where are you, GOD?

 

[ding]

No. They haven't. That is wishful thinking on your part. Let me know when they abolish religion and belief in God.

You seem to think that the goal of secular government is to abolish religion. It isn't. It is to remove the influence of religion from governance of society, which is what those nations have successfully done. I look forward to the day that we achieve that.

Nope. Secular government, at least those that will last, will allow people to worship, or not worship as they wish. It is only progressive, militant atheists who are pushing for the abolishment of religion. And it is those governments that have also inflicted the most atrocious acts of mass murder the world has ever seen.

Sure. That's what I am saying. I don't want to abolish religion. I want to abolish religious governance. There's a difference. And whether anyone wants to admit it, or not, we are still infected, at all levels, with religious influence in our government. It is that influence atheists want removed. We could care less about religious practice.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What religious influence?

Would you like to edit the DOI as well?

 

[Czernobog]

No, they haven't. But countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland have. How's that working out for them?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. They haven't. That is wishful thinking on your part. Let me know when they abolish religion and belief in God.

You seem to think that the goal of secular government is to abolish religion. It isn't. It is to remove the influence of religion from governance of society, which is what those nations have successfully done. I look forward to the day that we achieve that.

Nope. Secular government, at least those that will last, will allow people to worship, or not worship as they wish. It is only progressive, militant atheists who are pushing for the abolishment of religion. And it is those governments that have also inflicted the most atrocious acts of mass murder the world has ever seen.

Sure. That's what I am saying. I don't want to abolish religion. I want to abolish religious governance. There's a difference. And whether anyone wants to admit it, or not, we are still infected, at all levels, with religious influence in our government. It is that influence atheists want removed. We could care less about religious practice.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Right, you just want to subordinate it until it ceases to exist. What part of it is impossible to separate one's faith from their values do you not understand? So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?

So, you are saying that Christians, in fact, are trying to empower a theocracy with their votes? What a bold admission.

 

[Czernobog]

The Crusades, and the Inquisition notwithstanding...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Don't be a fool. The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. The Inquisition was the result of a Pagan religion, disguised as Christianity. Regardless, the Bible does not condone what was done. In fact, it condemns it. The people responsible for the Inquisition were not Christians. They were evil. That is why they tortured and raped others. They enjoyed it. What does Scripture say about that?

and there it is, just as I pointed out in my opening post. whenever a Christian performs any act of violence, bigotry or hatefulness, eith it is justified, or it is demed to have been "not really a Christian". This is one of the reasons most of us Atheists have a modicum more respect - not much, but a tiny bit - for Muslims than we do Christians.

At least when radical Islamists perform heinous acts, the moderate Muslims say, "Yeah. Those are radical Muslims. They absolutely do not speak for all of our religion. Please do not judge us all by the acts of our extreme fringe,"

Not so much with Christians. We would have so much more respect for Christians in general, if they would just honestly say, things like, "Yeah. Ya know what? Westboro Baptist? Yup. They're Christians. They certainly do not represent the Bible as I understand it, but they are Christians. Please do not judge our entire religion, by our extremists," but, Christians don't do that. No. When a Christian misbehaves publicly, all of the other Christians just circle the wagons, disown them, and act like their actions bear no reflection on their religion. what they don't seem to realise is that to us on the outside looking in, this act of disavowal is almost as bad as the actions of those they are disavowing.

Fool! Show me where the Bible tells Christians to act like muslims, or any other violent group. You can't. Actions speak louder than words. Look at what Scripture says. That is how Christians should act. If they do not, they are not Christians. The Koran, on the other hand, tells them to convert or kill the entire world. One preaches love, the other preaches violence. Why can't you see this? You must be deliberately obtuse.

Yeah, coming from a guy who starts every post insulting the person he is trying to tell what Christianity is "supposed" to be about"? Yeah, I think you're full of shit.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The Bible doesn't say I have to be nice to you. Besides, you have a reprobate mind. It doesn't matter what I say, or how nicely I say it. You will continue to reject God.

Actually, it does. Col 4:5 & 6. You should read it sometime. Funny how the "Fool" knows this, but the "Christian" doesn't...

 

[Czernobog]

Back top your question of what Atheism has accomplished, right now, Atheism is still in its relative infancy. We are just fighting to exist, be recognised, and have a right to exist. We are fighting to bring the world to reason, and out of the stranglehold of myth. Should we succeed, who knows what will be accomplished in a world of reason, and fact, without reliance on myth, or irrational superstition?

I, for one, do not begrudge anything that was accomplished under the yolk of Christianity. I simply submit that Christianity had its time. It served its purpose. it is time to let go of superstition, and move into the light of reason.

Countries like N. Korea have abandoned God, and have embraced the light of reason. How's that working out?

No, they haven't. But countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland have. How's that working out for them?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The ones being overrun by Muslim terrorists? LOL! Good one. Those countries are places that no sane person would want to live. Progressive hell holes. Idiot. At least Sweden is finally evicting Muslims. There is hope for them yet. Maybe.

Clearly you have never been to any of those countries...

I spent a month in Stavanger on an assignment and have several Norwegian friends. With regards to socialism they will tell you what works there won't work here. Small population and lots of wealth. With regard to social lives, they are not as liberal as you think. With regard to religion, they are not overtly religious, but they are not overtly atheist either and most certainly not militant towards those who are religious. But just because they are not overtly religious, that does not mean they do not believe in a higher power than man. Most do.

Well, I can't speak to Norway, but I do know that Sweden boasts a 68% population that claims "does not believe in God", and 48% that identifies as Atheist. Before you ask, no, I really don't know the difference, but apparently those were actually two different questions in the latest survey. Perhaps some of those who said they do not believe in God don't actually know what Atheism is?

 

[ding]

I like god, my most favorite invisible friend. Always there when I pray, least responsive when I need him. I am a pathetic atheist. I want to believe in god, any god. he/she/ them never seems to be there when I need em'. Where are you, GOD?

As I read this I immediately thought of Celia Copleston from T.S. Elliot's Cocktail Party.

Celia is having an affair with a married man and when she realizes the emptiness of this relationship, her life is shaken profoundly, she turns to her physician for advice. There’s something not quite right, she tells him:

Celia:“I should really like to think there’s something wrong with me –
Because, if there isn’t, there’s something wrong
Or at least, very different from what it seemed to be,
With the world itself – and that’s so much more frightening!
That would be terrible. So I’d rather believe
There is something wrong with me, that could be put right.”

Celia: “It sounds ridiculous—but the only word for it
That I can find, is a sense of sin.”

Doctor: “You suffer from a sense of sin, Miss Copleston? That is most unusual.”

Celia: “It seemed to me abnormal…
My bringing up was pretty conventional –
I had always been taught to disbelieve in sin.
Oh, I don’t mean that it was never mentioned!
But anything wrong from our point of view,
Was either bad form, or was psychological.
… And yet I can’t find any other word for it.
It must be some kind of hallucination;
Yet, at the same time, I’m frightened by the fear
That it might be more real than anything I believed in.”

Doctor: “What is more real than anything you believed in?”

Celia: “It’s not the feeling of anything I’ve ever done,
Which I might get away from, or of anything in me I could get rid of –
but of emptiness, of failure
Towards someone, or something, outside of myself;
And I feel I must… atone – is that the word?
Can you treat a patient for such a state of mind?”

The answer of course is no. Freud himself recognized these limits, when he said, “It would be absurd for me to say to a patient, ‘I forgive you your sins’.” The psychotherapist has no power to do this.

According to its Greek root, the word “psychiatrist” literally means, “doctor of the soul”. And yet, the psychiatrist has no cure for this greatest of all psychological maladies – the problem of sin. If he is astute, he can perhaps define and describe guilt; but he can in no way cure the guilty conscience. All of our human attempts to do so, whether by psychological defense strategies, medical ministrations, or therapeutic techniques, ultimately prove insufficient. But we need not despair. For our own failures suggest to us what faith has already revealed: that, in the last analysis, there is only one true and effective Doctor of the soul.

Dr Aaron Kheriaty is assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Irvine, and director of the university's Psychiatry and Spirituality Forum. He can be contacted at akheriat@uci.edu

Despite efforts to reduce conscience to conditioning, guilt persists, and science is powerless before it.

 

[Czernobog]

You seem to think that the goal of secular government is to abolish religion. It isn't. It is to remove the influence of religion from governance of society, which is what those nations have successfully done. I look forward to the day that we achieve that.

Nope. Secular government, at least those that will last, will allow people to worship, or not worship as they wish. It is only progressive, militant atheists who are pushing for the abolishment of religion. And it is those governments that have also inflicted the most atrocious acts of mass murder the world has ever seen.

Sure. That's what I am saying. I don't want to abolish religion. I want to abolish religious governance. There's a difference. And whether anyone wants to admit it, or not, we are still infected, at all levels, with religious influence in our government. It is that influence atheists want removed. We could care less about religious practice.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What religious influence?

Would you like to edit the DOI as well?

DOI?

 

[ding]

Nope. Secular government, at least those that will last, will allow people to worship, or not worship as they wish. It is only progressive, militant atheists who are pushing for the abolishment of religion. And it is those governments that have also inflicted the most atrocious acts of mass murder the world has ever seen.

Sure. That's what I am saying. I don't want to abolish religion. I want to abolish religious governance. There's a difference. And whether anyone wants to admit it, or not, we are still infected, at all levels, with religious influence in our government. It is that influence atheists want removed. We could care less about religious practice.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What religious influence?

Would you like to edit the DOI as well?

DOI?

Declaration of Independence

 

[Czernobog]

No, you can reject God and not resort to murder and mayhem. Progressive theology is a requirement for that.

And yet murder and mayhem cannot happen, unless one first rejects God.

The Crusades, and the Inquisition notwithstanding...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Don't be a fool. The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. The Inquisition was the result of a Pagan religion, disguised as Christianity. Regardless, the Bible does not condone what was done. In fact, it condemns it. The people responsible for the Inquisition were not Christians. They were evil. That is why they tortured and raped others. They enjoyed it. What does Scripture say about that?

and there it is, just as I pointed out in my opening post. whenever a Christian performs any act of violence, bigotry or hatefulness, eith it is justified, or it is demed to have been "not really a Christian". This is one of the reasons most of us Atheists have a modicum more respect - not much, but a tiny bit - for Muslims than we do Christians.

At least when radical Islamists perform heinous acts, the moderate Muslims say, "Yeah. Those are radical Muslims. They absolutely do not speak for all of our religion. Please do not judge us all by the acts of our extreme fringe,"

Not so much with Christians. We would have so much more respect for Christians in general, if they would just honestly say, things like, "Yeah. Ya know what? Westboro Baptist? Yup. They're Christians. They certainly do not represent the Bible as I understand it, but they are Christians. Please do not judge our entire religion, by our extremists," but, Christians don't do that. No. When a Christian misbehaves publicly, all of the other Christians just circle the wagons, disown them, and act like their actions bear no reflection on their religion. what they don't seem to realise is that to us on the outside looking in, this act of disavowal is almost as bad as the actions of those they are disavowing.

See post # 118.

Thanks for that. You are literally the first Christian I have encountered who has not attempted to divorce militant Christians from "the faith". Most pull the same crap as RWNJ. So, thanks for not doing that.

 

[Czernobog]

Sure. That's what I am saying. I don't want to abolish religion. I want to abolish religious governance. There's a difference. And whether anyone wants to admit it, or not, we are still infected, at all levels, with religious influence in our government. It is that influence atheists want removed. We could care less about religious practice.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What religious influence?

Would you like to edit the DOI as well?

DOI?

Declaration of Independence

Ah. The DOI was influenced by Christianity. It had undertones of non-specific Deism. There is a bit of a difference. And while I find it annoying, since the DOI is not a governing document of the United States, I really could care less about the language used therein.

 

[ding]

And yet murder and mayhem cannot happen, unless one first rejects God.

The Crusades, and the Inquisition notwithstanding...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Don't be a fool. The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. The Inquisition was the result of a Pagan religion, disguised as Christianity. Regardless, the Bible does not condone what was done. In fact, it condemns it. The people responsible for the Inquisition were not Christians. They were evil. That is why they tortured and raped others. They enjoyed it. What does Scripture say about that?

and there it is, just as I pointed out in my opening post. whenever a Christian performs any act of violence, bigotry or hatefulness, eith it is justified, or it is demed to have been "not really a Christian". This is one of the reasons most of us Atheists have a modicum more respect - not much, but a tiny bit - for Muslims than we do Christians.

At least when radical Islamists perform heinous acts, the moderate Muslims say, "Yeah. Those are radical Muslims. They absolutely do not speak for all of our religion. Please do not judge us all by the acts of our extreme fringe,"

Not so much with Christians. We would have so much more respect for Christians in general, if they would just honestly say, things like, "Yeah. Ya know what? Westboro Baptist? Yup. They're Christians. They certainly do not represent the Bible as I understand it, but they are Christians. Please do not judge our entire religion, by our extremists," but, Christians don't do that. No. When a Christian misbehaves publicly, all of the other Christians just circle the wagons, disown them, and act like their actions bear no reflection on their religion. what they don't seem to realise is that to us on the outside looking in, this act of disavowal is almost as bad as the actions of those they are disavowing.

See post # 118.

Thanks for that. You are literally the first Christian I have encountered who has not attempted to divorce militant Christians from "the faith". Most pull the same crap as RWNJ. So, thanks for not doing that.

You're welcome. Did you see the post on Celia Copleston from T.S. Elliot's Cocktail Party? You should read the link. It should be right up your alley. He mentions Kohlberg. I'm thinking of emailing him with some questions. Was this a coincidence or what?

 

[Czernobog]

The Crusades, and the Inquisition notwithstanding...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Don't be a fool. The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. The Inquisition was the result of a Pagan religion, disguised as Christianity. Regardless, the Bible does not condone what was done. In fact, it condemns it. The people responsible for the Inquisition were not Christians. They were evil. That is why they tortured and raped others. They enjoyed it. What does Scripture say about that?

and there it is, just as I pointed out in my opening post. whenever a Christian performs any act of violence, bigotry or hatefulness, eith it is justified, or it is demed to have been "not really a Christian". This is one of the reasons most of us Atheists have a modicum more respect - not much, but a tiny bit - for Muslims than we do Christians.

At least when radical Islamists perform heinous acts, the moderate Muslims say, "Yeah. Those are radical Muslims. They absolutely do not speak for all of our religion. Please do not judge us all by the acts of our extreme fringe,"

Not so much with Christians. We would have so much more respect for Christians in general, if they would just honestly say, things like, "Yeah. Ya know what? Westboro Baptist? Yup. They're Christians. They certainly do not represent the Bible as I understand it, but they are Christians. Please do not judge our entire religion, by our extremists," but, Christians don't do that. No. When a Christian misbehaves publicly, all of the other Christians just circle the wagons, disown them, and act like their actions bear no reflection on their religion. what they don't seem to realise is that to us on the outside looking in, this act of disavowal is almost as bad as the actions of those they are disavowing.

See post # 118.

Thanks for that. You are literally the first Christian I have encountered who has not attempted to divorce militant Christians from "the faith". Most pull the same crap as RWNJ. So, thanks for not doing that.

You're welcome. Did you see the post on Celia Copleston from T.S. Elliot's Cocktail Party? You should read the link. It should be right up your alley. He mentions Kohlberg. I'm thinking of emailing him with some questions. Was this a coincidence or what?

I actually didn't. So I don't have to go digging through the posts, would you mind reposting the link?

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't think it's their abandonment of religion, but their replacing of it with progressive theology that has led to this...

What a load of BS. North Korea is far from progressive. It is a totalitarian regime based on cult of personality. It has nothing to do with an type of political stance whether it be liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, communism, socialism <insert ideology here>...

 

[ding]

What religious influence?

Would you like to edit the DOI as well?

DOI?

Declaration of Independence

Ah. The DOI was influenced by Christianity. It had undertones of non-specific Deism. There is a bit of a difference. And while I find it annoying, since the DOI is not a governing document of the United States, I really could care less about the language used therein.

It is a vague about religion as that 100 dollar bill. If you object to that, I don't why you wouldn't object to the DOI. You do realize that the DOI is of way more importance than currency, right? It is literally our founding document and it states that we get our rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures. Why don't you have a problem with that again?

 

[BreezeWood]

Murder is forbidden in the Bible. Therefore, those who murder are not Christians. It's pretty simple. In fact, hating someone is no different than murder. Read the Bible. It explains everything.




I don't think it's their abandonment of religion, but their replacing of it with progressive theology that has led to this...

But it is their rejection of God that has led to it. Is it not?

No, you can reject God and not resort to murder and mayhem. Progressive theology is a requirement for that.

And yet murder and mayhem cannot happen, unless one first rejects God.

What about those who murder in the name of God? I disagree with your construct. Mankind is very capable of terrible things either with, or without, a belief in God.

Back top your question of what Atheism has accomplished, right now, Atheism is still in its relative infancy. We are just fighting to exist, be recognised, and have a right to exist. We are fighting to bring the world to reason, and out of the stranglehold of myth. Should we succeed, who knows what will be accomplished in a world of reason, and fact, without reliance on myth, or irrational superstition?

I, for one, do not begrudge anything that was accomplished under the yolk of Christianity. I simply submit that Christianity had its time. It served its purpose. it is time to let go of superstition, and move into the light of reason.

Countries like N. Korea have abandoned God, and have embraced the light of reason. How's that working out?

No, they haven't. But countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland have. How's that working out for them?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. They haven't. That is wishful thinking on your part. Let me know when they abolish religion and belief in God.

You seem to think that the goal of secular government is to abolish religion. It isn't. It is to remove the influence of religion from governance of society, which is what those nations have successfully done. I look forward to the day that we achieve that.

Atheist governments are always opposed to Christianity. Without exception. And once they "remove the influence of religion from governance of society" they go after the religious. They do not stop until they abolish it, or are themselves defeated. BTW, what is this supposed influence you speak of? I am not aware of any Christian influence in government. Perhaps you could point it out for me. Give me one example.

.

I am not aware of any Christian influence in government. Perhaps you could point it out for me. Give me one example.

you are a disingenuous clown ... not to mention religiously inept.

 

[BreezeWood]

and it states that we get our rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures. Why don't you have a problem with that again?

.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness


the above is a generic reference to the Almighty ... not to your 4th century book is the difference.

 

[sealybobo]

I like god, my most favorite invisible friend. Always there when I pray, least responsive when I need him. I am a pathetic atheist. I want to believe in god, any god. he/she/ them never seems to be there when I need em'. Where are you, GOD?

Haven't you had any good times?

A religious person would tell you that God won't be there when you call if you only call when you need something.