Explain to me why some people are accepting of other religions but not of atheism

[SlitheryDee]

You're wrong. Look it up and do your research on why you're wrong, or stay ignorant because of your laziness.

I'm not wrong, because I'm using the most inclusive definition. The scientific definition would be different, but what do you care about science?

 

[soulcougher73]

Jesus had called me before I knew him. In order to do that, he has shown me he exists by answering my prayers better than I knew to ask for. He has also change me greatly for the better. He has shown me what true love and joy is. I choose to trust God and I try my best to follow his will. Therefore he has blessed me greatly by continually teaching me about wisdom and life through the Holy Spirit.

May i ask how he called you? Was it via cell phone? Ok i kid with that, but im actually curious how you were "called" by God. Can you explain it?

 

[Juddog]

May i ask how he called you? Was it via cell phone? Ok i kid with that, but im actually curious how you were "called" by God. Can you explain it?

He heard voices in his head, same as any schizophrenic, and assumed it was God.

 

[soulcougher73]

He heard voices in his head, same as any schizophrenic, and assumed it was God.

Well yeah that is what im imagining truely happened, but im curious what he will say lol

 

[Juddog]

Well yeah that is what im imagining truely happened, but im curious what he will say lol

I'm thinking it will be something like this:
"I heard what I heard and nobody or anything can prove otherwise, so neener-neener-neener to you!"

 

[SlitheryDee]

I'm thinking it will be something like this:
"I heard what I heard and nobody or anything can prove otherwise, so neener-neener-neener to you!"

Usually it's "I prayed to Jesus to tell me what I should do with my life and the very next day I passed a carpet cleaning business with a help wanted poster in the window. I believe it is a sign from the Lord".

If you can place special significance on shit that would have happened anyway you can attribute anything you want to God, and you can freely interpret it all any way you want as his special "message" to you. We encounter so much random stuff in our lives that it's child's play to selectively "notice" some of it and convince yourself it is communication from a higher power.

 

[lupi]

Many view atheism as a religion; and since many of that religion take is as a mission to destroy all other religions you could see why that receive the attitude they do from members of the other religions.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I dont belive you are real

Quite obviously this. He is an object lesson on Poe's Law.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Doesn't matter.

I think it does matter greatly. Accepting that the other side does indeed have an ethical code is the only way reasonable conversation becomes possible. It is only by accepting that atheists have one at all that you can then engage questions about the relative natures of religious vs. non-religious ethical codes, which you get into below.

Accepting a religion means dedication to a community, its ethics and laws. Being an atheist means denial of the community. Moreso, being an outspoken atheist means you are definitively an outspoken nonconformist.

Usually, at least in the religious communities I've been in, nobody really asks what you believe in. If you don't, it's the end of that. The "atheists" I know are usually the ones that go around with the mindset of "question everything". You can't even have a solid conversation without it devolving into some debate about ethics, morality, or laws.

It's less about religion as it is about the social aspects. When it's time to flock together, the one who refuses is the troublemaker. And you can't depend on the troublemaker because you can't be sure they follow your rules.

As someone who actively participates in an organized religion (Judaism) despite being an atheist, I partially agree with you. Ritual and tradition create a sense of unity that can be an important support system for a community. It's especially valuable that such communities don't necessarily have much in common with each other other than their religious background. If not for that community, for example, I would not have much connection with people outside my generation that are not family.

I will disagree with you on two points, though. The first is that such a sense of community and ritual has to be inherently religious in nature. Certainly that is the case now (although you could make a case for things like rotary clubs and fraternities), but that is in part because public atheism is still in its infancy. Over the next few generations, as larger numbers of people begin to crave the sense of community but struggle to believe in God, you'll see communities form that are not connected to worship, and that have their own sense of ritual and tradition. The left wings of Judaism and Christianity are already starting to take baby steps in this direction.

The second place I'll disagree with you is your dismissal of atheists as unreliable and as troublemakers. The black sheep are usually the ones who create the most change in society. If you look at our history of philosophical, scientific, technological, and even theological progress, those responsible for change are generally outcasts in their society. It's not, as some of those outcasts would like you to believe, because they're especially smarter than everyone else, but because they're willing to let go of some of the rules placed before them by those before them. Subversiveness is thus in and of itself a useful societal trait.

 

[theevilsharpie]

How could a religious person, who doesn't believe in all the other religions, be tolerant of all the other religions, but not of atheism?

Since you mentioned the Boy Scouts, I'll throw out the historical context: For a lot of "traditional" organizations (and older individuals, for that matter), atheism brings up memories of communism. The fact that many of the public proponents of modern atheism tend to be left-wing politically doesn't do much to much to shed that association.

 

[Gibsons]

You are grasping at straws to keep to your beliefs; evident by the fiction you create about my level of knowledge, personality, and thoughts.

I can tell you that your post is all wrong as far as it pertains to me. Obviously, I'm the authority about myself and my experiences; you have no choice but to work with what I say. You can choose to believe that either I'm telling the truth about my own experiences, or that I'm lying about it.

Go read Romans 8. Story of my life so far. Christ called me before I knew much about him or the Bible. It's only after my conversion that I began to study Christianity in depth to expand my knowledge.

I like the part in Romans where god turns people gay.

 

[Eureka]

I think it does matter greatly. Accepting that the other side does indeed have an ethical code is the only way reasonable conversation becomes possible. It is only by accepting that atheists have one at all that you can then engage questions about the relative natures of religious vs. non-religious ethical codes, which you get into below.

As someone who actively participates in an organized religion (Judaism) despite being an atheist, I partially agree with you. Ritual and tradition create a sense of unity that can be an important support system for a community. It's especially valuable that such communities don't necessarily have much in common with each other other than their religious background. If not for that community, for example, I would not have much connection with people outside my generation that are not family.

I will disagree with you on two points, though. The first is that such a sense of community and ritual has to be inherently religious in nature. Certainly that is the case now (although you could make a case for things like rotary clubs and fraternities), but that is in part because public atheism is still in its infancy. Over the next few generations, as larger numbers of people begin to crave the sense of community but struggle to believe in God, you'll see communities form that are not connected to worship, and that have their own sense of ritual and tradition. The left wings of Judaism and Christianity are already starting to take baby steps in this direction.

The second place I'll disagree with you is your dismissal of atheists as unreliable and as troublemakers. The black sheep are usually the ones who create the most change in society. If you look at our history of philosophical, scientific, technological, and even theological progress, those responsible for change are generally outcasts in their society. It's not, as some of those outcasts would like you to believe, because they're especially smarter than everyone else, but because they're willing to let go of some of the rules placed before them by those before them. Subversiveness is thus in and of itself a useful societal trait.

Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. But I'm talking in the sense of the topic at hand, why atheists are traditionally untrusted in society. It doesn't matter how ethical they are, it's that we can't assume it.

Humanity survived through community, and that also means that we have to make quick, biased assumptions. We can't just let someone we can't trust in our system, they could be the weak point. Why bother trusting an atheist, who outwardly refuses to follow our traditions and our rules, when we can trust someone who at least somewhat abides by our rules and produces just as much work? The fact that you believe in a religion shows dedication and work, it's an extra step that, while not necessary to survive, is undertaken and is seen as "proof" of a higher purpose and discipline.

Then you also have the circlejerk a few posts above, which could also point out the reason why we can't trust these "atheists"... it's not what they believe or don't believe in, it's just that they're people who can't take anything seriously at all.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm not wrong, because I'm using the most inclusive definition. The scientific definition would be different, but what do you care about science?

There are a handful of universes with which scientists and philosophers regularly deal. There's typically the physical universe, the material universe, the real universe, the visible universe and the logical universe.

In each case these represent the totality of whatever they describe. So the physical universe is all that is physical, the visible universe is all that is visible, etc...

If someone is just talking about the Universe, then he is talking about simply all that is. Period.

Theists like to abuse language, however, in order to protect their fragile gods from the scrutiny they would otherwise receive as part of the universe. They have no rational reason to suppose that gods are not among things in the Universe.

 

[SheHateMe]

Because our bodies are too bootylicious

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And the thread has already dissolved into a shitty atheism thread

Please try to stay on topic. I truly am curious about the topic.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Position_on_atheists_and_agnostics

The reasons behind that are rather complicated but it is in large part due to Stalinism and Soviet attitudes. Back when the Boy Scouts were most prominent the USSR was a athiest state as was China. Culturally we saw ourselves as being qualitativly different by being beloved on the whole and that's really the start of the conflation of God and Country. Of course times have changed, but belief in a higher being is still a core principle. There's a concern that people who hate religion like you see here will join to simply subvert the organization and once they accept atheists they'll be liable to all sorts of legal action. Reading the posts on this forum that seems to be a distinct possibility.

 

[Juddog]

The sports analogy posted earlier is really what it boils down to.

I'm sure most of you here have been in the situation where you have co-workers big into a sport that you simply don't care about. They'll get into it with each other, talk about the games, even though they like different teams it gives them a commonality. They'll get passionate about their teams to the point of rubbing it in each other's faces when one team wins over the other.

The atheist in this case is the one not into sports and doesn't care about the teams at all. When talked to about sports, since they don't care, it alienates the non-sports fan and causes them to be excluded from events where the sports people go in together (e.g. going to the bar after work, partying together on the weekends during a big game, etc..)

Same thing with religion and atheism. The religious person doesn't have a commonality to talk or debate about, in fact what ultimately bothers them is that they can't understand the fact that someone doesn't believe or worship in some invisible magic man in the sky like they do. Therefore there is a feeling of mistrust of what that person says, because of that difference.

 

[BurnItDwn]

To embrace religion one must disparage critical thinking.

Most atheists are atheists because they are critical thinkers.
Most theists are theists because they were "born" into it.

You accept things as the way they are because that's what your told vs you accept things as the way they are because that's the most reasonable explanation provided by science.

There is no middle ground.
All religions are the same for the most part. Being non-religious is different.

 

[Vdubchaos]

The sports analogy posted earlier is really what it boils down to.

I'm sure most of you here have been in the situation where you have co-workers big into a sport that you simply don't care about. They'll get into it with each other, talk about the games, even though they like different teams it gives them a commonality. They'll get passionate about their teams to the point of rubbing it in each other's faces when one team wins over the other.

The atheist in this case is the one not into sports and doesn't care about the teams at all. When talked to about sports, since they don't care, it alienates the non-sports fan and causes them to be excluded from events where the sports people go in together (e.g. going to the bar after work, partying together on the weekends during a big game, etc..)

Same thing with religion and atheism. The religious person doesn't have a commonality to talk or debate about, in fact what ultimately bothers them is that they can't understand the fact that someone doesn't believe or worship in some invisible magic man in the sky like they do. Therefore there is a feeling of mistrust of what that person says, because of that difference.

PRetty much

Mind you, people that exclude and judge others due to the fact that "they don't like something they like" are idiots....

 

[Mxylplyx]

May i ask how he called you? Was it via cell phone? Ok i kid with that, but im actually curious how you were "called" by God. Can you explain it?

I have a feeling his response is going to be something along the lines of "you couldn't possibly understand, so I'm not going to try and explain it to you".

 

[lxskllr]

I have a feeling his response is going to be something along the lines of "you couldn't possibly understand, so I'm not going to try and explain it to you".

Fuckin' hipsters

:^D

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

To embrace religion one must disparage critical thinking.

Most atheists are atheists because they are critical thinkers.
Most theists are theists because they were "born" into it.

You accept things as the way they are because that's what your told vs you accept things as the way they are because that's the most reasonable explanation provided by science.

There is no middle ground.
All religions are the same for the most part. Being non-religious is different.

So why are and have always been good scientists which have some religious beliefs? Seems to me that "disparaging critical thinking" would make that impossible.

 

[OverVolt]

I like religion.

I think people who accept other religions but reject atheism do so because they have no socialization that replaces religion. Religion can play a very social role in your life and I bet Atheists have less friends than people who go to church just because of the socialization and ritual aspect.

How far do atheists go? Atheists are just haters. Do atheists get married? Thats a religious social concept.

They have nothing to contribute about how people should live their lives, just ways that they shouldn't live their lives. Its worthless. Its the little social things likw how you interact with your family, how you handle relationships, how do you treat the elderly. There is a whole entire system of rituals and social standards that religion has that Atheists do not.

 

[Nintendesert]

It's because most atheists are douchebags that proselytize more than Jehovah Witnesses do.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Do atheists get married? Thats a religious social concept.

It's also a political concept with certain legal and tax benefits. I know several married agnostic and atheist couples.

They have nothing to contribute about how people should live their lives, just ways that they shouldn't live their lives. Its worthless. Its the little social things likw how you interact with your family, how you handle relationships, how do you treat the elderly. There is a whole entire system of rituals and social standards that religion has that Atheists do not.

lol, where did the Flying Spaghetti Monster ever state "Thou shalt not"?

 

[disappoint]

Thou shalt not consume other food besides spaghetti and meatballs.

I for one worship the flying bacon.
He goes like this: muckah muck mah muckah paddah pah pah sucka suck sah sucka saddah sah sah

You know, if you fry bacon and eggs, and you listen just right, it almost sounds like applause. Coincidence? I think not. It's a sign from him.