Do Theists Fear Atheists?

[stevecanuck]

Our point is that simply being abnormal does not make something bad or negative. Being left handed is abnormal. But many people will automatically associate abnormal with something bad or negative.

Yes, it has become a de facto pejorative in spite of the fact that it is purely meant as a numeric comparison.

 

[soylentgreen]

The whole point is to make peace in spite of the Palestinians. They can join in later if they wish.

The only reason minor emirates of no real account are agreeing to such a peace treaty is because they fear what iran will encourage among dissidents more than they worry about palestine.

 

[RAMOSS]

But there is proof that religion exists, and thus the violation of religious law exists, thus sin exists. Now whether or not such sin applies to you are not is another matter. But sin factually exists.

Then there is the second definition:
an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible
There certainly are actions that are felt to be reprehensible. Politically speaking, both sides see sins in the other.

It all depends on your definition of sin, now doesn't it. If it is going against a specific religious principle, then your definition is correct. If it is going against what God says, and God doesn't exist, then sin does not exist.

 

[btthegreat]

I am sure some theists 'fear' the impact or intentions of atheists but they ought not. Most atheists don't even trouble themselves to attack theism or religions. They just go quietly about their lives and ignore the other side. Its a subset that feel moved to attack theism or religion as decidedly negative influences on people and civilization. I call that subset of atheists anti-theists. I truly believe both anti-theists and the religious magnify the impact of anti-theist attacks on declining numbers of self identified members of a religion or sect. .

The real problem is that the products on the market Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, or Hinduism etc, are all hundreds or thousands of years old, and they are stale, and have not been responsive to the changing demographic , modern challenges and modern social, and technological change.

We need a few more dynamic new religions to strike the imagination of the modern world. What we have is so dull, boring institutionalized and predictable. You can't sell Quaker Oats as something new, exciting and fresh by changing the hat on the product spokesman on the box.

 

[Ginger Ale]

The only time I hear atheists caring what theists do is when they mix it up politically. There's an obvious reason they wouldn't like it. But in America, they don't like Muslims or Jews in government either. Christians like it Chrisitan.

Otherwise, they don't really care much about theists. Itś all the same. Christian, JWś, Mormon, Scientology, Muslim, etc. What I hear more is them attacking themselves, like ones a better choice than the other.

Secular countries like Norway or Japan are pretty civil, way more so than the gun toating god-fearing US of A. Maybe theists should look inward.

 

[maquiscat]

It all depends on your definition of sin, now doesn't it. If it is going against a specific religious principle, then your definition is correct. If it is going against what God says, and God doesn't exist, then sin does not exist.

The dictionary definition was put up. Regardless of the claim of source for the religious law, that law exists. Furthermore, the dictionary definition included a non-religious context definition, which, for some reason, those arguing that sin doesn't exist keep ignoring.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[RAMOSS]

If you notice, there are 4 different definitions. It all depends on which definition you are think sin is. If you go ask many religious people about 'what is the origin of moral law', they will say God.

 

[maquiscat]

If you notice, there are 4 different definitions. It all depends on which definition you are think sin is. If you go ask many religious people about 'what is the origin of moral law', they will say God.

All of them are sin. Again, existence does not automatically grant applicability. Just because the sin exists, does not mean that it applies to you. Sin factually exists, both in religious and non-religious contexts.

 

[X Factor]

Easiest one first.

Depending on the conversation, this one isn't really a lie at all.

Think gay marriage and abortion for instance.

Easiest one first.

Depending on the conversation, this one isn't really a lie at all.

Think gay marriage and abortion for instance.

Both of those involve an action, not an actual belief (and you don’t have to be religious to oppose the destruction of a preborn baby). To force religious beliefs on others would be like, believe in Jesus or go to jail.

 

[Dragonfly]

Both of those involve an action, not an actual belief (and you don’t have to be religious to oppose the destruction of a preborn baby). To force religious beliefs on others would be like, believe in Jesus or go to jail.

Uhhh, no.

Creating and enforcing laws based on religious beliefs, is forcing others to live by those religious beliefs.

The legality or illegality of SSM is a perfect example. Abortion works too.

You don't have to be a religious person to be "against those", but you're lying to yourself if you think the vast majority who oppose such things are not religious.

 

[maquiscat]

Uhhh, no.

Creating and enforcing laws based on religious beliefs, is forcing others to live by those religious beliefs.

The legality or illegality of SSM is a perfect example. Abortion works too.

You don't have to be a religious person to be "against those", but you're lying to yourself if you think the vast majority who oppose such things are not religious.

I believe his point is that even though there are religious views behind a given desired law, there are also secular views. Murder and theft are better example. However, if a good secular principle were to be argued against abortion, then it would be constitutional. It would still have to be good enough to override bodily autonomy, but the key is that it is secular. The number of people who follow the religious principle is irrelevant.

 

[X Factor]

Uhhh, no.

Creating and enforcing laws based on religious beliefs, is forcing others to live by those religious beliefs.

The legality or illegality of SSM is a perfect example. Abortion works too.

You don't have to be a religious person to be "against those", but you're lying to yourself if you think the vast majority who oppose such things are not religious.

I don’t deny that but let’s not pretend that everyone involved in politics doesn’t try or want to force their beliefs on others. The reason you support whichever candidate isn’t because you’re content to live and let live. It’s because you want him/her to press legislation you agree with and force others to adhere, under threat of law, to what you think is right.

 

[soylentgreen]

I believe his point is that even though there are religious views behind a given desired law, there are also secular views. Murder and theft are better example. However, if a good secular principle were to be argued against abortion, then it would be constitutional. It would still have to be good enough to override bodily autonomy, but the key is that it is secular. The number of people who follow the religious principle is irrelevant.

No, your using the same lame thinking theists use when they, as usual, fail to give any real credible reason for a god. They fall back on either "you cannot prove there isn't one, or but you cannot deny that it might be possible."
In other words when facts fail them then revert to demanding fantasy be believed.
Which is what you are doing. Cannot find an intelligent reason as to why anyone should care what your imaginary friend thinks of abortion then pretend that there just might be a secular reason for abortion.

But of course, it is well noted your failure to give even one good example of a secular reason to criminalise abortion.

The number of people who follow religious dogma in the abortion issue is very relevant. It tells us just how bad the arguments against abortion are.

 

[tosca1]

Roughly speaking there's only about 12.5% of the entire population of the Earth that defines themselves as "Atheist".
In the USofA that percentage is much smaller at about 3%.

Granted, with the internet and the ease of spreading thoughts and ideas around the globe, that number is rising, but it's a slow rise as religion is very tightly woven into cultures, communities, and families in so many places.

The thing that's apparent is some theists go out of their way to lie about Atheists and/or Atheism. The question is why? Why lie?
Is it fear?
Do atheists threaten theists in some way?
Is it because atheists cause theists to truly question their own beliefs?
Is it because atheists rely on facts and not faith?

Do theists fear atheists?
Or, if it's not fear, what is the root cause for all the lies?

Lol. If we're talking about "fear," it just occurred to me that watsup would be the best atheist model that shows fear of theists!

He's been on my back ever since that fateful moment he clapped eyes on my post!
He still can't get over that NAS statement that obviously doesn't rule out creation!

 

[Dragonfly]

I don’t deny that but let’s not pretend that everyone involved in politics doesn’t try or want to force their beliefs on others. The reason you support whichever candidate isn’t because you’re content to live and let live. It’s because you want him/her to press legislation you agree with and force others to adhere, under threat of law, to what you think is right.

Generally speaking, when it's a political division between theists and atheists, the atheists are the one's striving to make sure more people have more rights.
The theists are typically the one's working to restrict or remove the rights of others.

 

[watsup]

Lol. If we're talking about "fear," it just occurred to me that watsup would be the best atheist model that shows fear of theists!

He's been on my back ever since that fateful moment he clapped eyes on my post!
He still can't get over that NAS statement that obviously doesn't rule out creation!

You continue to misrepresent exactly what the NASA statement says. I have tried to explain it to you six ways from Sunday. So I will continue to object anytime you bring forth this statement an your “explanation” of it.

 

[maquiscat]

No, your using the same lame thinking theists use when they, as usual, fail to give any real credible reason for a god. They fall back on either "you cannot prove there isn't one, or but you cannot deny that it might be possible."
In other words when facts fail them then revert to demanding fantasy be believed.
Which is what you are doing. Cannot find an intelligent reason as to why anyone should care what your imaginary friend thinks of abortion then pretend that there just might be a secular reason for abortion.

But of course, it is well noted your failure to give even one good example of a secular reason to criminalise abortion.

The number of people who follow religious dogma in the abortion issue is very relevant. It tells us just how bad the arguments against abortion are.

The number is irrelevant. We have had religious based laws brought down even when there were more religious who wanted them. The religious can be a super majority and the basis for the law still cannot be religious in nature. There are plenty of atheists who believe that abortion is wrong. Hell, there are plenty of gays who believe that SSM is wrong! Just because more people have a religious reason than have a secular reason, does not mean the secular reason is invalid. Right now if we wanted to make having children being the basis of marriage, then we can do so. Having children is not automatically religious in nature. Now that would mean denying marriage to those who are sterile, or beyond child bearing years. The religious don't preach against the sterile getting married.

Throughout our history, the claim has been made that such and such law will never get changed. And then lo and behold it does. I am not making any claims of when or how. Only, that based upon history and trend, I will never assume that it can't be changed.

 

[Valery]

Generally speaking, when it's a political division between theists and atheists, the atheists are the one's striving to make sure more people have more rights.
The theists are typically the one's working to restrict or remove the rights of others.

So?

 

[Valery]

Creating and enforcing laws based on religious beliefs, is forcing others to live by those religious beliefs.

Creating and enforcing laws based on atheistic beliefs, is forcing others to live by those atheistic beliefs.

 

[soylentgreen]

The number is irrelevant. We have had religious based laws brought down even when there were more religious who wanted them. The religious can be a super majority and the basis for the law still cannot be religious in nature. There are plenty of atheists who believe that abortion is wrong. Hell, there are plenty of gays who believe that SSM is wrong! Just because more people have a religious reason than have a secular reason, does not mean the secular reason is invalid. Right now if we wanted to make having children being the basis of marriage, then we can do so. Having children is not automatically religious in nature. Now that would mean denying marriage to those who are sterile, or beyond child bearing years. The religious don't preach against the sterile getting married.

Throughout our history, the claim has been made that such and such law will never get changed. And then lo and behold it does. I am not making any claims of when or how. Only, that based upon history and trend, I will never assume that it can't be changed.

Yes we have had so called atheists and even more laughably theists try to argue anti abortion from a secular point of view and fail as miserably as theists always do in coming up with an intelligent reason.

And again i will ask you to give a secular reason for anti abortion. Noted again your complete failure to provide anything other than the vague gesturing that their is such a thing.

The numbers are very relevant because the cause for anti abortion thinking is religious in nature even among those who falsely profess no religious belief is involved.

 

[Dragonfly]

So?

What rights would you like to restrict or deny? I'm sure you have quite a long list.

Also, please tell us, what country do you live in?

 

[Valery]

What rights would you like to restrict or deny? I'm sure you have quite a long list.

Also, please tell us, what country do you live in?

You didn't answer my question. You go first. My question was, "so?"

 

[maquiscat]

Yes we have had so called atheists and even more laughably theists try to argue anti abortion from a secular point of view and fail as miserably as theists always do in coming up with an intelligent reason.

And again i will ask you to give a secular reason for anti abortion. Noted again your complete failure to provide anything other than the vague gesturing that their is such a thing.

The numbers are very relevant because the cause for anti abortion thinking is religious in nature even among those who falsely profess no religious belief is involved.

I have no motivation to come up with such a secular argument, especially in the light that I am pro-choice and believe that bodily autonomy is the overriding factor in the issue, rendering souls, and being human, and most of the other arguments moot. However, that doesn't mean that someone won't come up with the argument to do so. And actually has in the past. Abortion was legal in this country up until the mid to late 1860's (with a few states starting earlier, but that was when the bulk made their laws), when anti-abortion laws went into effect. The arguments were made that took away that right. It is arrogant to assume that it can never happen again.

 

[it's just me]

Roughly speaking there's only about 12.5% of the entire population of the Earth that defines themselves as "Atheist".
In the USofA that percentage is much smaller at about 3%.

Granted, with the internet and the ease of spreading thoughts and ideas around the globe, that number is rising, but it's a slow rise as religion is very tightly woven into cultures, communities, and families in so many places.

The thing that's apparent is some theists go out of their way to lie about Atheists and/or Atheism. The question is why? Why lie?
Is it fear?
Do atheists threaten theists in some way?
Is it because atheists cause theists to truly question their own beliefs?
Is it because atheists rely on facts and not faith?

Do theists fear atheists?
Or, if it's not fear, what is the root cause for all the lies?

Nope. In the immortal words of Latharine

 

[it's just me]

Nope. In the immortal words of Katharine Hepburn, we don't fear skunks, either, we just don't like their smell.