An Atheist Claim on Religion, quote:
Religions are all man-made like fairy-tale stories.
Religions want to force others against their will to join them in order to take over the world.
Religions are the primary source of all conflicts, major and minor, in the world.
As I had stated in my last Forum, if Atheists and/or other non-believers have nothing nice to say about Religions, then they shouldn't say anything at all. I believe that they need to leave Religions alone. That's why we have the Separation of Church and State clause, because it protects ALL Religions from having their Civil Rights and Liberties degraded by the U.S. Federal Government and by anyone else who wish to harm or eliminate them from the world, (a.k.a. Atheists).
If Atheists claim that they're the "more better, peaceful people" and have not caused any crimes in the name of their beliefs, then why do they constantly and unremorsefully criticize, judge, and verbally hurt innocent Religions because of these three false excuses? Isn't that a crime against not only Religions but also an abuse of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Are they (Atheists) in denial?
i believe that they have met some pretty rotten believers...like you've probably met some of the atheists here.
Yes! No doubt about it. Atheists are in denial. I deny that you have made any sort of sense, and are here to flog your religious beliefs as "truth"
I'm not an atheist by the way. To be an atheist one has to believe religion means something.
The word atheist is a religious construct.
denial of what? If you do not believe in God, then there is no denial. You simply do not believe. In truth you would never even ponder it because you have no concept of it.
If you ponder it, and struggle with it, you are not athiest..?
No. Athiests are not in denial. Not everyone has to have the same beliefs. I think that a lot of Christians like to force their beliefs on others and it turns people off to religion. You shouldn't let what athiests believe affect you.
Really? So criticizing an ideology is NOT free speech?
Since when have religions been "innocent"?
Can you provide anything tangent to which an atheist could be in denial other than a set of scriptures? And, if an atheist "denies" a set of scriptures, does the believer wholeheartedly accept it, or do they deny all other scriptures than the one set they do accept?
Who is really in denial here?
And pretend that society sanctioned mental illness is perfectly ok? Never!
We'll leave you alone when you stop trying to contol our lives.
Yet religion is the one that wants to take away the civil rights of a woman to choose, or gay couples to marry.
Criticizing your ridiculous beliefs is NOT a crime.
Lying to children as soon as they are born is hardly innocent.
Some people even consider it child abuse.
You seem to think that you are the only group with first amendment rights.
Anything that you have the right to say, someone else has an equal right to rebuttal...
As long as we are not INFRINGING upon your right to do so.
It is ashamed that gays cannot marry. And you're right that is because religion has crossed over into the State side of the coin. But what does that have to do with atheists being in denial? Are you saying that because of the gay rights issues, atheists deny God?
You're right that people of faith believe that they and only they have the right to freedom of speech, whilst all those who disagree with them are infringing upon their right to believe, simply because they do not share their particular beliefs. As an atheist, I would defend any person's right to believe in whichever god that makes them feel better about their lives. I just wish that they would afford atheists the same right to believe in what makes sense to us. When will the religious ever get to grips with the idea of equal opportunities. Please understand that democracy allows everyone the right to believe in what they want to. The religious have no more right to their beliefs than anyone else, just because they believe they are God's chosen people.
"if Atheists and/or other non-believers have nothing nice to say about Religions, then they shouldn't say anything at all."
That's rich. So we shouldn't point out the real harm that religion does to people on a daily basis? Teaching children they deserve hell, withholding medical treatment in favor of faith healing, bullying and oppressing gays, etc.
And for the record no atheist I've ever met wants to outlaw religion, now there might be a few out there but there's a few crazies in every group. Of course we do find lot's of religious folks who want the entire world to convert, some of which are willing to blow themselves up to do it.
I read the quote by your atheist and saw reason after reason that this individual should not be given credibility by anybody who has respect for academic integrity.
"Religions are all man-made like fairy-tale stories."
This assertion, like the others in the quote, is completely unsupported. Suppose that religions are all man-made like fairy-tales. Now, consider that many consider atheism to be a form of religion in itself. Then, by syllogism, atheism is man-made like a fairy-tale story. Without the standard provided by strong evidential support, this becomes a valid argument against atheism.
"Religions want to force others against their will to join them in order to take over the world."
Suppose that this statement is true. In order for a thing to be considered worth "taking over" it must be given some value, since a thing without value is, unarguably, not worth any trouble to take over. Now, many religions have an eschatology that teaches some end to the known world. Additionally, most religions teach unworldliness as a rule of proper conduct. However, these facts are in contradiction with the assumption since the world has no value to many religions and is therefore not worth taking over (since it will, according to some religions, eventually be destroyed anyhow).
"Religions are the primary source of all conflicts, major and minor, in the world."
Absolutely unsupportable. Read The Statistics of Deadly Quarrels by Lewis Richardson.
I don't know who your atheist was, but he was an exceptionally poor example of an atheist, or at least an exceptionally poor example of a rational person, as many atheists seem to strive to be.
I totally agree.They are nothing, trying present something.They don't even know what they believe themselves and want someone else to believe that hogwash.They have been brainwash by the books they read and the thought that their philosophy is better than the general population.
THEY CAN SEE.......its just that they don't want to see.
This God nonsense is really a brazen lie. You don't worship God, because there is no evidence to support any of this nonsense. But you DO worship man. It is evident in the statement that you just made regarding the 'general population'
These words are spoken like a TRUE Sheeple...scared to question a book written by mortal idiots, with no more insight than a frog about the existence of God. You are afraid to think for yourself, therefore you let long dead primitives continue to trick you into believing that God wrote a book by proxy...choosing fools to convey a nonsensical, psychotic message. How fearful and mindless can one be?
You are brainwash to believe that there is no God.
"And you are Brainwashed to believe there is a god."
The arguement goes both ways when there is no possible way to prove either is correct.
There is no proof that can be presented to either side of this argument that would change any opinions.
And IF there was...My Opinion is that the Atheist would change his/her mind...The Christian would not.
I have personal evidence,so what you say don't hold any water.If i had an apple in my hand,and you said that i didn't have an apple in my hand.Who should i believe.......you,or the apple in my hand.
Exactly...You have "personal" evidence...that doesn't apply to all...Which is what I was stating to begin with. And an Apple...well, we could both see that now couldn't we?...God is something that can't be seen... Only felt...And not everyone has had that experience.
You seem very touchy...I was just pointing out a different point of view.
You must be very insecure in your beliefs. Only someone on shaky ground would get so defensive to a comment that wasn't even directed to them personally.
And since you obviously don't understand the concept of opposing views. Your comments, of blind misunderstanding of debating conversation/discussions, are what don't hold water.
Enjoy your day...
It don't apply to all,and don't 'have to in order for it to be proof.Just because you have not had the experience don't apply to everyone.
I don't have to go the same direction as you do to get to the same point.As long as you see it ,it don't have to look good,all it have to do is make the point.When you call me brainwash...it is personal.
Yes - to be proof it does need to apply to all. What you have is a delusion that exists only in your head. Why on earth would you think anyone would accept that as proof?
That is in your book.Your kind of proof is not required.It only takes one to make a difference.If it is not your way,it is no way.But you are going the wrong way.
I didn't call you brainwashed...I used quotations to make a blanket statement not meant for anyone...It was a statement for use in the point I was posting...And just because I post something that is opposed to your view doesn't mean I believe one way or another...I am just posting...I don't talk about my beliefs on here...I just comment on a topic or post a response or different view on someone else's comments. That allows for people to think of things from a different angle or allows them to recall something that they haven't touch on in a while and re-established their beliefs.
Since you are talking to me ,you are referring to me and those that believe as i do.
Actually I wasn't talking to you. I was posting based off of what you posted. Not you but the comment itself. See that is the thing about Forums...Everyone seems to think comments that are attached to a comment that they made are directed at them personally and that isn't always the case.
I wasn't directing any comments directly to you, until you assumed that I was poking at you personally. Then I responded to what you said to me.
So, if you can show us the apple, you can show us your god, too.
You wanted proof,and i gave it.Now you want a whole meal.Nothing said to you will be enough,you will only see what you want to see.But what you can't see is what you are confused about.
No, you didn't, you offered an example of how an apple is in your hand and you can see it and know it is there. We too can see the apple and agree with you it is there.
So, where is the god you say is also in your hand? No one can see it expect you.
You may not be giving Christianity enough credit on that one. In American society, for those I am acquainted with, it is simply the default position while awaiting further information; just as atheism is for those of us who consider ourselves to be the moderates on the opposite side of the fence.
The extremists, on both sides, appear to be too firmly entrenched to accept proof, of almost any kind.
Well, with statements like this one I put below, it is a bit hard not to just cop the abuse.
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,"
My eyes are fine without believing in that particular branch of the christian religion, whatever that is.
I'm in agreement. But I've read a few posts by that one. I would call that firmly entrenched on one side of the fence.
In light of history and the lack of evidence; non belief makes sense to me. Belief makes sense to others for their own personal reasons. Reasonable people tend to understand that these positions are ultimately due to lack of evidence and would, of course, be more than willing to review their stand were new evidence presented.
I can't form a deeply seated opinion, either way, on the nature of the spiritual without more evidence; so I find religionists, of every flavor, arrogant in their assumptions.
It has been my observation while looking through these threads that quarter is given to any arrogant religious belief, as long as it is not Christian.
You may well be correct. I believe I have noticed that to some degree myself.
And why is that, do you think? Because Christianity is 'the big boy on the block'? I find the arrogance of other religionists in their attempt to belittle others who are no less deluded than themselves strange; but stranger still the unbelievers seem to support them in their attacks. Not bothering to point out that is the imaginary pot calling the unsupported kettle black. Any argument against one branch of monotheism, presented by another branch is laughable.
Christianity comes in for a lot of criticism because it is the most aggressive, and has a history of causing a lot of conflicts. Even today, Christians attempt to force their beliefs into law and cause numerous conflicts.
Personally - I despise all monotheistic religions and see no difference between them. There are 30,000 odd Christian cults - and they all think they have the Truth.
You will not see many Muslims on here though. If there were as many as the Christians - I would be just as dismissive of their nonsensical beliefs.
I haven't run across a Muslim either. I'm with you though; all three of the religions are nonsensical. When any of them become aggressive they need to be laughed at.
But, we've met before. I suppose you realize I hold that view with any aggressive behavior when it comes to the topic of religion. I would hope that reason, education and common sense will ultimately win the argument.
I disagree. Reason, education and common sense will be met with varying degrees of aggression, denial and outright lies.
There is nothing "reasonable" about these religions. In the UK - church attendance has been falling for years - down to about 6% of the population now I believe. Yet still the Government hands over 36% of state education money to the church in order to allow them to attempt to indoctrinate children.
http://www.johannhari.com/2010/08/10/th … ristianity
Well, religion and religionists are two different things to me. People are converted by helping them see the logic in the argument. But, I misspoke and you are correct. Many times agressive behavior is the only way to begin the dialogue.
I had no idea that the UK still gave money to support religious education. Very strange, considering the statistics you posted on church attendance. I would think that meant that even though they weren't going to church, the religious still hold a firm majority?
This has got to be the best argument ever presented by a "non-believer" in the history of Hubpages religious forum. Well done evolution guy. And, I'm one of those believers in Christ. You've won my respect.
You may be correct...I might be off with my opinion of today's christian.
If Jesus did in fact come back in human form...If his message was different than what todays christian believes to be the truth, would they believe he was in fact Jesus returned?
From what I have seen, each branch of christians seems to think that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they believe...is not "true" christians.
I have rarely wondered what the Christian churches would do if Christ was real and showed back up here. I personally think they'd crucify him. That's religion. Their power is more important than their imagined God.
But, I would love to see a survey done of the true face of Christianity. I don't know anyone, personally, that has made comments like the ones you run across on these forums.
But, maybe what's being said here is exactly what they think, too. On some levels I'd like to know; on others, maybe ignorance is bliss. I'd hate to have to sleep with one eye open, worrying about all of the loonies running around.
I agree with you on this one.
It kind of reminds me of a saying.
The "person" is smart, but "people" are stupid (Tommy Lee Jones from Men in Black)
Most who claim to be "christian" don't truly follow their claimed beliefs. They are mostly harmless if left alone..
Those classified as "fundies", well I just try to avoid those types as unless you believe just as they do, it can be a very dishearting conversation.
Men in Black. I loved that movie, but I don't remember that line.
I've had a conversation or two here with at least one of the fundies. It is difficult to converse with anyone who considers themselves to be on the level of their Christ, himself.
When they are sitting on the Park Bench right before Will Smith officially joins the team
Oh. I think I was probably overly focused on Will Smith. I absolutely adore it at the times he had to look confused and scared. That's one of his best acting faces. He's always been one of my favorite actors. I'll have to pay more attention to Tommy Lee Jones the next time I watch the movie.
I'm on my feet clapping, whistling and screaming "YEHHHH!!!"
Are Atheists in Denial? No, are religious followers in Denial? some are some are not.
You have to remember that scientific fact, logic, and reason support religion.
People who truly believe in religion are in a state of delusion, which may or may not incorporate aspects of denial.
They deny everything.They are the ones that come in a day late and a dollar short with nothing bur EXCUSES.
Since this is an online forum, and not a branch of the government, we are not talking about separation of church and state.
What justifies your right to the suppression of free speech?
The fact that he doesn't want to see it but, knowing that the basic facts and truths are all from atheists, can't stop himself from reading.
How has he suppressed your free speech rights? You got to speak, and thus you spoke. So I don't think that you can make this a free speech issue. Because clearly that is not what the poster was saying nor denying.
I was simply pointing out that they had a constitutional right to free speech, and that this did not infringe on the rights he was claiming in his statement. I wasn't sure how separation of church and state factored into Hub Pages.
I realize this place is tiffy at times, but I was simply pointing out that they had a right to speak too.
If I misunderstood his statement, then of course he has my apologies.
"As I had stated in my last Forum, if Atheists and/or other non-believers have nothing nice to say about Religions, then they shouldn't say anything at all."
Replace "Religions" with, say, "murder" or "pedophilia" or "slavery".
Should people just keep quiet about these atrocities simply because they don't invoke nice statements?
An atrocity, yet! Religion isn't really an atrocity unless you are one of the brainwashed. Or the child of the brainwashed. Or the relative. Or friend. Or friend of the relative of the child of the brainwashed. Or maybe if you're just human.
Yep being human is enough to be affected by religion, and religion affects everybody including the irreligious. I don't think believers realize that, and they think that atheists just like to criticize them.
When atheists see terrorism committed, and bigoted views expressed by religious believers, it is hard to say nice things about religion. When people are killing each other in the name of their god you expect non-believers to keep their mouths shut. This would suggest that the religious want to stick their fingers in their ears because the truth is not what they want to hear. In a democracy, people have the right to point out where an injustice exists.
So long as religions stop sponsoring/encouraging terrorism and/or other atrocities, stop brainwashing children into believing fairy tales, and stop trying to dictate how everyone should live, I will agree to stop speaking out against religion.
Considering it is challenging enough, in many cases, to separate a thorough and absolute atheist from a theist, I would have to argue either/or is in denial. Why do I say this? Well, for example (an no disrespect to the atheists here nor the theists), evidence is evidence; An atheist is supposedly someone who has never engaged, else engaged but dismissed entirely the 'concept' of Theos. We know this is not the case here in Hubland, as nearly 60% of replies to theological posts are by self proclaimed atheists. Which is fun, sort of paradoxical and often exhausting to those who do not adhere to either view or standpoint, but nonetheless entertaining. Even still --rationally and actually observing an atheist even enter or respond to something they are certain is pointless a is weird.
Add to that the term Theos: the root word of: theory (scientific doctrine) and theology (religious doctrine). So, either side still has a connection to the concept of the Thing in question (a concept of supremacy based on self; based on a supreme or ultimate power -likened to G/gods or proofs).
Separate the burned (out) wheat from the wheat burning out and you have essential the same product, no? Denial is simple dismissing a portion of one thought for a similar one to satisfy an assumed gain or loss of ones original perspective, attitude and goal. Belief and anti belief have the same word and constructs. Perhaps the full denial is in the need to apply the term 'belief'.
All atheists "claim" en masse and by definition is that they don't believe in God. The rest is stereotyping and straw man arguments.
Ironically, such a "claim" will always strike me as being equally as closed-minded and dogmatic as the claim by theists that they do, by definition, believe in God.
Perhaps I feel this way because I tend to think of things in likelihood and probabilities. Understanding the world in this way seems to tend to cause skepticism towards everything - even skepticism towards skepticism!
It's a mad world that we live in, for sure.
I think I know where you're coming with this, but I know of very few atheists that know with 100% certainty that God does not exist. Most simply find faults or contradictions in existing religions and eliminate those supposed Gods. Even Richard Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Thing is, there's just very little evidence of God as claimed by religious texts.
It's like thinking that there is an invisible pink unicorn somewhere in outer space. There certainly [i]could[/i} be, but there is just no evidence to suggest that claim.
However, the atheists that do claim to be 100% certain of their claim, well they're ironically making the same dogmatic mistake.
Yes, I am also aware that most people who consider themselves atheists don't give the same sort of my-belief-is-infallibly-correct backing to their own ideas as many exclusivistic theists do. This is because many people who consider themselves atheists are comfortable and familiar with the idea that new information can bring about a change in what makes sense, or what is presumed to be "the way things are."
For example, astronomers outside of the Church-supported Aristotelian geocentric model of the solar system went through a series of other models, each new one bringing a better degree of accuracy, before determining the "correct" one. And new, contradicting information would result in the need to change even the currently accepted model.
But, I tend to think of this as a type of agnosticism - except, in the case of atheists, the admission of the possibility for incorrect ideas is somewhat downplayed...
I don't think that atheists are in denial, as per the question in the original post. We live in a society with labels--something that, in any of itself, does not necessarily need to be decried. Most labels, to some extent, are defined both by what they include and what they exclude. Labels themselves only become necessary when they are in opposition to something: the label "white" has no meaning if all people are "white". Given the prevalence of religious belief in society, I think that someone can identify as belonging to a group that does not believe in any religion without, assuming that I am understanding the question correctly, implying by virtue of their non-belief that they actually believe in that which they are decrying. To me, it is no different than saying "I am not an Objectivist," during a conversation with someone who is an Objectivist--all you're saying is that you don't share their beliefs in this regard without indicating anything further about what you actually do believe, the only difference being that, in this case, there is no single word to indicate a lack of belief in the Objectivist philosophy. Given the afore-mentioned prevalence of religion in society, it is no surprise that a word has been created to denote the opposing position.
As to the question about the First Amendment in the Constitution, actually, that's what guarantees Americans the right to say things even when other people find such statements to be offensive. The right not to be offended is not a right at all.
Another debate where more people will get banned, and nothing will ever get resolved, since I know nobody here will listen to the other's argument......
Hey Steven, of course no one is going to listen to the other argument. They cannot hear the argument anyways.
It is already common knowledge and can be said that many do not read the words others use(mostly believers). So, it's not a hearing problem....it's a comprehension problem.
Where'd ya go Mickey mouse...ooooppssss....sorry Mick Demous.
I don't see a rebuttal?
Oh, and by the way, there's no such thing as an "atheist."
An "Atheist" denies the existence of god/s.
How can one deny the existence of that which only exists in the imagination?
We're waiting Demous...:
This "atheist" thing should be understood by now!
It should Earn, but the concept doesn't sink in.
How in the world can ya deny that which doesn't exist?
It would help if those who use the word would look up it's origin.
A hate filled term invented by churchology (new word?) to abuse anyone who would not buy in to their murderous agenda.
This is why I do not call myself an atheist.
Non-believers should stop using the word to describe themselves as well.
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.John 1:18
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.2 Cor 4:4
But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.2 Cor 3:14
I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them.Is 42:16
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.2 Cor 4:6
(Jesus) who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.> Titus 2:14
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. Eph 1:17
Which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. Eph 1:23
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
=- =- =-
but since 142 look how he's grown
all that is left is a few moones
Ok I'll quit trying to be a poet.
There you go offending people, with this primitive nonsense, just because they are not psychotic enough to share your ridiculous beliefs.
This is self-righteous garbage!
I think everyone having their own belief system makes the world a much more interesting place to be in. How boring would life be if we all agreed on EVERYTHING? I think it's good to have a little variation.
I'm not sure I understand that, why would it be boring if we all agreed on the world around us? How is it more interesting if people used a wide variety of beliefs to explain things.
Wouldn't it be far more interesting if we did agree? Agreement of the world around us leads to knowledge and understanding. I can't imagine how anyone could believe that to be boring.
It would seem more likely that listening to imaginative speculations and beliefs that cannot be seen or verified would be get really boring after a while. Evidently, it does.
by Mick Menous2 years ago
You don't necessarily have to be a group that kills innocent people to be called a hate group.In 1963, the American Atheists group was founded by Madalyn Murry O'Hair. In 1976, a radical feminist named Annie Laurie...
by Claire Evans4 years ago
This topic is old, I know, but I'd like to ask it anyway. Many Christians will ask an atheist, "Why are you here if you don't believe God (should it be a Christian thread)?" Some will answer,...
by il Scettico3 years ago
A common religion debate is that religious people try to shove their beliefs down every ones' throats, which is unwanted, closed-minded, and hypocritical. Yet the most common closed-minded belief shoving type of...
by ElSeductor2 years ago
Why must religious people impose their beliefs on others? Why can't religious people keep religion out of politics? Why must Muslims kill others over their beliefs? Why can't Christians keep their...
by Toni3 months ago
I am an atheist surrounded by family and friends who practice Christianity.A lot of atheists say that the world would be a better place without religion.. I can understand why they say that. But, for some people- I feel...
by Mick Menous5 years ago
As we all know, most atheists in America only support the Establishment clause in the US Constitution because of the following dumb excuse:They ONLY THINK that it literally means Separation of Church and...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.