jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (130 posts)

What makes a nonbeliever militant or angry?

  1. Chuck Field profile image61
    Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago

    It’s no secret that Atheism is growing across the world and across the U.S.  As we atheists become a more powerful and vocal minority, it seems that I hear more and more backlash portraying us as being angry or militant. From a personal perspective and as open minded as I try to be, I'm really tired of my brother atheists spouting profanities every other word. It makes us look unintelligent (lacking in descriptive vocabulary), but don't think this is the reason why we are accused of being militant and/or angry. Both sides, please clue me in.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Two possible reasons...

      1.  Some atheists are militant and angry. 
      2.  Militant and angry people are generally militant and angry very loudly.
      3.  The loudest of any group draws the most attention.
      4.  The members of any group that draw the most attention become the visible    representation of that group.
      5.  The most visible representative eventually becomes the poster child of the group.

      Second Reason...
      1.  Some religious individuals are over-sensitive.
      2.  Over sensitive individuals take any critisism of their beliefs as a personal attack.
      3.  Those who feel they are being personally attacked become defensive.
      4.  Defensive individuals are generally defensive very loudly.
      5.  Loud individuals generally draw attention.
      6.  Those with attention have an audience to be loudly defensive at.
      7.  There are always members of any audience who need only emotional speeches to be convinced.
      8.  Those convinced spread the belief further until a large minority or even majority of religious individuals are convinced that all atheists are militant and angry.

      1. Chuck Field profile image61
        Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is quite a compilation. I think you nailed a majority.

      2. j-u-i-c-e profile image99
        j-u-i-c-eposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        /forum

        You win the internets.

      3. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Quite so!

    2. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Anyone who directly challenges a powerful group in the United States is going to be attacked. 

      if Atheism were the dominant belief system, and Christianity were a minority challenging it, Atheists would say things about Christians.  Power is something people don't like to give up, even when the group in question doesn't deserve to have it.

      That being said, much of Christianity is morally bankrupt.  I have no sympathy for bigots saying homosexuality is a sin, or taking anti-intellectual stances simply because their holy book claims something different from scientific discoveries.  Why do these right-wing pastors define abortion and homosexuality as the major issues of our time, when pollution and poverty are higher than ever?

      When people make claims, they need to provide evidence, and not hide behind "faith."  Christians do not allow Muslims or Mormons to do that, and openly ridicule how ridiculous some Muslim and Mormon beliefs are, and they are often right when they do so.  They just don't like it when it's applied to their own religion.

      If you were arguing with someone who was trying to push Greek mythology as the actual truth about the universe, and all the morals contained therein (even the questionable ones), you would get really annoyed if they persisted in believing in such ridiculous things.

      1. Chuck Field profile image61
        Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So… what you are saying is, as a growing minority, we pose a threat to the majority and the threat is declared militant out of defense for the majority’s position?

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes.  Do you see Atheists blowing up abortion clinics, or harassing women outside thereof?

          Atheists are in some ways defending the status quo.  Let science be taught in the classroom, and religion be taught at home.  Also, don't give religion a pass from THE SAME SCRUTINY people of different political views engage in.

          Religion is not special.  It enters the marketplace of ideas, and makes truth claims about the world.  Honest truth seekers will then ask for evidence/argument for the claims the religion in question makes.  If there is none, that isn't the fault of the questioner, but the religion itself.

          1. Chuck Field profile image61
            Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That is an interesting observation I will need to consider. I personally do not believe that atheists would bomb or kill to achieve an agenda. I will have to think about it more.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sure that there's at least one out there that would.  I've never known any group to be completely free of nutcases.

            2. 0
              Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I just want to make sure I am clear on this.

              I don't believe in just attacking someone's Christian beliefs if you work with them or something like that.

              But if the topic specifically comes up, it's okay to ask why someone believes the way they do right?

              I wouldn't be offended if someone asked me why I didn't believe in Christianity.  There's also a time and place for certain topics.

              On here, it's perfectly fine to focus on the intellectual aspects of argument and be "aggressive" with questioning imo.  But if you are at a family get together with a loud-mouthed relative, it might be better to just blow it off, or just state your opinion and then change topics.

              I don't ever want to forget the HUMANITY behind the people I am disagreeing with.

              1. Chuck Field profile image61
                Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Agreed. A time and place for everything. But... in many situations, a nonbeliever is expected to go along with and/or be tolerant to the point of forced participation in these beliefs. As soon as you even silently back out, you know the look you get. Maybe an indignant face to go along with it. Its certainly not respectful to the nonbeliever and sometimes I want to rip in to those smirky faces right on the spot... guess what... angry atheist.

                1. 0
                  Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol you understand then. 

                  Refusing to participate in a prayer, or admitting you don't go to Church at a job could get you fired or severely ostracized. 

                  That's why I am torn between keeping peace and coming out and letting people know we exist.  If more people who are atheists come out, then it will become more acceptable.

                  I'm considering "coming out" to my relatives.  Only two or three of them know I, and the rest of my family, are not Christians.  Many of them are of the conservative type.  I just don't want to hide in the shadows any longer.

                  1. Trish_M profile image88
                    Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's not like this in England ~ not for most people, anyway smile

                  2. Chuck Field profile image61
                    Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes. I work at a large corporation and at the national level they are very intolerant of any type of discrimination, but down in the trenches I have come out to a few and after being friends for a long time. You would have thought they expected me to be Satan himself, after that. They refused to pick up the phone and if I wanted anything from them I had to e-mail them and copy their bosses.

    3. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, Atheism is growing in America and across the world.
      Many people consider anyone who denies God as angry and those who get aggressive are considered militant.
      Profanities? I'm not sure I follow.
      Just like all religions Atheism is no different, it has it's extreme people who can get really aggressive and blatantly rude to the point of being completely absurd. It is like it is with all things- you will have some aggressive, some passive, some extremely passive and some who are extremely aggressive.

      As for obtaining power or getting powerful as a collective in America? You've(as a group collectively) a long way to go before you can even begin any sort of power struggle in America.

      1. Chuck Field profile image61
        Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I think I can agree with what you have said. On the profanity point, as an atheist, I get tired of my more vocal brothers spewing profanities as they defend our positions. Just don't think it's very classy.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Then wouldn't you be morally obligated to ensure that they represent Atheism with a little more class?

          Btw- I am not Atheist.

    4. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think that grouping all non believers together and judging ALL non believers based on the actions of a few is no different to racism.

      There are people who use profanities all over the world who are of many different religions or no religions at all.

      In the UK you don't see much arguing over religion but from what I see from America, there are some very vocal christians.

      The phelps spring to mind, not to mention some of the fox news presenters.

      There are "militant and angry" people from all walks of life.

      1. Chuck Field profile image61
        Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        My intention was not group all of us as belligerent profanity ridden hostiles. It just seems like every time I pull up a podcast discussing the topic, I hear every cuss word under the sun. And yes, I know cuss words are in the mind of the beholder... but is it really necessary?

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
          Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I know you weren't grouping people, but others do, and I don't give much credence to those that do.

          Of course it isn't necessary, but we are all human, and frustration and anger are simple emotions.

    5. aguasilver profile image85
      aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      From the 'stone age perspective', which I hold smile I have no problem with folk deciding that there is no God, that decision is after all what the whole thing is about, to trust God or to trust science and yourself.

      I sense that the militancy is because they want change faster than it is happening, and the more militant ones get frustrated that their forum posts are answered in a way that is not satisfying for any non believer, i.e. with scripture or biblical based replies.

      However scripture does tell us that at this point in prophetic time there will be an increase in both 'knowledge' and 'iniquity' and frankly the greatest iniquity is obviously the total rejection of God.

      I welcome it, it shows that we are on target for the scriptural time line to an ending, helps shake out any weak in faith and sharpens the apologetics tools of those called upon to be a voice in the wilderness pointing the way.

      One observation I will make is that militancy seems to increase when the atheist 'works' the forums for any extended period, and having looked at some of our more militant atheists, they started off with a much more amenable demeanour and slowly became more offensive and repetitious.

      Again scripture tells us that when we turn away from God our 'heart' hardens and our conscience is 'seared', which is in line with the believers understanding that the atheists when they reject God is slowly changed as they come under the authority of the enemy, whose task is to seek to destroy those he may.

      Obviously someone rejecting God is fair game for other spiritual forces to play with, especially as the atheist must also deny the enemy exists.

      1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
        Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I do.



        Militancy, or combative or aggressive behaviour simply arises from frustration or anger.



        LOL there is ALWAYS an increase in knowledge and iniquity somewhere in the world. That is hardly a prophecy. Not believing in a god is something that cannot be helped and cannot be deemed immoral. That would imply that disbelief is a choice, which it is not.



        History has shown that the christian "apologetics" simply make unfounded claims that are more often than not, fallacious ones, or lies if you will.



        Indeed, One is always given the benefit of the doubt at first, but frustration builds up slowly over time when you are repeatedly presented with lies and idiotic claims for which no evidence is presented.



        Well that just sounds like a hate speech designed to create an "us and them" mentality. It's a bit insulting don't you think?



        Surely one who places belief in unfounded claims is more likely to join different religions, maybe change from one to the other (I've seen that a lot).

        I don't often see atheists becoming religious though. I do occasionally, but not often.

      2. kerryg profile image86
        kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "One observation I will make is that militancy seems to increase when the atheist 'works' the forums for any extended period, and having looked at some of our more militant atheists, they started off with a much more amenable demeanour and slowly became more offensive and repetitious.

        Again scripture tells us that when we turn away from God our 'heart' hardens and our conscience is 'seared', which is in line with the believers understanding that the atheists when they reject God is slowly changed as they come under the authority of the enemy, whose task is to seek to destroy those he may."

        Eh, it has nothing to do with "turning away from God" or whatever. It's just that after four years of seeing the same stupid arguments over and over and over again as each new wave of members joins the forums, a person gets a little sick of them and is increasingly inclined to brush them off with sarcasm or rudeness instead of patiently explaining for the 1000th time why the person is wrong. This applies to just about any moderately contentious issue, it's not just limited to religious ones. Also, it happens to both sides.

        I actually ended up writing hubs about some of the most frequent stupid arguments I've encountered so I could just link to a polite and reasonable argument instead of having to type it out all over again, but then they got stricter about enforcing the no self-promotion rules in the forums so I haven't been able to save myself as much typing as I'd hoped. sad

        1. aguasilver profile image85
          aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Have the same problem, constantly explaining where atheists are wrong, from a believer perspective! smile

          And I also wrote some hubs to make life simpler, but cannot link them!

          But we could just cut and paste a section, or would that get us done for duplicate content? big_smile

    6. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Minorities tend to be unfairly labeled by majorities, not saying there are not angry militant atheists, there are, but they are not representative and they are not as bad as the militant Christians or anywhere as numerous.

      1. Chuck Field profile image61
        Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think your line of reasoning is becoming a trend in this thread.

    7. Jane Bovary profile image87
      Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There does seem to be a common and I think overblown, perception that many atheists are somehow angry, arrogant and aggressive  - perhaps partly because of this kind of thinking:

      "Again scripture tells us that when we turn away from God our 'heart' hardens and our conscience is 'seared', which is in line with the believers understanding that the atheists when they reject God is slowly changed as they come under the authority of the enemy, whose task is to seek to destroy those he may" - Aquasilver

      I guess if you believe we're in league with the devil....

      It could also be partly due to  Christianity having sailed along for a long while with scarcely any public criticism at all and now, because atheists are much more vocal and challenging, it seems like an aggressive  attack.

      1. Chuck Field profile image61
        Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. I think we are much more vocal and challenging of Christian beliefs. But I have to disagree that atheists hearts are hardened. If anything, I personally have become more compassionate and community minded. I believe this is the only life we have and and I want the best for everyone.

        1. Jane Bovary profile image87
          Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't believe atheists are particularly hardened either.

    8. Chuck Field profile image61
      Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This has been fun, everyone... time for bed. I will try to engage on more of your thoughts and think on some things I have already heard. Thank you.

    9. Marisa Wright profile image93
      Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think the Richard Dawkins of this world do atheism a big disservice.

      I understand why he - and other atheists - get angry.  It's pure frustration.   Atheists are always highly logical people.  That's how they've arrived at their view of religion, as with everything else in their lives.  To them, the only sensible view of the world is based on logic and intelligent debate.

      So it's intensely frustrating to them, when they try to debate logically with a religious person, and that religious person isn't capable of responding  logically, but instead ignores what they've said and simply parrots what their belief system says.

      However, I think atheists would get a better response if they refused to take the bait.  If they kept calm and employed sweet reason, they would make the religious person look stupid instead of making themselves look rude and arrogant.

      1. Jane Bovary profile image87
        Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I hear this criticism a lot about Dawkins. He doesn't pull any punches and that is construed as *rude and arrogant*. Yet whenever  I've seen/heard  him speak he's been fairly reasonable -  impatient perhaps and very dry in his delivery but not angry.  Nor do I think he's done atheism a disservice - he's pretty much devoted his life to it and in the process has done much to raise people's awareness about religious chicanery and irrational thinking.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I have seen Dawkins speak and I also don't get rude from him nor do I get arrogant.  He is ridiculously intelligent and his thought process is almost utterly ruled by logic.  I've known plenty of people like that.  Once someone's level of intelligence reaches a certain point they develop a sort of self-awareness of that fact.  It's hard to explain but it's not at all arrogance... it's more of an informed self-evaluation.  I liken it to a computer checking itself for errors.  They have honestly and often completely impartially acknowledged their intelligence and have no valid reason to doubt their conclusions.  That lack of doubt is threatening to those who do have perfectly human doubts and comes across as arrogance. 

          The feeling of rudeness comes from completely logical statements.  Logic- by nature- is cold.  The logical process purposely removes emotion from the process when drawing a conclusion.  Once again to individuals that rely on emotions to make decisions that coldness comes across as unfeeling (which it largely is).  Unfeeling feels like rude.

          I've never seen Dawkins as angry either... although he possesses an amazing sense of sarcasm... which due to his intelligence is often excessively biting.

          1. Marisa Wright profile image93
            Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I understand what you're saying about logic = unfeeling = rude.  I'm sure you've noticed Relache or myself being accused of rudeness on these forums when we weren't being rude at all, just stating a hard fact that people don't like to hear!  But the thing is, I'm not on a mission like Dawkins. 

            If he wants to get his message across, then he needs to be sensitive to how the audience reacts to him. People don't listen to someone they don't warm to. 

            I saw him on a panel discussion recently.  He didn't get angry, but he did get viciously sarcastic.  The moderator made a (witty) joke to break the tension, and Dawkins not only failed to get the joke but chastised the moderator for his "stupid" interruption.  That made him seem dull, humourless and a bit bitter and twisted.

            1. Jane Bovary profile image87
              Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *Viciously* sarcastic?  What panel discussion was that? Was it Q&A?

              You think it's fine for you to state hard facts and tell people what they may not want to hear but you expect Dawkins to walk on eggshells and soft soap? Whether he's on a mission or not, I'd rather he was himself than constantly struggling not to offend. People do listen to him - he's probably the most famous atheist in the world.

              Anyway, really, when it's all boiled down, the  thing that counts is not his bedside manner but whether or not his arguments are sound.

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The thing is I don't think that Dawkins really cares about believers getting his message.  He talks to other like-minded individuals... i.e. those who think like him.  Those people are already "warm" to him.  I will admit that I am a fan of vicious sarcasm so his comment would likely have amused me.  It's neither right nor wrong it's just the type of amusement that I am drawn towards. 

              I'm not a big fan of Dawkins in general though... I don't agree with him on many things... but he is the KIND of person that I am drawn towards for debate and conversation.  Others are drawn towards fluffy and sweet.  It takes all kinds smile

              1. Jane Bovary profile image87
                Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I've never understood why sarcasm is described as 'the lowest from of wit' - sometimes it can be very funny (maybe not so funny if you're on the receiving end). I doubt Dawkins was really  'vicious' in his use of it,  more likely it just hit the mark. For some reason people like to build him up as an ogre, bullying poor theists into submission. Though I do like him, I'm not a huge Dawkins fan either. if you want real entertaining atheist rapport you have to look to Christopher Hitchens!

                I don't think it's  true that he only wants to preach to the converted but with hard-core believers it probably wouldn't matter if he was Shirley Temple and did a rendition of On the Good Ship Lollipop before every debate - nothings going to convince them so he might as well be himself.

                1. Trish_M profile image88
                  Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh yes, the late Christopher Hitchens! Brilliant debater.
                  I don't find Dawkins to be an ogre. I quite like him, though I don't always agree with him.
                  Maybe he's a bit smug, but he believes that he is right ~ and maybe he is???

                  1. Jane Bovary profile image87
                    Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There'a always that possibility!

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you...  I had a flash of mental image that I can never unsee and viewing/hearing Dawkins will never be the same again... smile

      2. Chuck Field profile image61
        Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I've been trapped in that scenario many times and I think that most of the time it is a “no win” situation. If you are not coming across angry, many times our reasoning comes across as haughty or insulting... How could it not? These people, many times friends and family, are defending fairy tales.  If this was not dressed up as religion, anyone who spoke about these things as being real would be sent to the asylum.  As for Dawkins, I think he falls in to that haughty or insulting tone all the time… (and the accent does not help his image)

      3. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I consider Richard Dawkins to be very polite and rather charming.
        I don't tend to hear him shouting, swearing, or being aggressive.
        He is very intelligent, though.

    10. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If someone accuses you of being militant or angry and you are not doing that, ask them to show you how you are being militant and angry.  That should either make them stop doing that, or you can see if indeed you are being militant or angry.

      Most often when I hear that, or experience it first hand, the person in question is indeed very angry and lashing out. 

      It is good you want to understand the conversations better, and are asking both sides, and asking for the level of discussion to be raised.  I commend you for that.

    11. Matthew Kirk profile image89
      Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      extremism - attempting to impress your dim little views on the others...

    12. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think Melissa nailed it, but I will go one step further and say that I don't think atheists are militant or angry in general. It's just that Christians are so sensitive they take any criticism or encroachment on their hegemony as a militant attack. It's also why they claim to be persecuted. They have confused persecution with not always getting everything they want.

      1. Chuck Field profile image61
        Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Amen!  ;-)

      2. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good point.

    13. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If atheists do become angry, then it's hardly surprising, since they are labelled as evil and threatened with eternal suffering in hellfire smile

      Atheists are, apparently, trusted less than rapists. What an insult!

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why wonder? Christians worship a god who commit adultery and murder, and condone slavery and rape

        1. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, it's horrific.

    14. ASchwartz profile image87
      ASchwartzposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think when I was younger it made more sense to spout my beliefs, or non-beliefs. As I've gotten older (and hopefully wiser), I'm more content to live and let live.

    15. Chuck Field profile image61
      Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A little patients to my non-believing brothers and sisters... As a Christian for almost 35 years, it took a great deal of time scour my brain of myths. As frustrating as it seems, critical thinking on this topic is not easy when you have had years of society telling you to just believe and Satan is trying to turn you away...etc.,etc., etc..

    16. MilesArmbruster profile image60
      MilesArmbrusterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Be careful, not every group listens to the loudest and most militant people. From viewing this thread, Chuck Fields sounds as though he would be most swayed by someone eloquent and persuasive. Let's look at a history lesson: Hitler whipped his followers into a frenzy through emotional and practiced rhetoric. His reasoning was simple, and he even had a scapegoat to blame, and his followers believed him. Winston Churchill led Great Britain through World War II through his caustic wit. British people sure love their dry humor. Franklin Roosevelt led the United States with his infectious optimism. He always sounded like a wise uncle gently advising the nation. Neither Churchill nor Roosevelt needed to be loud or obnoxious. Chuck's question (his purpose?) was to encourage his fellow non-believing brothers and sisters to not come across as "unintelligent." At the same time, he asked for a response "from both sides." Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
      People live their lives out of what is in their hearts, or according to some principles they value, or out of their disposition, call it what you will - human motivation is a complicated subject. As a result, some people are more militant than others, and this is true of every group out there. If you spend ten minutes hub hopping, you will find people of just about every belief structure possible, some of them are deliberately nasty and insulting and militant, and others are not. Some have the dopiest and most illogical reasoning and some are quite bright. Some people accept their beliefs out of blind faith without caring if it meets any level of logical scrutiny.
      I don't tend to get "militant" because I am perfectly secure in what I believe; I prefer to have a lively and interesting debate with other people that demonstrates respect. One of my best friends is a pretty sincere atheist, and that hasn't stopped me at all from having a great time with him enjoying football and a beer.
      For the most part, as long as we can have a dialog, I love hearing what people have to say. The militant people seem to be the ones who spend all of their time looking for hubs where they can merely be insulting and nasty. It seems as though all they want to do is create an adversarial atmosphere rather than discuss the interesting diversity of what people believe.

  2. Melindas Mind profile image84
    Melindas Mindposted 4 years ago

    In all groups, religious or not, you will find militant annoying people. Like melissabarret pointed out, groups are usually defined by the loudest and most obvious person. While there are many militant atheists, there are also militant christians, militant feminists, militant enviromentalists ....

    I usually think the more militant a person is about something, the less sure they are of their beliefs - a case of that person protesting too much. This isn't always true - sometimes it's because they're new to ... whatever it is they're militant about and they just want everyone to be as happy in their philosophy or religion or whatever you want to call it as they are. But usually, I think it's because they're insecure. If they weren't, they wouldn't be out to prove themselves right, they'd know they're right. Just as I'm not going to argue with anyone that the world is round and not flat, I also won't argue my religious beliefs (I will discuss them, though).

  3. Claire Evans profile image90
    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago

    They claim it is because there rights are being infringed, are threatened by the belief system or have been hurt in the past.

  4. Window Pain profile image61
    Window Painposted 4 years ago

    Stupid, angry people give all decent religious and atheist people a bad name.

    If people would just stop trying to run the lives of others, we'd all be happier.

    1. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +

      I don't care what people believe. I won't tell you how to live your life, so don't tell me how I should live mine.

  5. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Mark, for your information, Politics has caused more death and destruction than any religion.: Look at America's wars alone. The Revolution-politics. The War of 1812-politics The Mexican American War-politics The Civil War-politics (States Rights) The Spanish American War-politics WWI politics WWII politics. The Korean War-politics The Viet Nam War-politics. The Gulf War -politics. Gulf War II -politics. You act and talk like religionists are the only ones who start anything. Balderdash! Balderdash, I say!smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Dude - so that is OK that your religion causes wars? Sure. lol

  6. Window Pain profile image61
    Window Painposted 4 years ago

    People cause wars, hatred, discrimination and all the bad things in life. They use their belief systems  as the justification of their actions.

    Every belief system contains both altruistic and militaristic ideals. Just like a knife is not in itself evil, if you choose to stab someone with it - it's not the knife that's at fault.

    People suck. Then they use whatever method is available to them to make life miserable for others.

    It's the person who uses religion as a weapon who is the problem.

    1. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      According to the Bible, God was very much involved in battles and warfare ~ and ordering the slaughter of babies (eg Amalekites)

      1. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Has it ever occurred to you that lies were written about God in the Old Testament? The Jews were very influenced by paganism and the literal translation of the early books of the Old Testament speak of the "gods" and not God.

        Jesus came to set the misconception of God right.

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Do you even understand the nonsense you are writing. Jews are supposed to be the selected race. They are the race to which god revealed himself.  And their books are supposed to be written by God's prophets. And you are telling they were influenced by pagans. It is akin to saying your knowledge about your father is influenced by your neighbour.
          So it'll distill to that neither Jews know about god, they too made up myths like the pagans. So whether some mythical person came to 'correct' it or not, god is a myth.

        2. rebekahELLE profile image91
          rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ??  Where do people get this stuff??

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Pretty sure they all make it up as they go along. lol

            Which is why they all have different "christianity," and only agree when it comes to attacking unbelievers and muslims. lol

            1. rebekahELLE profile image91
              rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              crazy - I've never heard a believer say the OT lies about God. OOPs, some scribe got it wrong. now what?? lol

              1. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Jeremiah 8:8

                "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

          2. Claire Evans profile image90
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Do you know what the Sumerian text is? It has a creation and Noah's Ark story that preceded the writings of Genesis.  Did you know the literal translation of the earlier books of the OT is very different to what we have now?

            Have a look:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … r_embedded

            1. 0
              Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why apply critical thinking to the OT and not the NT?

              You're right about the Sumerian texts though.

              1. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I do apply critical thinking in the New Testament.  I don't think it's infallible.  What is undeniable to me is the victory of Christ through His death and resurrection.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you must be misunderstanding the term “critical thinking" because this is not it. lol

        3. Chuck Field profile image61
          Chuck Fieldposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Again,

          A) Out of hundreds of books, the Christian leaders chose what was to be the Biblical Canon, 300 years after the mythical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. These experts had the benefit of Jesus's word and still chose to keep these books in the Canon.

          B) The New Testament has many references from Jesus himself reiterating the importance of the scripture of his time, which of course is the books of the Old Testament.   

          I'm not sure why you keep saying that the Old Testament does not apply other than wishful thinking on your part. Please do some research on this and reflect on why you wish the Old Testament to be invalid... your deep desire for dropping the Old Testament, may just be the makings of a new nonbeliever. Its only a matter of honest consideration on the facts and self reflection on the real reasons why you choose to believe.

          1. Claire Evans profile image90
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Most historians do not believe Jesus' death is a myth.  I have never claimed that the Old Testament is false so therefore I can never suggest Jesus shunned all of it.  However, there must have been some He shunned because what He preached was contrary to the Pharisee's views which are obviously of the Old Testament.  That is why they were always fighting.

            1. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are not in agreement with the majority of Christianity, then, which accepts both Testaments as 'God's Holy Book'?

              And most people believe that everyone dies. It's the temporary dying which many people have some trouble with, I would say smile

              1. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I find most Christians to be lacking in critical thinking regarding their religion.  It's like the two can't go together.  They either don't find the Bible suspicious in parts or turn atheist because their critical thinking doesn't agree with it due to a lack of spiritual enlightenment.  I believe I am in the middle.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol lol

                  In the middle? Have you read your posts? Or maybe you don't understand what the term 'critical thinking' means.

                  1. mischeviousme profile image59
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Great reply! +1

                    If one has all this garbage fed to them as a child, they will eat nothing but garbage as adults and they only seek to spread their delusions..

                2. Matthew Kirk profile image89
                  Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You think people turn athiest because they think the bible doesn't make sense? Well done...

                  1. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, maybe they should go beyond what the Bible says.

              2. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                As I have said countless times, I do not discard the whole of the Old Testament but I am certainly in the minority when it comes to my views on the Old Testament.

        4. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, of course it has occurred to me. I don't believe any of it. smile

          I believe that what the writers put was wishful thinking, interpretation, etc. They thought that they were being led by God ~ so God was credited with it all; good and bad. It's not true; not in my opinion ~ but Christianity is based upon the Bible. That's where Christianity comes from. No Bible; no Christianity.

          And, according to the New Testament, Jesus came to fulfill laws and prophecies, etc. He changed a few things ~ love thy neighbour; turn the other cheek; let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc, etc, but when he prayed to God, it was God as described in the Hebrew Scriptures. That is who Jesus apparently accepted as God ~ and, if he existed, he would have known those stories.

          When people say that Jesus was God incarnate; it was God as described in the Hebrew scriptures. I don't see how you can have one without the other.

          I know that many Christians ~ my Mum included ~ are Christians, who do not believe that the God they love could have behaved so cruelly. Fair enough. But where do you draw the line?

          Was Jesus a new God of a new religion?
          Is there no Trinity?
          Was Jesus wrong in saying that he had come to fulfill the Old Testament?

          How much of the Old Testament should we drop?
          The Creation?
          The prophecies that supposedly point to Jesus?
          Just the bits that we don't like?

          How does this work?

          1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
            EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol, sorry, but I can't help laughing, not because your post was necessarily funny of itself, but because this is the very core of why people turn away from Christianity.

            1. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, yes, I suppose so.
              If one's religion makes no sense, then it makes sense to stop following it.
              Yet most people do continue to follow.

          2. Claire Evans profile image90
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Christianity is not based on the Bible.  It is based on the death and resurrection of Jesus.  That was a belief before the Bible was in written form.  Jesus didn't come to negate the whole of the Old Testament.  He came to fulfill the prophecies and to put misconceptions of God right.  If God is depicted anyway in the OT as contradicting Jesus then that depiction is wrong.  How can Jesus say there would be harsh punishment for those who harm children when God supposedly did it Himself??  Only a fraction of what Jesus said during His ministry made it into the Bible.  Who's to say He didn't say anything against the OT? In fact, He lambasted the Pharisees for their corruption of the OT.  He obviously recognized the flaws in the OT.  Even the prophet Jeremiah lambastes the scribes for lying. (Jeremiah 8:8)



            No, He was the true God incarnate not a depiction of pagan gods which the majority of the OT assign Him as. 



            We should drop all those that contradict Jesus and the ones that are obviously pagan and occult influenced.  The creation story is a pagan one.  The prophecies of Jesus should definitely not be dropped.  The Jews thought that when Jesus came He would be the King of Israel as prophesized.  They did not realize that specific prophecy was not to be fulfilled during Jesus first coming on earth.

  7. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 4 years ago

    So please demonstrate the part of Buddhism that is militaristic.

  8. Window Pain profile image61
    Window Painposted 4 years ago

    aguasilver wrote,
    "From a biblical perspective, there are ONLY two positions someone can be in, saved or lost."

    From a rational person's perspective, I'd turn that phrase around... You can be lost in religion, or saved from delusional thinking.

    I agree with you that NOTHING any religious person can say will ever change my opinion.

    So where does that leave us? Not in a good place, that's for sure.

    1. aguasilver profile image85
      aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree, having such diverse viewpoints, diametrically opposed actually, is a good thing for clarifying a persons thinking.

      All comes down to who is actually correct in the decision they made. smile

  9. Window Pain profile image61
    Window Painposted 4 years ago

    Josak,

    Okay, you've got me there. Buddhism is certainly not militaristic.

  10. Window Pain profile image61
    Window Painposted 4 years ago

    Back to Chuck's original question... "What makes a non-believer militant or angry?" 

    well...

    1) being told we have no morals
    2) being told we're going to Hell
    3) being lectured by those who don't know anything about us
    4) being told we either have to agree with them, or we're sinners

    and one of my favorites...
    5) being told "You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with God." (isn't that blasphemy?)

    Glad I'm superior to all that nonsense!

    (Darn, I just went and did the same thing, didn't I? Self-righteousness can really mess with one's thinking.)

  11. 0
    Starmom41posted 4 years ago

    (admittedly I haven't yet figured out the diff between forum posts & hubs, but the title of this was on the front page when I signed in)

    I can only speak for myself, but to me the title is the biggest part of it:  the viewpoint that someone is an 'unbeliever' more because of -the way- one believes, rather than -what- one believes. 
    As one example, a person posted that they 'used to be a Methodist, but became a Christian.'  Not only would all of my Methodist relatives be seriously offended by the notion that they are not Christians, I find it offensive even though I'm neither one. 
    I've known quite a few people who did not believe in God--  atheists and individuals of other religions--  and while some have been arrogant, I've seen more arrogance amongst Fundamentalist "Christians" than I've ever seen amongst those in the latter category.  The "baiting" that's been going on in the hubpages "answers" section is only one example of it.

  12. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    What if it is really all internal? I mean, what if God does exist inside of us? We haven't conducted ourselves in a very divine manner on this world. What if God is God's creation, and we, being part of that creation, are also God?

    1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
      EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What if Sasquatch is the missing evolutionary link? What if...What if.....What if.....almost as constant as why?

  13. Window Pain profile image61
    Window Painposted 4 years ago

    Days, then 11 hours, then 19 hours between replies.

    This must be what it was like when people debated using carrier pigeons.

    "Oh Yeah?"

    [take a nap]

    "Yeah!"

  14. waynet profile image45
    waynetposted 4 years ago

    I still say Jesus was a prostitute, magician and conjurer of the dark arts!

    1. mischeviousme profile image59
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don't forget dope pusher...

      1. waynet profile image45
        waynetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ah yes and Salami smuggler and professional fudge packer to his Homies! smile

        1. mischeviousme profile image59
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Homos or homies?

          1. waynet profile image45
            waynetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The Homie Homos!....got a nice ring to it....er said Jesus!

  15. Matthew Kirk profile image89
    Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago

    Sounds like crazy person talk - the victory of christ through death?

    It would have been victory if he would have broken out a couple of uzi's and rocket launchers just as he was being nailed to the cross and wasted the entire roman legion! That would have been victory - as it stands, dying meekly is definately the opposite of victory.

    1. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think rising from the dead and conquering all evil is a victory.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If Jesus conquered all evil, then why are there still Freemasons around, plotting to nuke London?

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I was waiting for someone to ask me this question.

          We only look at time as linear when Einstein actually postulated that the past, present and future are happening simultaneously.  So the future has actually happened already.  We just perceive it as time ahead because of our linear thinking.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Then why are you so frantically worried about it?

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not frantically worried about it!

      2. Matthew Kirk profile image89
        Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What evil did he conquer?

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          All evil that has ever existed and Satan.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The greatest danger is terror in the name of God and then they blame Satan

            What sport is in all this junk

          2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
            DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            According to the Book of Revelations, the conquering of Satan hasn't happened yet.

            And judging from some of your posts (that Satan and evil is everywhere), it would seem that neither has been fully conquered yet either...I would think that if something were conquered, it wouldn't still be rearing its "ugly head"...

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The conquering of Satan on earth has not happened yet but in another dimension, yes.  What we perceive as the future is just a perception.  The past, present and future is happening at the same time.  There is no time.

              For example, how could prophecies exist if there is a chance it couldn't happen and hasn't happened yet? How could it be prophesized that Jesus would be a virgin if there is a possibility she could be killed before then?

              1. Matthew Kirk profile image89
                Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So you are attributing victory even though victory hasn't happened yet because time doesn't exist...

                Evidence for any of this?

                1. Matthew Kirk profile image89
                  Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Or did you just make it up inside your head?

                2. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          3. Matthew Kirk profile image89
            Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Did hitler come after jesus? He was pretty evil? A lot of people alive today are evil - look at that coney video - if jesus ever did break out a couple of uzi's and a rocket launcher then he should take out him!

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Jesus took on all the pain and suffering and horror of the world in another dimension.  Obviously, Hitler was around the time of Jesus.

              1. Matthew Kirk profile image89
                Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hitler was around the time of jesus?

                1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                  Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Kind of, Germany was Christin nation, Nazi thought God was with them and the USA wants to own the World

                2. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, I mean't he wasn't around in the time of Jesus.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                    Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I though Jesus was always around according the Christian. JC and the jellyfish are immortal

 
working