Atheists attack religion* because they are ignorant

[Milton Platt]

What's wrong with ignorance?
Coming to terms with what I don't know is pretty useful.

It saves me from a helluva lot of embarrassment........

"Better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt....."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The claim that some 'have a limited conception of religion' is common canard used by many belief systems that say, 'If really knew my true religion you would believe as I do,'

The fallacy of an 'appeal to ignorance' plan and simple.

Some do have a limited conception of religion. I don't believe @Mandi ever suggested a more nuanced concept of religion would lead to agreement.

I think I have a more nuanced understanding of religion, but I'm an atheist. I suspect you do too, based on posts I've read. Point is attacking 'religion' for the sins of certain belief systems does happen.

If I'm a polytheist, I probably get tired of hearing about the Abrahamaic religions and the issues they cause in Western countries.
If I'm a liberal Christian supporting marriage equality, I doubt I want to hear that it's religion, or theists stopping gay marriage due to bigotry.

None of this has to do with logical fallacy, but only over-generalizations and imprecise use of labels.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When it boils down to it, how are they not equal? I am not talking about what they have done in history, but the basic premise of them all?

How could you suggest they are all equal? On what grounds?

Genuinely curious as to your meaning.

 

[Riders]

First place to the OP the first post was way too long.The original poster repeated himself over and over and that post was too long.

Second place I as a Zen Buddhist and Earthbased Unitarian Universalist believes in the God's and Godesses got to a UU church that has atheists.The atheists at my church get along with believers just fine.So my experience with Atheists is different.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some do have a limited conception of religion. I don't believe @Mandi ever suggested a more nuanced concept of religion would lead to agreement.

Some do . . . ? does not justify the proposal of this thread.

 

[Kapalika]

When we're talking about religion as a whole - and I understand from your OP that we are - your religion is negligible. I'm sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth.

When we're talking about religion in the general sense, its positive and negative attributes are going to be a function of people's religious beliefs and behaviour (and their positive and negative implications) along with how many people hold a particular belief or practice a particular behaviour. This means that the implications of "religion as a whole" are dominated by the big four: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. All the other religions of the world combined don't have as much impact as these four do. The contribution of your "Tantric Satanism" to "religion as a whole" is orders of magnitude less than the rounding error for any of the big four. Heck - it's probably less than the rounding error for Satanism.

We can talk about religion in general the same way that we can talk about, say, the car in general. As just as we can make general conclusions about the car (e.g. "car-centric urban planning is financially and environmentally unsustainable") we can make general conclusions about religion.

... and just as we don't need to take someone's one-off homemade car into account for our conclusions about the car to be valid ("it's solar powered, only gets driven in parades, and captures CO2 from the air as it runs!"), we don't need to take your one-off homemade religion into account for our conclusions about religion to be valid.

It's a gross mistake to equate Buddhism and Hinduism with Islam and Christianity. That is precisely my point in my OP:

Despite that it seems a lot of atheists unfairly act as if all religions are equal. I get it though, some religions have done a lot of bad. Two of them make the majority of the world population. But that has more to do with how they spread and their doctrine rather than an inherent quality in religion itself.

Also I would argue that the contribution of my religion, Shaivism, with hundreds of millions of adherents, to be much more than marginal in contribution. The medieval Kashmir Shaivites were very influential in shaping Buddhist thought and vice versa as well as mirroring the more southern and Vedic developments in Hindu thought.

Also if I were asked my religion, normally Satanism doesn't come into it. Satanism is more of a style of Left Hand Path, which is Tantric yes, but Tantra is a practice within religion, not the religion itself. My religion is Shaivism. I have solidarity and kinship with others of Dharmic faiths. I am Hindu, I am Shaivite, and many other things. But my religion isn't "negligible". Even within the context of Shaivism, Trika and Kashmir Shaivism isn't neligable in terms of historical context. Some things are not about the number of adherents but it's historical role in shaping current thought.

As you said yourself, Hinduism and Buddhism are one of the "big four" and so anything that has shaped it's overall theology as it is today isn't going to be marginal, otherwise it wouldn't be noteworthy.

I should also mention if we are going by what you call the "big 4" that we might as well count traditional Chinese folk religion as it's about the same size as Buddhism. And all the various ethnic religions outnumber Buddhism when combined. So it's not even that simple.

 

[Kenny]

Fundamental and many other Theists attack atheism more because they are insecure in their faith. Polls demonstrate that a large percentage of Theist, hate and distrust atheists.
.

I don't trust polls. As my statistics teacher said, "You can make numbers say anything. Not to mention that the first sentence is hardly correct and the second does' t take into account what percentage of atheists attack Theists. Would it be because of their insecurity too?

 

[Kapalika]

Add on to my previous post... #25

You might be able to reduce your focus to "religious forces strong in the western world's politics" but that is more narrow in scope than "religion as a whole" which as a whole, is not like most of what many atheists is trying to be critical of. Most religions keep to themselves. It's no accident that the two biggest ones are the more active in getting involved in politics. It's part of how they spread, and I could get into that in another topic but I don't want to derail this one.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't trust polls. As my statistics teacher said, "You can make numbers say anything. Not to mention that the first sentence is hardly correct and the second does' t take into account what percentage of atheists attack Theists. Would it be because of their insecurity too?

Your establishment Theist agenda is showing. and I believe the polls are reasonable based on repeated polls from different sources., and the fact of stated views by the more fundamentalist churches toward atheists reflect the polls,

Just because the polls do not agree with your agenda is no reason to reject the polls.

There are actually not that many atheists in the USA and they reflect are a diverse lot, which does not reflect the reality of their beliefs toward Theism. Most are well educated, and scientists, and have not reflected a hatred of Theists, In fact most reflect an indifference toward Theists, They do the consider that there is no objective verifiable evidence for God,and there is not reason to believe, yes, The also believe that theism is grounded in ancient mythology and superstition, likely yes, but none of this represents a hatred of Theists,

To most atheists it is like hating math, which likewise is not something to be bothered with.

 

[shawn001]

How could you suggest they are all equal? On what grounds?

Genuinely curious as to your meaning.

The statement was

"Despite that it seems a lot of atheists unfairly act as if all religions are equal."

"When it boils down to it, how are they not equal? I am not talking about what they have done in history, but the basic premise of them all?"

There is an afterlife, at least as far as I know, I don't know of any religions where there is not an afterlife.

Is there more proof from one religion than another that it's right? So in that sense, I believe they are all equal.

I personally don't believe in organized religion. I believe religion evolved on the planet because we could not say "we don't know" because humans don't like that answer with the "biggest question" of life, what happens when you die?

 

[Desert Snake]

Atheists attack religion because they have been left out. God only calls certain people to Himself and atheists are the rejects.

Disagree. And that is disturbing. Atheism is their choice.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Some do . . . ? does not justify the proposal of this thread.

I think we're reading the OP differently, to be honest.
Whilst I'd agree that the title is clickbait, I didn't see any premise in the OP that was problematic. I'd just go with 'some' rather than 'many', but otherwise...

*Shrugs*

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The statement was

"Despite that it seems a lot of atheists unfairly act as if all religions are equal."

"When it boils down to it, how are they not equal? I am not talking about what they have done in history, but the basic premise of them all?"

There is an afterlife, at least as far as I know, I don't know of any religions where there is not an afterlife.

Is there more proof from one religion than another that it's right? So in that sense, I believe they are all equal.

I personally don't believe in organized religion. I believe religion evolved on the planet because we could not say "we don't know" because humans don't like that answer with the "biggest question" of life, what happens when you die?

Yeah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.
In very simplistic terms, I wouldn't just look at whether they all have 'incorrect' aspects from my viewpoint.
I'd also look at the philosophy if the religion and what actions it encourages.

Much like I would with other philosophies.

I get that you were meaning equal in a different sense though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Disagree. And that is disturbing. Atheism is their choice.

Dude!!!! We found common ground!!!!!!!!!
*Hugs*

Atheism is my choice, or belief. I'm a firm believer in taking responsibility for my choices.

 

[PureX]

I agree that atheists attack religion because they are ignorant. If it were otherwise, they would be attacking certain aspects of certain religions that deserve our contempt, and not theism or religion in general. The fact that they don't bother to differentiate between these very different intellectual entities even when the difference have been pointed out to them many times, only exemplifies that willful ignorance.

I am not a religious theist, and I will be the first to condemn some religious dogmas and practices, but I also am capable of understanding and happily admitting that religions serve a great many people in ways that are positive, necessary, and that no other social institutions do.

"Real" atheists don't attack religion. They attack the toxic ideologies that sometimes infect religion. Because they understand the value differences between toxic and life-affirming ideologies.

 

[shawn001]

Here is one example of someone who is both.

Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist

 

[siti]

"Real" atheists don't attack religion. They attack the toxic ideologies that sometimes infect religion. Because they understand the value differences between toxic and life-affirming ideologies.

But religion often does not - much to the chagrin of evangelical atheists whose mission is to free the masses from institutionalized wilful ignorance (of science, of evolving humanitarian principles as opposed to bronze age 'cast in stone' moral codes, of history, etc.) that religions often prescribe and that billions willingly or wantonly subscribe to. I have no such mission, but it certainly ticks me off when supposedly educated people who should know better prompt others to eschew scientific knowledge on the grounds that it contradicts some probably mistranslated passage of some ancient text that was probably never intended to be taken literally in the first place. I have no atheistic fundamentalist or messianic tendencies, but I don't see why atheists should apologize for calling a spade a spade and blind-faith religion (which is honestly the kind that most religious people seem to have) is a toxic ideology - whatever shade it comes in - in my not terribly humble opinion.

 

[Kapalika]

The statement was

"Despite that it seems a lot of atheists unfairly act as if all religions are equal."

"When it boils down to it, how are they not equal? I am not talking about what they have done in history, but the basic premise of them all?"

There is an afterlife, at least as far as I know, I don't know of any religions where there is not an afterlife.

Is there more proof from one religion than another that it's right? So in that sense, I believe they are all equal.

I personally don't believe in organized religion. I believe religion evolved on the planet because we could not say "we don't know" because humans don't like that answer with the "biggest question" of life, what happens when you die?

From what I understand lots of forms of Judaism just have the grave, no afterlife. In the OT Heaven just referred to where Yahweh lived and righteous men were rewarded with lots of land and children. And there was no hell.

And I know that many sects of Buddhism and Hinduism don't have an afterlife (and no reincarnation isn't an afterlife, it's a here-life but again). There is Moksha/Nirvana but it's not really an afterlife, it's not a place, it's more of a state of mind/being. Some argue you have to be dead to attain it but others say you can attain it in this life. I'm not sure what I think but I also know I can't know so I don't bother myself with such questions. If it happens it happens.

There are also many contemporary religions within the occult and neo-paganism that don't have afterlifes either.

Many religions don't have the same basic premise. Those who do normally share some kind of history or lineage, which many religions don't. And even when they do their premise can differ, as with say Judaism is much different than Islam or Christianity. Or that the ancient indigenous Indian religions way before the Vedic era were in many ways radically different than current day Hinduism.

 

[shawn001]

From what I understand lots of forms of Judaism just have the grave, no afterlife. In the OT Heaven just referred to where Yahweh lived and righteous men were rewarded with lots of land and children. And there was no hell.

And I know that many sects of Buddhism and Hinduism don't have an afterlife (and no reincarnation isn't an afterlife, it's a here-life but again). There is Moksha/Nirvana but it's not really an afterlife, it's not a place, it's more of a state of mind/being. Some argue you have to be dead to attain it but others say you can attain it in this life. I'm not sure what I think but I also know I can't know so I don't bother myself with such questions. If it happens it happens.

There are also many contemporary religions within the occult and neo-paganism that don't have afterlifes either.

Many religions don't have the same basic premise. Those who do normally share some kind of history or lineage, which many religions don't. And even when they do their premise can differ, as with say Judaism is much different than Islam or Christianity. Or that the ancient indigenous Indian religions way before the Vedic era were in many ways radically different than current day Hinduism.

Thanks, Mandi, I will come back to this and learned a few things.

Although I do want to add immortal and I have to say reincarnation is on the immortal side and a kind of afterlife that is just changing. But understand what you're saying here.

I did find this which goes into afterlives.

"
The Big Religion Chart
This "Big Religion Chart" is our attempt to summarize the major religions and belief systems of the world - Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and dozens more - into a quick-reference comparison chart. Oversimplification is unavoidable in charts like these, and it is not intended to be a substitute for advanced religious study and exploration, but simply a fast overview. It is our hope that this chart becomes a useful tool for you to compare basic religious beliefs and practices of the world's religions and belief systems. Over 40 religions and belief systems are currently listed. If a group does not appear, it doesn't mean it's not a religion or doesn't matter; the chart is not comprehensive and will continue to grow. See also our list of religions and definitions of religion. Links within the chart will take you to more detailed information on ReligionFacts on that religion or topic.

The Big Religion Chart

 

[Kapalika]

Thanks, Mandi, I will come back to this and learned a few things.

Although I do want to add immortal and I have to say reincarnation is on the immortal side and a kind of afterlife that is just changing. But understand what you're saying here.

I did find this which goes into afterlives.

"
The Big Religion Chart
This "Big Religion Chart" is our attempt to summarize the major religions and belief systems of the world - Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and dozens more - into a quick-reference comparison chart. Oversimplification is unavoidable in charts like these, and it is not intended to be a substitute for advanced religious study and exploration, but simply a fast overview. It is our hope that this chart becomes a useful tool for you to compare basic religious beliefs and practices of the world's religions and belief systems. Over 40 religions and belief systems are currently listed. If a group does not appear, it doesn't mean it's not a religion or doesn't matter; the chart is not comprehensive and will continue to grow. See also our list of religions and definitions of religion. Links within the chart will take you to more detailed information on ReligionFacts on that religion or topic.

The Big Religion Chart

That chart seems a step above most, but something that peeves me with these kinds of things is how it treats Hinduism as one religion but gives some room for much smaller and less significant religions (Scientology ect) with only a few tens or hundreds of thousands of adherents. Also kinda weird in that it differentiated Hare Krishna from Hinduism but not any of the major Hindu religions or orthodox schools... It's description though is accurate enough as a generalization and some parts mentioned are almost universal. I guess I just don't like how it's treated as one religion, when it's really many. Kind of. It doesn't easily fit into the typical way others not living there think of religion and sects.