Atheists: why the Christians?

[otokage007]

I think that is simple to understand. Christianity is the most famous and supported religion in the world so it is like "the standard" when you speak about religion. Also, atheist and the scientific researth against religion is much more strong in the developed world, which is made in the 90% of countries with christianity in his culture.

Probably you will se few arabians who try to stand against religion because they would be in trouble if the did, but in the case they did it, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't go against christians but agaisnt muslims.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

I'm of the opinion that many atheists generally don't attack religions outside of Christianity because it isn't politically correct to nay say Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. That probably does have a lot to do with Christianity being the predominant religion in the Western world. But if someone called Hinduism ridiculous, impossible, etc. and its followers blind, ignorant, uninformed, etc. they would seem like, at the very least, they were being disrespectful of that religion's predominant country and culture. Others would call them out for acting offensively and inappropriately.

 

[Tristesse]

I'm of the opinion that many atheists generally don't attack religions outside of Christianity because it isn't politically correct to nay say Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. That probably does have a lot to do with Christianity being the predominant religion in the Western world. But if someone called Hinduism ridiculous, impossible, etc. and its followers blind, ignorant, uninformed, etc. they would seem like, at the very least, they were being disrespectful of that religion's predominant country and culture. Others would call them out for acting offensively and inappropriately.

I'm perfectly happy calling out rediculous beliefs, including Hinduism, islam or (insert religion), But last time I checked it wasn't Hindus imposing their beliefs and lobbying to take away the rights of others. That award is taken primarily by the christians, in the US.

If it's "inappropriate" to stand up and call out rediculous beliefs, especially when it could be damaging to a society, then I'm guilty.

 

[waitasec]

I'm of the opinion that many atheists generally don't attack religions outside of Christianity because it isn't politically correct to nay say Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam.

ahh not at all...
if you haven't noticed 70% of this country is made up of christians...
another thing you over looked was that hinduism and buddhism do not infringe on the rights of others...
and we have about a .06% of muslims that live in this country

 

[Snailcall]

Holy crap people have still been posting on this how does that work omg
But I don't think there are stupid religions, only stupid PEOPLE who might choose to follow them. Protesting gay marriage or pushing creationism isn't Christianity's fault, it's instead the fault of middle-aged Republican harpies who have never had an original thought in their heads (pshhhhhh, trying not to offend people is boring). Yes.

edit: Also, it's pretty depressing that I have more posts on a forum where I made an account and forgot about it two weeks later than the MS Paint Adventures forum, in which I lurk quite regularly. ;___;

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm perfectly happy calling out rediculous beliefs, including Hinduism, islam or (insert religion), But last time I checked it wasn't Hindus imposing their beliefs and lobbying to take away the rights of others. That award is taken primarily by the christians, in the US.

If it's "inappropriate" to stand up and call out rediculous beliefs, especially when it could be damaging to a society, then I'm guilty.

Agreed..:yes:

 

[Humphrey Osmond]

You generally won't hear much argument against Buddhism or Hinduism because they lack the proselytizing aspect, and so they're not as in-your-face.

Well, one thing avoided in this thread thus far concerning Buddhism; it is an atheist religion that has no belief in a supernatural creator deity/moral agent as its bases or doctrines.

Many Hindu sects also fall into this category as their idea of god(s) is wholly symbolic. Objections can be made from a secular POV but "atheism" is really only one point of data on a dihcotomic question, …that Buddhism (and some Hindu sects) are on side with.

I'll agree though that the issue of religious intolerance via a fundamentalist theocratic creep into what is held to be purely secular domains ...for those of us in N. America; is pretty much a problem of Christian theocratic ochlocracy.

 

[Me Myself]

A minor point....Buddhism is singularly compatible with atheism, since it doesn't require a deity.

nor blind faith.

Actually, it tends to speak AGAINST blind faith. (for the practitioner itself, It doesn´t even bother other people telling them that they shouldn´t beleive what they can´t prove. They just search for inner peace ^_^ )

 

[Me Myself]

I'm of the opinion that many atheists generally don't attack religions outside of Christianity because it isn't politically correct to nay say Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. That probably does have a lot to do with Christianity being the predominant religion in the Western world. But if someone called Hinduism ridiculous, impossible, etc. and its followers blind, ignorant, uninformed, etc. they would seem like, at the very least, they were being disrespectful of that religion's predominant country and culture. Others would call them out for acting offensively and inappropriately.

To be fair, christianity says atheists are going to hell all the time, so it is not inapropiate to say that is ridiculous, it´s practically a defense. Hinduism and Buddhism (while beleived to be supersticious nonsense depending of the school) at least don´t tend to attack other people.

In other words, it is offensive to attack first, the ones who are really being tolerated there as agressors are christians, because they prefer to be "right" that to actualy live with the love that they are supposed to.

 

[jstan]

Holy crap people have still been posting on this how does that work omg
But I don't think there are stupid religions, only stupid PEOPLE who might choose to follow them. Protesting gay marriage or pushing creationism isn't Christianity's fault, it's instead the fault of middle-aged Republican harpies who have never had an original thought in their heads (pshhhhhh, trying not to offend people is boring). Yes.
;___;

But where do you think these ideas come from? These middle-aged Republican harpies were taught to hate homosexuals and new earth creationism by Christian clergy. And there are religions that promote stupid belief systems and promote stupidity itself. Christianity gets the most attention because, in the west, it's the religion that we have the most contact with, it's the religion trying to undermine our society and government, and because so many of its core principals are so obviously and profoundly absurd that we just can't resist the urge to ridicule.

 

[religion99]

I believe both Atheism and Christianity have issues and can't stand against the evidences. Atheism cannot explain anecdotal evidences of Reincarnations and Christianity cannot explain the "Problem of Evil". A logical explanation, I think , is existence of one or more indifferent Gods with Omniscience and a permanent Soul.

 

[Meow Mix]

I believe both Atheism and Christianity have issues and can't stand against the evidences. Atheism cannot explain anecdotal evidences of Reincarnations and Christianity cannot explain the "Problem of Evil". A logical explanation, I think , is existence of one or more indifferent Gods with Omniscience and a permanent Soul.

There is no Problem of Evil with atheism since there is no contradiction with the existence of evil in the absence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator being.

Anecdotal evidence isn't a threat whatsoever because in all cases anecdotal evidence is secondary, even tertiary, rather than primary: it's never sufficient to justify propositions without some other, stronger, more primary form of justification.

 

[religion99]

There is no Problem of Evil with atheism since there is no contradiction with the existence of evil in the absence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator being.

Anecdotal evidence isn't a threat whatsoever because in all cases anecdotal evidence is secondary, even tertiary, rather than primary: it's never sufficient to justify propositions without some other, stronger, more primary form of justification.

Hi Meow Mix,

Please provide definition and examples of "primary evidence" , "secondary evidence" and "primary form of justification".

 

[Meow Mix]

Hi Meow Mix,

Please provide definition and examples of "primary evidence" , "secondary evidence" and "primary form of justification".

Justification comes from five known sources:

1) Perception
2) Memory
3) Anecdote/testimony
4) Introspection
5) Reason

Of these, anecdote is the weakest. Propositions shouldn't generally be believed on anecdote alone without other forms of justification. That's not to say that you should distrust a friend when they tell you something -- but that's because you have other forms of justification for believing them, such as the inductive evidence of your reason to trust them at all in the first place from your experience with them.

Suppose that someone tells you that they have an invisible dragon in their garage. Their testimony alone doesn't justify a belief in you that there is in fact an invisible dragon in their garage since there's no precedent for such a notion.

Now suppose that the same person instead tells you that they bought some new shoes over the weekend. That's a fairly justifiable belief for you to accept: shoes are readily available for them to purchase, which you know through memory and perception; and which you can string together the possibility of their shoe-buying with reason. It's not the testimony alone that justifies the belief, in other words -- testimony is always secondary to the more primary forms of justification.

There are no instances in which anecdote alone justifies a belief. It must be piggiebacked on a stronger form of justification to contribute to epistemic justifying at all.

 

[PolyHedral]

Suppose that someone tells you that they have an invisible dragon in their garage.

(MaySaganrestinpeace. :liturgy

Oh, sorry, I need to make an on-topic comment, don't I? What Meow said.

 

[religion99]

There is no Problem of Evil with atheism since there is no contradiction with the existence of evil in the absence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator being.

Anecdotal evidence isn't a threat whatsoever because in all cases anecdotal evidence is secondary, even tertiary, rather than primary: it's never sufficient to justify propositions without some other, stronger, more primary form of justification.

If somebody ignores an evidence , even if anecdotal , that doesn't match his belief so as to keep the belief intact , makes him intellectually dishonest. A logical and an intellectually honest response should be to change the belief to confirm to the evidence. Actually , rather than ignoring , an intellectually inquisitive person will vigorously pursue any evidence which is against his belief.

 

[religion99]

Perception and memory should not be given an much importance as Atheists claim they should be , because there is evidence that they are imperfect , limited and prone to distortion. They , along with reason and introspection should be used to verify axioms of all-perfect and all-knowing being. Since we don't have complete knowledge , we start with the words of the person who has complete knowledge and use the limited tools of perception , memory , reason and testimonies we have to verify those axioms.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Alright, I'll play.

My anecdotal evidence: I tell you that I have an invisible goblin living under my kitchen sink and this goblin is the ruler of the universe. I know because, as I tell you, I have seen him perform miracles that no mere mortal could do.

If somebody ignores an evidence , even if anecdotal , that doesn't match his belief so as to keep the belief intact , makes him intellectually dishonest.

So, according to you, will you then be intellectually dishonest if you ignore my anecdotal evidence?

A logical and an intellectually honest response should be to change the belief to confirm to the evidence.

So according to you, will you now change your beliefs and start believing in my invisible goblin?

Actually , rather than ignoring , an intellectually inquisitive person will vigorously pursue any evidence which is against his belief.

The only evidence you have to pursue is the anecdotal one, i.e. I told you it was so. That's were it begins and where it ends.

So, do you still think anecdotal evidence is sufficient?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Perception and memory should not be given an much importance as Atheists claim they should be , because there is evidence that they are imperfect , limited and prone to distortion.

We are well aware of our perceptional shortcomings, which is why we compensate for them in different ways.
We know that our memories are faulty as well, so we record both evidence and methods.

They , along with reason and introspection should be used to verify axioms of all-perfect and all-knowing being.

Our reason and introspection is based on the same flawed infrastructure that you just said shouldn't be given much importance.
Which is why we compensate, for instance with OBJECTIVE evidence instead of SUBJECTIVE experience.

Since we don't have complete knowledge , we start with the words of the person who has complete knowledge and use the limited tools of perception , memory , reason and testimonies we have to verify those axioms.

And who might this person be?
Do tell!
Because I sure as hell have never met anyone with complete knowledge about anything.

 

[Tristesse]

Perception and memory should not be given an much importance as Atheists claim they should be , because there is evidence that they are imperfect , limited and prone to distortion. They , along with reason and introspection should be used to verify axioms of all-perfect and all-knowing being. Since we don't have complete knowledge , we start with the words of the person who has complete knowledge and use the limited tools of perception , memory , reason and testimonies we have to verify those axioms.

Who said that memory and perception are supposed to be perfect to have an understanding of the world around us?