Damn atheists! They just can't keep their ideas to themselves

[Sunstone]

All I'm saying is that I see it from both sides.

Perhaps you would like to begin a thread where discussing the other side of the issue would not be off topic? I think that would be an interesting thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

From this side of the pond many of us are alarmed by the extreme religious right in America who seem pretty rabid, like that awful creature Sarah Palin. If the atheists are making and impact to even up the balance that can only be good for the rest of the world.

Don't worry too much about the rabid religious right....I don't. They help keep the rabid religious & non-religious left from wrecking things too.
All of us who play our roles are necessary for things to balance out. It's known as the "Three Stooges Syndrome", as explained below from a Wiki
article about Charles Montgomery Burns, the local nuclear power plant owner where Homer Simpson works.

"Burns has numerous physical ailments and health problems, or more accurately he has nearly 'every' physical ailment and health problem. He is often to the point where he seems to straddle the line between life and death. On prior occasions, Burns may have died. Presently, Burns has a condition known as "Three Stooges Syndrome" where a delicate state of homeostasis is created by the presence in his body of every disease known to man and other newly-discovered diseases unique to him, which, when all trying to invade his body simultaneously, cancel out each other. Mr. Burns took this as being invincible, although the doctor who told him this implied that the slightest breeze could kill him".

So you see, even though we heathens, lefties, cons, neo-cons, Dems, Repubs, Greens & fundies are all at each others' throats.....we all need each other
to survive. Could a Sara Palin even exist in the political arena without the bumbling of an Obama? One could say that we're not "victims of coicumstance",
but rather survivors. (I wouldn't mind if we Libertarians had a bigger piece of that pie though.)

 

[Nerthus]

Do you often find atheists knocking on people's doors asking to discuss the fact that God does not exist? When was the last time you passed by a street-corner atheist yelling at people passing by?

Over here, you only ever get JW knocking on doors, which luckily is a pretty small majority. But, I have actually seen a guy in London who does stand on a bust street corner and hand out Atheist leaflets! It was a very different sight...

Do atheists buy up entire radio stations and television networks to exhort people 24 hours a day about the lack of God?

This was debated on another forum I post on - and the main argument was 'do they need to?'. I don't know how it is in the US, but here TV for example, isn't religious at all - except one TV show on Sundays or 30 mins and then coverage on church services of important events. So the Christians argued that Atheists don't need to have TV shoes or radio programmes, because they already have more airtime, when you look at what is being shown, but they need to do have their own TV shows etc otherwise there wouldn't be anything.

It's an interesting view.

Do many atheists refuse to vote for someone because they believe in God?

In May when we had our election, atheists in the local paper did make a point about not voting for Christian leaders. But, this worked both ways - as many Christians argued about how we need to vote for the religious parties. Religion was a big issue in my area recently.

 

[Pegg]

Helloooo. Knock. Knock. The thread is about the exact opposite. A theist newspaper, ironically, from a sect that spends a lot of time proselytizing strangers, is telling atheists to keep it to themselves. The precise opposite of your post. And we, the atheists, are complaining about the hypocrisy.

actually the article does not say anything about atheists keeping their ideas to themselves. In fact the article highlights the athiests complaints about religion and the reasons for why they are raising their voice.

The point of the article is to highlight that Athiesm is becoming an 'active opponent' to faith based belief, its not condemning their protest or their right to speak freely about their dislike for religion by any means. We understand why people dont like religion and we arn't afraid to say it.

(There is also a interview with Professor Frantisek Vyskocil of charles University Prague. Like Flew, he was also athiest who is now a believer in a creator.)

 

[waitasec]

OK, I've been biting my tongue, and I'm sick of it.

I do find it deeply ironic that the same atheists who feel the need to shout their lack of faith from the rooftops say that religious folks should "keep it to themselves."

Which is not to say that the atheists in question should sit down and shut up, either. But the hypocrisy should be noted.

my problem is religious folks believe their faith trumps peoples inalienable rights.
the fact that same sex marriage is on the ballot in the 1st place, or homosexuals can't serve in the armed forces openly, is an indication their beliefs trump others rights.

the fact that these religious people step in and try to take control is an indication of their lack of faith which is ironic to me...

 

[King Salmon]

or homosexuals can't serve in the armed forces openly, is an indication their beliefs trump others rights.

Minor critique, but people have also posited that the army should be able to determine its own policy in who they let in, how they organize troops, etc. I'm not a military guy so I don't know how much a danger husbands fighting with wives or gay lovers fighting together are, but for this particular issue, it's not always a case of religion. Though I suppose that's neither here nor there for the topic...

 

[waitasec]

Minor critique, but people have also posited that the army should be able to determine its own policy in who they let in, how they organize troops, etc.

well it's up to congress to decide and who are their constituents?

I'm not a military guy so I don't know how much a danger husbands fighting with wives or gay lovers fighting together are, but for this particular issue, it's not always a case of religion. Though I suppose that's neither here nor there for the topic...

other countries don't seem to have a problem with it

Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (Britain, France, and Russia) permit gay people to serve openly and two (China and the United States) do not.

Sexual orientation and military service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[King Salmon]

other countries don't seem to have a problem with it

Sure, I don't have a problem with it either, but I am saying that objections aren't always religiously motivated.

 

[waitasec]

Sure, I don't have a problem with it either, but I am saying that objections aren't always religiously motivated.

in this country i would cordially disagree because of how many consider themselves to be followers of the christian faith...

this country is identified with 3rd world standards as far as some human rights issues are concerned...and imho, it's because of the religious right

 

[HonestJoe]

So the Christians argued that Atheists don't need to have TV shoes or radio programmes, because they already have more airtime, when you look at what is being shown, but they need to do have their own TV shows etc otherwise there wouldn't be anything.

That is just complete rubbish. Just because a programme isn't specifically religious doesn't make it atheist. There are a tiny number of actually atheist programmes (not that I feel there needs to be any).

In May when we had our election, atheists in the local paper did make a point about not voting for Christian leaders. But, this worked both ways - as many Christians argued about how we need to vote for the religious parties. Religion was a big issue in my area recently.

Was this atheists talking about not voting for anyone who is Christian or not voting for specifically Christian political parties. The former is practically impossible and I doubt few people would propose it but the latter is perfectly reasonable and not simply about whether a candidate believes in god or not.

 

[Man of Faith]

I guess proselytizing and evangelizing is okay now?

 

[Magic Man]

OK, I've been biting my tongue, and I'm sick of it.

I do find it deeply ironic that the same atheists who feel the need to shout their lack of faith from the rooftops say that religious folks should "keep it to themselves."

Which is not to say that the atheists in question should sit down and shut up, either. But the hypocrisy should be noted.

I haven't read the whole thread, so I may have missed something, but:

I think the problem in the OP is that it seems the authors of what is printed there feel atheists are trying to impose their beliefs on others and being rabid about it, and they ignore the fact that, while there may be some atheists like that, religious people like themselves are historically much more guilty of it than anyone else.

In fact, I thought the idea of the thread was to note the hypocrisy in the piece in teh OP.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't remember ever seeing an atheist tv show in the u.s.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't remember ever seeing an atheist tv show in the u.s.

Didn't the comedian Kathryn Kuhlman have a show satirizing televangelists?

 

[Autodidact]

Didn't the comedian Kathryn Kuhlman have a show satirizing televangelists?

Ha ha, had to Google her. That was a good one, Revolting.

 

[CircularLogic]

Religious freedom is important. The means by which you allow others to explore your religion makes all the difference in the world. Atheists? Christian? Muslim? Fine just don't try to convince me your right, let me look at it myself.

Those door to door atheists...always trying to tell me I'm not going to hell, and passing out scientifically proven facts...damn them.

I am pretty sure this article was written for satirical purpose.