Why do Atheists Debate Religion?

[LuisDantas]

Jesus had blonde hair, just so you know.

Well, that changes everything.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why do Atheists debate religion?

I'm not going to take part in this debate, except to ask questions and dig further into ideas and thoughts.

Side Note: I grew up in a rather Christian community, and do not know many atheists. I expect that I could learn a lot about atheism from this discussion.

Because we're good at it. Many Atheist come from families that were/are religious. Some Atheist at one point or another time in their lives were religious. Not me. I grew up in a religious family but was a non-believer for as long as I can remember. Many know various scripture, history and religious practices....sometime better than the devout follower. Many of us just like to debate and learn from others.....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thanks for asking.

Atheism is inherently pretty much unrelated to religion. Atheism is disbelief in deities, religion is the discipline of dealing with that which is sacred.

Despite popular yet very misguided misconceptions, there is really not much of an affinity, nor of an opposition, between them. Deities are often mistaken for the source or origin of the sacred, but they are instead a tool for representing - and quite often, misrepresenting - it.

Atheism is however related to theism, in that it denies and potentially heals it and its excesses, which have become perhaps the single most noteworthy danger of religion to itself and to external entities.

So there is indeed a meaningful yet circunstancial relationship between atheism and religion, but only because theism bridges them. Atheism is a helpful potential cure for the excesses of theism, and for that reason became a valued if often unwanted asset to religion.

In and of itself, though, atheism is as irrelevant to religion as, say, hair color. It is impossible to have a "religion of atheism", because atheism simply lacks enough purpose to even begin to become a religion. Atheistic religions are however very workable, even spontaneous, and highly desirable.

Thank you....I have a different take but to each their own. Fwiw, I understand the term 'religion' to mean reunite...from the Latin root 'ligio' meaning to tie or connect, and prefix 're' meaning 'again'. I understand that 'THAT' with which one is meant to unite with, has, depending on the particular religion, different names, but for me it is the Universal Omnipresent Oneness (forgive the tautology)...call it God, Nirvana, Tao, etc..

I see the Atheism and Theism as just another one of the infinite dualistically perceived complementary opposite concepts to describe THAT which is whole and undivided. Religion to me is the transcendent union underlying the apparent separateness of the two concepts.

 

[steeltoes]

True atheists do not capitalize "atheist", those that do are imposters.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank you....I have a different take but to each their own. Fwiw, I understand the term 'religion' to mean reunite...from the Latin root 'ligio' meaning to tie or connect, and prefix 're' meaning 'again'. I understand that 'THAT' with which one is meant to unite with, has, depending on the particular religion, different names, but for me it is the Universal Omnipresent Oneness (forgive the tautology)...call it God, Nirvana, Tao, etc..

I see the Atheism and Theism as just another one of the infinite dualistically perceived complementary opposite concepts to describe THAT which is whole and undivided. Religion to me is the transcendent union underlying the apparent separateness of the two concepts.

Oddly enough, I can't find anything in there to actually disagre with, much as I expected to.

Although I do still believe you are giving the elements of your statements very different weights (and perhaps meanings) than I do.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

True atheists do not capitalize "atheist", those that do are imposters.

What's a "true atheist"....

I've been an Atheist all my life. So I fail to see how I could be an "imposter"....

 

[outhouse]

Because we're good at it......

Straight up.

I think it has to do with an unbiased view of the material being studied.


I seem to have a passion most theist don't come close to.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Straight up.

I think it has to do with an unbiased view of the material being studied.


I seem to have a passion most theist don't come close to.

I've noticed that about you and a few others when discussing the Greek language, the historicity of Yeshua and other subjects.

You know....if we're having a debate about "God" and if he exist I fully expect some atheist (lowercase "a" for the phonics police) to have a different debate style than if the subject dealt with historical content (i.e. the flood or Adam and Eve).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oddly enough, I can't find anything in there to actually disagre with, much as I expected to.

Although I do still believe you are giving the elements of your statements very different weights (and perhaps meanings) than I do.

It's mutual.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

..

Uh... lol he's comparing theism to slavery?

No, I'm not.

I'm pointing out an example of where a reponse to an idea would not be considered "parasitic" and would be considered to be a positive thing in order to point out that responding to an idea isn't necessarily "parasitic" or negative.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I'm not.

I'm pointing out an example of where a reponse to an idea would not be considered "parasitic" and would be considered to be a positive thing in order to point out that responding to an idea isn't necessarily "parasitic" or negative.

Of course, the word "parasitic" doesn't even apply in the first place.
(They didn't notice that we were mocking their use of the word.)
Many concepts exist because of opposition to related ones, so this
is no shortcoming.

 

[MD]

There are two kinds of western atheists that I've come across, those who are atheist and live their lives disagreeing with theism but not really making a big deal out of it. The second type go out and try to pick an argument with theists, mostly Christians.

Most of the atheists out there who fall into the first category just live their lives quietly disagreeing with religion in general. The second category atheists really get on my nerves because they don't have the guts to tackle the real religious nuts in the world, Salafists and wahabbists or other super fundamentalist nutjobs. Some liberal atheists even support them, referencing some vague geopolitical and socioeconomic theories to support their ridiculous arguments.

I think atheists fear them, which is why they go after Christians or others who are generally much more docile. Maybe Dawkins should have spent less time arguing against Deepak Chopra and more time trying to combat the fundamentalism in his own country, the very fundamentalism which led to thousands of British youth joining ISIS.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Why do Atheists debate religion?

To offer much needed criticism and to keep zealots from being too excessive. I think they offer theists a valuable service.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Dawkins is a really bad example. Dawkins was from Kenya; not Great Britain. Dawkins despises all religion and treats them all equally. He has spoken out against Christianity, Islam, Superstitions (such as Wicca, Drudism), and a myriad of others. But if you consider his "home country" England, he's been there and confronted parochial schools for the indoctrination of youth.

In fact, he put himself at substantial risk to confront Islam extremists in Jerusalem.

There are more outspoken atheists in the United States; and the predominate religion in the United States is Christianity. They have a stranglehold on politics, government, finance and have their fingers in everything else, from Entertainment to Education. Many atheists are tired of these strangleholds, so we are speaking out to try to make changes. In Europe, the Christian doctrines do not have the influence that the doctrines have here. That's why you hear so much debate from Atheists centered around Christians: They are the majority and they hold the most amount of power in the same nation where the Atheists are most vocal.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

To a point, I agree with you. To a point, I do not.

 

[s2a]

To a point, I agree with you. To a point, I do not.

Sooo...

...is Vanilla the best flavor of ice cream...or not?

*yawn*

Anything else to reveal?

*yawn*

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Sooo...

...is Vanilla the best flavor of ice cream...or not?

*yawn*

Anything else to reveal?

*yawn*

:danana:


Firstly, I will say that as an atheist, I am working at choosing my battles more precisely, if that makes any sense, and Disciple did not experience that from me, so I was being cautious.

The points where I agree, explicitly stated or inferred:

• Atheists sometimes point out and argue things that are absolutely pointless. The last time I checked, Christians aren't stoning gays to death anymore. (At least not where I'm from).
• Atheists, especially that "angry" atheists (which I am striving to move away from and in spite of a few missteps, making progress) need to be more tolerant of beliefs, even if we find them irrational, provided they are not dangerous or potentially dangerous.
• Matters of civil rights and "separation of church and state" can't be fought and won on Internet forums. Therefore, it's pointless.

The point where I disagree is this: The voters who are putting people into office that are advocating policies, principles and laws with which we disagree are found on the streets, sidewalks and in Internet forums. So, the debate is also here. Also, as we are less than 10% of the population with practically every single lawmaker, judge, executive (in the United States) claiming religion, usually Christianity, we can't sit quietly by and let our nation become a theocracy.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It can work to a disadvantage, you know. I disagree with various Scripture interpretations made by many Christians, but there's so much noise any real debate gets lost in the confusion of logic mixed with baseless attack on ideology.

My association with you is helping me break the habit of basal assumptions and start asking questions.

 

[s2a]

:danana:


Firstly, I will say that as an atheist, I am working at choosing my battles more precisely, if that makes any sense, and Disciple did not experience that from me, so I was being cautious.

The points where I agree, explicitly stated or inferred:

• Atheists sometimes point out and argue things that are absolutely pointless. The last time I checked, Christians aren't stoning gays to death anymore. (At least not where I'm from).
• Atheists, especially that "angry" atheists (which I am striving to move away from and in spite of a few missteps, making progress) need to be more tolerant of beliefs, even if we find them irrational, provided they are not dangerous or potentially dangerous.
• Matters of civil rights and "separation of church and state" can't be fought and won on Internet forums. Therefore, it's pointless.

I acknowledge you final stated beliefs.


Good bye. You are unlikely to persuade anyone to sway minds. Why bother? Ahain, thank you for you efforts tho...

The point where I disagree is this: The voters who are putting people into office that are advocating policies, principles and laws with which we disagree are found on the streets, sidewalks and in Internet forums. So, the debate is also here. Also, as we are less than 10% of the population with practically every single lawmaker, judge, executive (in the United States) claiming religion, usually Christianity, we can't sit quietly by and let our nation become a theocracy.

I hear you. Time to quit.

Theocrats rule!

Autocrats...rule!

Or..get off yer ***...and act...

Whiners are never heard...but thank you for voicing your sincere concerns

 

[LuisDantas]

There are two kinds of western atheists that I've come across, those who are atheist and live their lives disagreeing with theism but not really making a big deal out of it. The second type go out and try to pick an argument with theists, mostly Christians.

Most of the atheists out there who fall into the first category just live their lives quietly disagreeing with religion in general. The second category atheists really get on my nerves because they don't have the guts to tackle the real religious nuts in the world, Salafists and wahabbists or other super fundamentalist nutjobs. Some liberal atheists even support them, referencing some vague geopolitical and socioeconomic theories to support their ridiculous arguments.

I think atheists fear them, which is why they go after Christians or others who are generally much more docile. Maybe Dawkins should have spent less time arguing against Deepak Chopra and more time trying to combat the fundamentalism in his own country, the very fundamentalism which led to thousands of British youth joining ISIS.

That is a bit of a weird expectation, I think. Instead of expecting atheists to become some sort of ideological SWAT who "taclke the real religious nuts", we all - theists more than atheists, even - should take the responsibility to care for the basic health of religious ideas. Tacking the more extreme and disruptive manifestations of religious unhealth, important as it is, is in many significant ways too little, too late.

If the basic respectability and relevance of religion is to be cared for, it will not be because atheists have shamed them into sobriety. Human psychology does not work that way. Theists will all too often (and in my opinion quite weirdly) simply disregard us atheists as being "outsiders", as if that legitimized their beliefs and behavior somehow.

As for the distinction between extreme groups and the mainstream, it is far too often used to legitimize or at least obfuscate the illnesses of the mainstream by constrast. It is counterproductive to concentrate on them.