Does Anyone Actually hate Christians??

a reply to: grandmakdw

Eh? You are confused and you didn't answer the question.

Don't worry. We don't hate Christians. Will that satisfy you?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Sorry, but you missed the point. Your own analogies don't work either. Let's not get into the Obamacare angle - you said that no-one wanted it, but I disagree massively. It certainly seems to be increasingly popular, but as I said let's not go there. Same with climate change, even though I massively disagree with your use of the rather telling word 'worshippers'.

The health angle of food in schools however IS relevant. Do you really think that schools should serve food that contributes to obesity and diabetes? Why not give healthy options? Why not make people aware of the dangers of certain trans fats? The UK is facing a rise in childhood obesity as well. We are also seeing a push towards food information. It's called education. But there's a difference between educating people about healthy eating and throwing religious pamphlets at people, or trying to convert people to certain religions.

By the way, is it just me or do you seem to see everything in terms of worshipping? I'm confused as to your word usage.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: grandmakdw

Eh? You are confused and you didn't answer the question.

Don't worry. We don't hate Christians. Will that satisfy you?

Oh, can you be more rude?

It is sooooo politically incorrect to "hate" anyone and no one would admit to it.

I know EVERYONE said they don't hate Christians,
however,
many added a codicil
but Christians are ...... (name your evil, vile statement)
either before or after their protestation of non hate,
which negated it.

Like saying "I really don't hate black people ..... but.....well you know them...."
That sort of I don't hate, the codicil negates the "kind" intent.

So I am not blind to the codicil's and protestations followed by or preceded by
rude, vile, ugly, bigoted, prejudiced statements.

So I understand that everyone has taken the politically correct stance
that they don't "hate" anyone
because that is so passe.

Don't take me for a fool my dear.

To everyone,
I have a life to live outside of ATS,
got to run again,
life calls.

Making breakfast for the family.

So don't think you ran me off with your brilliance.
Just gotta go for now.

a reply to: grandmakdwthere is open hatred for muslims on this site, but I've never seen a thread complaining about it. It's just accepted as normal

a reply to: grandmakdw

So you're accusing everyone of being a hypocrite are you?

Let me restate my own case. I'm an atheist. I don't hate religious people. I just want to be left alone. I also want religious people to stop misrepresenting my position based on their own biases, such as by claiming that as an atheist I MUST hate Christians. I don't.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Oh, can you be more rude?

How am I being rude? You didn't answer the question.

Honestly we don't hate Christians. If you think we are lying then you are the one who are being rude.

Why did you have to bring up black people? I swear!!!! Some people bring that up in this thread.

Let me say this as slowly as possible:

We do not say like this "Well we don't hate Christians but...." YOU are the one that made the claim.

Some Christians are the ones who raised stink about non-Christians hating them! THAT'S THE POINT OF THE OP!!!! PAY ATTENTION!

So I understand that everyone has taken the politically correct stance that they don't "hate" anyone

No one hates Christians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am sure there are few people that do but that's rare. Why don't you focus on them?

a reply to: grandmakdw

I don't hate Christians, but I hate the religion and its beliefs. It's just that simple. That is why I constantly question Christian beliefs on these forums, but if you think that questioning someone's beliefs is code for hating them, then that is your problem. Not mine.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

I know EVERYONE said they don't hate Christians,
however,
many added a codicil
but Christians are ...... (name your evil, vile statement)
either before or after their protestation of non hate,
which negated it.

Except that no one said it like you are claiming. Everyone who said they don't hate Christians as a group, also said that they did not like it when people who claimed to be Christians used their religion to discriminate, or when they tried to get legislation passed to control others' personal lives (banning abortion or gay marriage), or when they were judgmental towards others who were considered "sinners", or when they tried to force others to believe as they do. When Christians DON'T do these things, no one has a problem with them. And that is what everyone was saying. Your first tactic was to try to prove that no one claiming to be Christian ever really does these things by asking everyone for specific, personal evidence. When lots of people started providing specific evidence, you dropped that tactic, then moved on to this totalitarian government conspiracy against Christians crap.

Wasting your breath guys .. youd be better off talking to a tree ...

originally posted by: grandmakdw
When people say stuff like Climate change deniers should all go to jail or be killed, like the Democratic leaders have said.

I wasn't aware that Democratic leaders have said that they think Climate Deniers should go to jail or be killed. But if you're right I'd agree that is messed up. Can you show me where they've said that???

Yeah, I hate it that the current administration has enlarged the NSA, and used the NSA to collect phone calls and emails of all americans to keep "in case they need it" later, for what? That is such fascism and they are really two faced .... embracing facist values knowingly and willingly while screaming about protecting freedom. What total BS liars they are.

Yeah, I'm not happy about that either. I'm not trying to say the GOP are the only ones doing bad stuff ya know. But just because one side is up to no good doesn't make it ok for the other side to do the same. Both Dems and Reps do plenty of things wrong that I disagree with actually.

originally posted by: mOjOm
I wasn't aware that Democratic leaders have said that they think Climate Deniers should go to jail or be killed. But if you're right I'd agree that is messed up. Can you show me where they've said that???

They didn't. She is creating a strawman out of a quote taken out of context that was said by Al Gore (an ex-politician).

a reply to: grandmakdw

It is clear that you will continue to judge all Christians by your standard and you are putting a lot of energy into telling everyone how terrible the Bible is and by extension how misguided you think Christians are.

Incorrect. The bible itself is the standard I am using. Yes, I do believe most Christians do not understand what they are agreeing to, and are complicit in when they become Christians. Few have read and understand the "fine print".

The only thing I ask of you is to stop generalizing by calling all Christians intolerant, judgmental, hateful of others, and condemning.

I don't. All of my family, and a few of my friends are Christian. What I do say is, if you are a Christian, you are in agreement with the bible, God, and Jesus, whether or not you realize what that really means. Glossing over the bad parts, and just picking out the the love and flowers is blinding oneself to the core message of what the bible really teaches.

Those are highly prejudicial and bigoted statements when you refer to Christians in general as these things.

Two things. My comments are toward the religion itself. Not aimed at individual Christians. My vernacular may not always come out right, but my intent is always the same. Hating on individual Christians is useless and futile.
Secondly, it is not those outside of the Abrahamic religions that claim the moral high ground, and then proceed to judge and condemn the world for doing the same things they do.

But I think you won't stop because you feel justified in condemning all Christians because of personal hurts you experienced in the past by a few.

Do you know how many times I've seen this card played when all else fails by Christians. Shame on you, Grandma.

Or because of how you interpret the New Testament. Which is the guiding force of Christianity and overrides the Old Testament where it is not following the #1 commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.

Read my last post. I specifically called out the new testament. I said nothing about the old.
No interpretation necessary.
Anyone with an average IQ can understand Mark 16:16, and the myriad of verses that eternally condemn anyone who refuses to be a Christian, and refuses to bow before the Christian God.
And if you are a Christian, you agree with God anyone who is not Christian should be eternally condemned.
Love your neighbor as yourself is a wolf in sheepskin, when taken in context with the plainly written judgement, condemnation, extreme prejudice, and bigotry of the new testament.

But since you don't see the command to love your neighbor as yourself as the "prime directive" for Christians you will never have the blinders of prejudice removed from your eyes.

By itself, it's an awesome saying. I wish more Christians, as well as heathens lived it. But it is not the "prime directive". Mark 16:15 is the "prime directive". AKA "The great commission".

15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

We are now at an official standoff. So, let's chill.

Indeed. Then lets get a few things straight between us. I despise Christianity. As said above, it is a wolf in sheepskin. ANYONE who actually reads what is written will quickly see what Christianity is, and what its mission is. I, like most Christians, spent almost 30 years of my life denying the core message of Christianity. I preached, taught, and witnessed all the good stuff, and conveniently left out the abominations to humanity.

But hating, or despising individual Christians is not part of my makeup. I just can't bring myself to loathe you, or any other Christian. There are too many good people who call themselves Christian, Muslim, Jew, and so on, right here on ATS. To hate those people because of their religious leaning is ignorance at its finest.

As I have said. My family is Christian. They know how I feel about Christianity. They also know I would do most anything for them, and have. As much as I care about them, and a few friends that have carried over from my days as Christian. They all know I will call them out on their condemnation and self righteous attitude toward those who aren't part of their clique. Especially when they start talking hellfire and brimstone. Lol.

It isn't about you, or any other Christian. It's about the religion itself.

hate takes too much energy with too little payout. i have an intense distaste for (among other things) any system that employs worship as a two-pronged self-deprecation and unconditional submission training program. take away our self-respect and give us a stockholm sucker to shut us up. finish it off with a nice dopamine cocktail cleverly hidden in a mass hypnosis ritual. one-two-three boom you are a slave. thanks so much pavlov.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well look at it like this. Christians still have access to many benefits and privileges in the states that other religions don't. Some are institutionalized, some are brought on just because the majority population is Christian. The way I see it, if the amount of benefits your group gets outweighs the persecution you receive, then you have no right to complain. This is why white people complaining about white persecution are laughed at. Sure it exists, but there isn't enough in this country for any large population of whites to TRULY sympathize with the white persecution outside of a persecution complex.

Interesting, and completely in line with expectations..

Though, I was hoping you would appreciate my desire for clarification objectively. It is actually a very pertinent point for today's climate.

So, the persecution exists, however not at a scale that is large enough, subjectively; therefore it is a complex rather than actual cases of persecution?

In my experience and studies, that is a time honored method of disenfranchisement and deconstruction of unwanted social groups. The determination of actual persecution is laid in the hands of those who would persecute a given social group.

So all that determines individual cases of persecution are then based on generalizations and subjectivity. A smart, smaller group could violently persecute another group but it would be considered a complex if it isn't happening to other groups elsewhere, on a large scale?

It seems to me to give all power in a society to those who disseminate current events. But, perhaps that part is another discussion.

I don't want to eradicate the problem. I just want equal representation of all faiths, but there is a problem with that wish. It is physically impossible to cater to every single faith on the planet.

Well, we all want to eradicate what we see as "problems." I'm guessing you meant representation, so I'll operate on that assumption.

While you state to have no desire to eradicate the problem or representation, that is exactly what your solution proposes.

Problems like PvsNP can actually come into play here, but most are reluctant (at best) to apply the scientific method and math to such problems.

I am stuck at the other end of the spectrum, I believe science and math can be directly applied and should be ASAP. The issue, nowadays, is most people's understanding of such things comes from Google, et al, rather than the process of personal discovery that it is all founded on.

A bit of a mini rant.. But since all of those sources are based on what is currently known, there is no inspiration or encouragement to do anything else but the same things that have been tried over and over again. Rather than making a new Road, we just make the ruts deeper on the one we are on.

I think the key will be new, innovative solutions based on science rather than giving up and taking the first solution that comes to mind! Because that type of idea tends to be bound firmly in the same social paradigm that created the problem in the first place.

As an unorthodox Christian (I'm a scientist, so.. there you go), I feel hatred from both sides of the spectrum (atheist and theist alike). Is it only "real" persecution and hate on the theist side, but not the atheist side? Keeping in mind, I am using those terms to describe a spectrum. As the person experiencing it, I can't honestly say there is anything different about the experience other than the words used.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
Interesting, and completely in line with expectations..

Though, I was hoping you would appreciate my desire for clarification objectively. It is actually a very pertinent point for today's climate.

So, the persecution exists, however not at a scale that is large enough, subjectively; therefore it is a complex rather than actual cases of persecution?

In my experience and studies, that is a time honored method of disenfranchisement and deconstruction of unwanted social groups. The determination of actual persecution is laid in the hands of those who would persecute a given social group.

I'm not trying to position an argument of disenfranchisement. Like I said, currently Christians receive MANY benefits from our government for being Christian. These benefits certainly outnumber any discrimination leveled against them. I certainly wouldn't condone any large scale discrimination against a group, even a majority group, but one needs to look at the total picture.

So all that determines individual cases of persecution are then based on generalizations and subjectivity. A smart, smaller group could violently persecute another group but it would be considered a complex if it isn't happening to other groups elsewhere, on a large scale?

The reason why I don't take discrimination against a majority group as seriously is because the majority group controls more power than any minority group. In the case of Christians they make up 70% of the country. If a group were to discriminate against Christians, it would cause a huge backlash against them (even more so because Christians look for persecution against them like a hobby). The minority group would quickly run out of resources trying to defend themselves from the legal backlash.

It seems to me to give all power in a society to those who disseminate current events. But, perhaps that part is another discussion.

Knowledge is power. So the gatekeepers of knowledge happen to have most of the power.

Well, we all want to eradicate what we see as "problems." I'm guessing you meant representation, so I'll operate on that assumption.

While you state to have no desire to eradicate the problem or representation, that is exactly what your solution proposes.

It's just a discussion of equality for the most groups. In this case, the only way to achieve equality is through separation of church and state. No special catering to any one religion.

As an unorthodox Christian (I'm a scientist, so.. there you go), I feel hatred from both sides of the spectrum (atheist and theist alike). Is it only "real" persecution and hate on the theist side, but not the atheist side? Keeping in mind, I am using those terms to describe a spectrum. As the person experiencing it, I can't honestly say there is anything different about the experience other than the words used.

If you look hard enough you will find hatred from all walks of life directed against you for whatever reason. You can't please everyone and it is a waste of time to try.

To me, I don't hate any scientists who happen to be Christian. There are TONS of them out there, just like there are plenty of Muslim scientists, Buddhist scientists, Pagan scientists, etc. I just see that belief in religion as a scientist just shows a suspension of Occam's Razor. A scientist should understand going into any problem that nothing is immediately known and evidence needs to be built to determine what is going on. But just because you suspend Occam's Razor doesn't necessarily make you wrong. You just have to be willing to abandon those assumptions if science shows those assumptions to be wrong.

What I dislike is when someone tries to use religious beliefs to discredit science. This shows a clear disconnect from reality. They are letting assumptions trump objective evidence because they cannot let go of those assumptions. That is intellectual dishonesty. Though that being said, I don't HATE someone for thinking this way. I'd like to educate them to move past such primitive thinking, but I can't make them listen either. All I can do is tell them they are wrong and why. It's up to them to listen or not. Unfortunately a lot of those people take that as a sign of hatred of them.

I'm not trying to position an argument of disenfranchisement.

I know you aren't, but the process you describe has been used to do it. Whether or not your intent differs, once it reaches a certain threshold of group think, it is an absolute inevitability in our cultural story.

II judon't see how government benefits or legislation are relevant when, say, someone attempts to murder me because I claim a belief in God. In that circumstance, government benefits were rendered quite a moot point, and very quickly.

The "big picture," to me, is about understanding the interactions of social groups as a whole. Especially since they tend to define legislation and government benefits. What is happening with religion can be directly correlated to several other social groups. Given that, the big picture is something that will address all of these issues with equality rather than focusing on one group which goes against my own bias.

The reason why I don't take discrimination against a majority group as seriously is because the majority group controls more power than any minority group.

That
isn't always true though, and in cases where a minority group holds power we see just as many problems (much of them exactly the same). If the issue truly boils down to who is a majority, then we wouldn't see the same issues of persecution.

Again, I am looking globally, historically, and across all social groups. I guess my issue comes in when we label the exact same behavior differently according to which group we consider ourselves a member. In the atheist spectrum, just like the theist, this fosters an us vs. them scenario where ones own group is never at fault and perpetually the victim.

It also proposes that any member of a minority social group can correctly claim persecution in any circumstance and be correct, while the same behavior in a majority group would be labeled a "complex." I just don't know if I can get behind the idea of such different rules all according to a subjective group identification. It leads to bad things, historically.

Knowledge is power. So the gatekeepers of knowledge happen to have most of the power.

I strongly hesitate to call the media the gatekeepers of knowledge, given the idea that with science, we are our own gatekeepers.

It's just a discussion of equality for the most groups. In this case, the only way to achieve equality is through separation of church and state. No special catering to any one religion.

I think that we can come up with new ideas and methods, based in science and math, but I won't attempt to convince you further. What I am speaking about has little to do with the separation of church and state, and more to do with interacting social groups. Government affairs and legislation will always fall in line with the predominant cultural story, and historically, it doesn't matter if the 'protagonist' is a majority or minority social group.

If you look hard enough you will find hatred from all walks of life directed against you for whatever reason. You can't please everyone and it is a waste of time to try.

The whole point is when does it switch to actual persecution, objectively? In this case, it was an attempted murder based on a belief in God. That's not looking too hard!

As to the rest, you are implying aa level of knowledge and familiarity with each and every scientist that claims a belief in God

Rather than accept you have such a level of omniscience, I'll just assume that is how you project your own perspective and what you believe you would have to do in order to adopt such a belief system. Do you have a personal involvement in science?

My interest and goals lie in writing a cultural story that isn't predicated on conversion or any one group having omniscience. I think if we would focus on that, rather than who is right or wrong on a topic that can't be settled, we might actually make progress.

Until then, all conversations will go down like this thread, full of condescension, implied superiority, and conversion attempts from both sides. Not singling you out with that, but take a look through the thread as objectively as possible.

When it comes down to it, I am working for actual equality using new concepts. Rather than expecting any single social group to come up with unbiased solution, which is nigh impossible, I feel the solution involves multiple groups working together with a common language and grammar: science and math.

I believe our current course of basing success and accuracy on emotions alone is a detriment to our species. What we say has become more important than what we do, and that is by design. I believe it is important, but any attempts at discussion devolve back into the social group bias, in this case religion, rather than an actual focus on the bigger picture.

I'll bow out of the discussion though, have a good one! Eta: sorry about the typos, typing on a phone and I usually am only on ATS while I am waking up. Not the best combo sometimes

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Like the teacher who was forced out of her job for simply having a Bible on her desk for personal reading, she didn't talk to the kids about it, or read aloud from it, she simply had it on her desk and in her desk, but yet was fired because she had a politically incorrect book which reflected politically incorrect thought.

Do you have a link for this? The only one I can find is a male teacher whose students complained that his religious views tainted his science instruction...

I'm looking for a link,

In the meantime
asmainegoes.com...
hamptonroads.com...
rightwingnews.com...
www.maggiesnotebook.com...

So, in each case they were first told or warned - - that they could not have religious material publicly displayed.

OK to have bible for personal use not publicly displayed.

Student in public school can read bible in their free personal time. As long as they put it away after.

In the end - - law was followed. Forced or agreed to.

Yes! I do read links poster provide.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: grandmakdw

Faux News is not a news channel. Here in the UK it's a laughing stock - people point at it and laugh.

Its a laughing stock to anyone who is not affected by "Carnival Barkers".

Its all based on emotions - - no critical thinking involved.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I know you aren't, but the process you describe has been used to do it. Whether or not your intent differs, once it reaches a certain threshold of group think, it is an absolute inevitability in our cultural story.

Many things can be used for bad. That doesn't make them inherently bad though.

II judon't see how government benefits or legislation are relevant when, say, someone attempts to murder me because I claim a belief in God. In that circumstance, government benefits were rendered quite a moot point, and very quickly.

If someone attempts to murder you, hate crime or not, it is still against the law. That person will go to jail for their transgression. He/She will pay for it. Making it a hate crime, is actually kind of silly. It's already wrong and murder can carry the death penalty. How much more severe of a punishment can you get than that? A few more life sentences? "Ok when I reincarnate, I'll be sure to check into the US Federal government and serve my next life sentence." Sorry being a bit silly there.

The "big picture," to me, is about understanding the interactions of social groups as a whole. Especially since they tend to define legislation and government benefits. What is happening with religion can be directly correlated to several other social groups. Given that, the big picture is something that will address all of these issues with equality rather than focusing on one group which goes against my own bias.

The only other social groups I can see that happening to are white people and males.

That isn't always true though, and in cases where a minority group holds power we see just as many problems (much of them exactly the same). If the issue truly boils down to who is a majority, then we wouldn't see the same issues of persecution.

Again, I am looking globally, historically, and across all social groups. I guess my issue comes in when we label the exact same behavior differently according to which group we consider ourselves a member. In the atheist spectrum, just like the theist, this fosters an us vs. them scenario where ones own group is never at fault and perpetually the victim.

I understand where you are coming from. Don't worry.

What you are describing above is really just describing human nature. Humans have pretty much evolved to seek out group behavior and part of group behavior is maximizing the differences in people outside your group while minimizing them for the people in your group.

The key is to get all humans to think of all other humans as the same group. That is easier said than done though. Force doesn't work. Genocide doesn't work. Hate doesn't work. But unfortunately it is hard to overcome the baser instincts of anger that comes along with these feelings.

It also proposes that any member of a minority social group can correctly claim persecution in any circumstance and be correct, while the same behavior in a majority group would be labeled a "complex." I just don't know if I can get behind the idea of such different rules all according to a subjective group identification. It leads to bad things, historically.

No it doesn't propose that at all. Again I admitted that persecution against the minority is a REAL thing. I'm just saying that the benefits from being the majority override the persecution committed against them. A minority group would have to figure out a way to mass discriminate against the majority in order for a real grievance of persecution could be claimed. This is just a pure numbers game at this point. For every x minority people, there are x + y people from the majority. Therefore to do actual discriminatory damage, one would have to account for y in that equation. If they can't do that, then if every minority member were to discriminate against the majority it would only effect a percentage of the majority. This clearly isn't as effective as the majority discriminating against the minority where only a percentage of the majority needs to be discriminatory to discriminate against the entire minority.

I've been doing some thinking and I have thought of an example where that has happened in the past. Apartheid. Though I will say it is MUCH rarer for the minority to be able to discriminate against the majority than it is for the reverse.

I strongly hesitate to call the media the gatekeepers of knowledge, given the idea that with science, we are our own gatekeepers.

Only if you strive to access it. Everyone has the entire internet of knowledge at their fingertips yet most continue to isolate themselves in bubbles of confirmation bias fueled by certain media outlets that influence their bubble. The internet should theoretically tear down group barriers, yet it is being used to reinforce them.

As to the rest, you are implying aa level of knowledge and familiarity with each and every scientist that claims a belief in God

No, I am describing proper usage of the scientific method. Scientists are human and prone to error. It should never be assumed that all scientists will obey the scientific method 100% all the time. It is inconceivable. But one should try to strive to do so anyways. Assume nothing. Look for answers through evidence gathered. It is much better method of describing things than guessing 100% of the time.

Rather than accept you have such a level of omniscience, I'll just assume that is how you project your own perspective and what you believe you would have to do in order to adopt such a belief system. Do you have a personal involvement in science?

I majored in Computer Science and work in IT, so not particularly. Science, math, and history are all deep hobbies of mine. They are the keys to unlocking the future and describing reality, but only if done properly. I consider history education to be an embarrassment in this country for instance. You won't learn anything about anything with a grade school history education.

My interest and goals lie in writing a cultural story that isn't predicated on conversion or any one group having omniscience. I think if we would focus on that, rather than who is right or wrong on a topic that can't be settled, we might actually make progress.

Until then, all conversations will go down like this thread, full of condescension, implied superiority, and conversion attempts from both sides. Not singling you out with that, but take a look through the thread as objectively as possible.

Oh I see what you are saying. It is true.

*snip* What we say has become more important than what we do, and that is by design. I believe it is important, but any attempts at discussion devolve back into the social group bias, in this case religion, rather than an actual focus on the bigger picture.

My answer has to do with education and taking emotion out of the equation. To be honest, I try to be as emotionless with my responses as possible. Certainly at times my emotions leak through (I am human after all), but emotion just clouds your thinking. It lets you accept anecdotes as viable evidence of a situation. It lets you justify the most inhumane. The best way to overcome this is with education.

Sorry I had to snip part of your post, Needed space to type.