Atheist Chat

Amazingly fast reply.

I beleive it's a valid point. Perhaps you should think about it, or are you yourself not open to the criticism you deliver to others?

Thought not.

Again, this has nothing to do with the thread.

People complain that atheists derail their threads all the time, and I've been trying hard not to do such, but now here you are doing it.

Please either discuss the thread in the spirit it was meant, or go start your own thread. Thanks.

Perhaps you should relax, I am talking directly about atheism. This is atheist chat? for ALL members of ATS? thank you.

My point is thus, seemingly the major complaint about theism is the fact it is "forced down your throat" at every juncture. I can understand that. In what way is an anti-theist avatar, anti-theist signature, and posting of anti-theist graphics on theist member profiles any better?

This is not meant as a personal attack, MM. It's a valid point to consider, the main criticism of atheism seems to be a matter of human nature that is repeated by both sides.

Originally posted by SteveR
In what way is an anti-theist avatar, anti-theist signature, and posting of anti-theist graphics on theist member profiles any better?

You don't have to read his signature or look at his avatar. You can ignore them, as we do the printed religious word.

He's not coming to your house, knocking on your door and seeking you out, shoving his beliefs down your throat. There is no shoving here. If you don't want to see his avatar, avert your eyes or put him on ignore.

Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Does that answer your question?

My question is directed to MajorMalfunction. Thank you.

BH answered it just fine.

And, for the record, the proper pronoun to use to address me is "she."

Thanks.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
BH answered it just fine.

Then I shall thank BH for her proxy reply.

I knew that! I'm sorry!

Bear in mind that I can only speak for myself.
I find reports of Athiests in the US who want religious removed from public places to be disturbing they don't seem to be any better then the Christian fundamentalists. I am not offended if I see an cross on an War Memorial. While I will always defend my beliefs and I would give my life for them in an heartbeat but in everyday life it is very important to chose an appropriate forum for my beliefs.

Sticking with the War Memorial example I value remembering the War dead enough that I would rather leave the memorial to them alone and uses forums like this one to debate the claim that Jesus came back to life after dyeing on an cross.

Importantly there are some things that I would never do. I would never pray because that would be hypercritical and pointless nor would I have an Cross on my grave but those are differnt matters.

I hope that you can all understand what I am trying to say.

xpert11, you have a point.. to an extent. the difference between atheists that want crosses taken down and fundamentalists that want to put them up is that the atheists have the law on their side here. we're just trying to uphold the first amendment.

freedom of religion has been ruled to also mean freedom FROM religion, it's the law and it should be upheld.

Oh yeah it is certainly Freedom from religion rather then the opposite you only need to take a look at Iran and the Christian fundamentalists in the US for proof of this. Here in NZ Christian fundamentalists have been isolated much more by society then the law. It is unlikely that any Christian fundamentalists will be elected to office any time soon here.

When the political party that represents the Destiny Church has held meetings in schools during the past school kids have been known to protest the fact there school was being used as an meeting place for such nut jobs.

Having the law on your side doesn't always make someone's actions the moraly right thing to do. The leaders of Iran could say that the law is on there side when it comes to enforcing Islamic rule.

Originally posted by xpert11
I find reports of Athiests in the US who want religious removed from public places to be disturbing they don't seem to be any better then the Christian fundamentalists.

That's an interesting point. I often wondered if being an Athiest automatically made you an Anti-Theist or do most Athiest not care either way. I guess the difference would be one that drove by a cemetary, saw a cross, and thought "Look a war memorial". The other would drive by, see the cross and think,"Why do Christians have to haunt the dead with their beliefs?"

dbates, it's not an issue that they're "haunting the dead" it's an issue that they're spending taxpayer money... and a fairly significant percentage of america is atheist. a cross is just an example of misspent money.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
dbates, it's not an issue that they're "haunting the dead" it's an issue that they're spending taxpayer money

I guess haunting wasn't a good analogy. Is the issue that they're wasting money or that they wasted money with a religious symbol? What is the focus of the frustration? I don't know that anyone objects to a war memorial in general.

I'm just kicking the can around. I don't have any opinions on war memorials either way so don't focus too much on that. I was curious if atheist were indifferent to religious symbols or are they agitated by them.

Dbates that was very well put.
IMO Athiests share once common belief and beyond that they may have nothing in common. Christians share a common belief but they are not all the same. Put another way Europeans all live on the continent of Europe but depending on the country they live in they live and come from very differnt cultural backgrounds.

Madnessinmysoul I agree that tax payers dollars shouldn't be used to fund organised religion and any kind of religious teaching in public schools. I am also against compulsory pray in schools as well. But surely some common sense and empathy are in order. If a student wants to pray outside of class time or wear an Cross around there neck they should be able to.

Say my local council provided funding for the installation of Crosses by themselves in an public place I would object because that would be nothing more then rates payers money being funnelled into organised religion. But something like an war memorial is an differnt kettle of fish. Assuming that the war memorial in question even has an Cross on it is only one component of the end product at most. The list of names and what holds the Cross up is what has the most meaning for me.

Originally posted by dbates
I was curious if atheist were indifferent to religious symbols or are they agitated by them.

In my experience, the thing about atheists is that the only belief they have in common is that there is no God (or higher power). That's it. It's incorrect to try to apply a SET of beliefs to atheists, because they only share one. Sure, many atheists are humanist, but some have spiritual beliefs. Many follow science, but some don't really think about it. Some are bothered by religious symbols, but I'd guess (and it's just a guess) that most don't give a flip about the religious symbols. It's just the ones that do, speak out and get in the news.

I don't think most atheists want to get rid of religion. I don't think they care if people practice. They just don't want it forced on them.

Personally, I want separation of church and state. There is no place in government for religion. I would LIKE to see "under God" out of the pledge and "In God We Trust" off the money and no crosses in war memorials unless the dead person requested it. I'd like to see people practice religion when they want and true freedom of religion. But I'd like a real and firm line between government and religion, which I doubt we'll ever have.

Yes, indeed. My problem is that religion is a personal choice, and there is no one overall sect of Christians, not to mention that there are many other religions here in the US that are not Christian.

If one religion gets to have its symbols up in public places (by this I mean schools, courtrooms, etc. NOT cemeteries) then all should be able to, or none. I prefer none, obviously, because as I said, religious beliefs should be kept in the house of worship as far as public life is concerned.

If someone wants to wear a Jesus Tshirt or cross to school, I have no problem with that. That is a personal statement by one individual on their own person, not a statement by a few individuals on public property paid for by tax dollars.

There is a difference between someone espousing their beliefs personally, and putting them in a place that is for everyone no matter what their religious preference.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't think most atheists want to get rid of religion. I don't think they care if people practice. They just don't want it forced on them.

That pretty much sums up my point of view. I am no fan of religion but even if somehow us Athiests managed to get rid of it some other organisation would take religion place.


I hold the separation of the Church and State very dear to me but I can only think of one or two cases where you could make an case in NZ where the state and the church are linked. The first is that new MPs are sworn in on an Bible we have even had an MP sworn in on an Koran. The second item is the fact that the NZ national anthem is God Defend New Zealand.

So lets examine the issue of MPs being sworn in on the Bible . I'm not an MP so there is no issue with me taking an oath on an bible. Actions and beliefs also speak louder then words neither the PM or the leader of the opposition are religious. As for the MPs who are religious it seems to be more of an private matter then anything else.

The NZ national anthem holds less cultural significance then other national anthems do overseas. The Maori Haka is more of the NZ national anthem then anything else. I'm not an huge fan of the Haka but since singing the national anthem does nothing other then display someone's pride I have concluded that there are far more productive things that I could do other then launching an one man crusade to change the national anthem.

I forgot to add taking an oath on the Bible when testifying or dealing with legal documents I am fairly certain that under some circumstances an person can take an oath that has no mention of God in it.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by xpert11]

OK question for today, something I'm randomly musing about ...

Why is Christianity the major religion that tries so hard to convert people? (Not all Christians do, obviously, but there is a very strong impetus in some churches to go door to door and bug people trying to relax at home).

Why are (these particular) Christians so vehement about trying to get others to join them? Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, these don't go around actively recruiting members that I can see, not here in the US anyway -- I suppose some of the Islamic fundie groups do in places like Afghanistan.

And why is it that (these particular) Christians are not willing to accept the fact that someone might believe differently than they do, and think that people who don't believe are as bad as murderers?

What is it about (certain sects) of Christianity that will not allow anyone else to disagree with or reject their tenets? Who cares what Joe Bob Neighborboy believes, so long as he's not sacrificing your dog to Babalu.

I think it's in the bible isn't it. That they have to spread the word?

It's as annoying as hell, chillin' at home on the weekend after bustin it all week at work, messin with the kids or surfin or reading and 'knock knock'. Give me a break, i'm afraid i'm just rude to these people now, and thats not usually in my make up.

I'm gonna start answering the door naked on weekends soon, that will soon see a quick end to unsolicited visits.