Why are Atheist angry at believes?

[justsaygnosis]

.

Quite the mish-mash. Once someone's pissed in the lemonade, just how do you get it out?

You can use catalysts to break the solution down into its' component parts.
You wouldn't have the lemonade anymore but you'd have gotten the urine out anyway.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Something I have noticed that some atheist are very angry and look down at believers.

Some might, but I'm not angry. I do look down upon the believers, but this is simply because I find belief in superstitions foolish. I suspect this is the same way many christians look at the voodoo practitioners as well.


Do we believers threaten then in some way ?

Everyday the christian right is trying to gain more power over the government in order to promote "morality" in accordance to christian doctrines. I find this very threatening. Texas refuses to give full rights to homosexuals, the government now gives churches money, abstinence only (christian) programs are funded by the federal gov't while sex-education programs are being taken away. A christian named Rudolf decided to take justice into his own hands. A lady drowned her kids to rid them of demons.

Yes, believers not only threaten atheists in a way, but they threaten each other based on those beliefs as well.


I find this odd, I have seen few believers affected but atheists.

You really should look at history and current events.

I also see many atheist who understand and respect believers.

This is true, there are many. I respect believers as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and don't take violent action because of them. I do not respect the beliefs, however.

Some atheist reject god, not his/her existence.

One cannot believe in a god and be atheist.

 

[Fun2BFree]

"Religion is bad. It is anti-freedom,"

What about freedom of religion? You might not like believing, but not everyone is you.

You might have religion confused with politics. Tell me, how do you differentiate?

-Who

Where is there anything I wrote against freedom of religion? Freedom means free to make the wrong choice...as I see it religion is a wrong choice...is it so wrong that I would outlaw it? Never! I think I have made it pretty clear that I am convinced that all evidence supports the best systems for allowing man to reach his full potential are those founded on the freedom...That freedom is vital and as you can see by my name it is fun...
Religious thinkers are not free thinkers...they are not allowed to consider things freely as the evidence dictates they must conform to the religious way of thinking...always trying to make the evidence fit rather than freely following where the evidence leads...so I really don't see any basis for your question either based on anything I have written or otherwise.

 

[woodguard]

Okay, you've scared him off, woodguard hasn't been seen for four days, well done lads.

Hi, no I am still here. I do like to read more then write.
And I have no more dumb questions at the moment.

 

[Yahzi]

woodguard
Did we answer your question? Do you see now why atheists so often seem angry?

Did you read Foodbunny's post? Are you aware that it is not unique, or even rare?

 

[woodguard]

There is no question about most believers not angry at Atheist but out right hatred toward them.

But believers also don’t like other believers too.

Whenever any group of believers gets too much power they will try exterminate freedom and people, by order of God.

Personal I am not angry at Atheist.
But I do understand you a little better!

 

[Yahzi]

There is no question about most believers not angry at Atheist but out right hatred toward them.

Whenever any group of believers gets too much power they will try exterminate freedom and people, by order of God.

Ahem... those two lines right there would seem to be sufficient reason for atheists to be angry at believers. Given that you apparently already knew these facts, one wonders why you asked the question?

So your question really is:

Why are people angry at a group that hates them and trys to enslave or exterminate them?

And the answer is:

Um. Doh?

 

[LW]

But after a fashion, much of archaeology and the anthropology based on it is speculation.

True.

So, yes, the fish could be unrelated, and yes, the fish could be related.

Yes, we agree here. They can be related and they can be unrelated. But on what to say beyond that we disagree.

The evidence for womb/fish being 'the same word' (Delphos) in Greek (and Christianity has a lot of Greek influence),

I don't know much about ancient Greek (very, very little, in fact) but I find it interesting that the English - Literary Greek dictionary of the Perseus Digital Library gives "womb" as the only translation for "delphus" and even though it finds 293 matches for "fish", not one is close to "delphus" (closest is "delkanos"). Any Greek-speakers in the house?

Likewise, I tried to google for a picture of the Diana of Ephesos who was supposed to be wearing a fish but at least all online pictures showed her multi-breasted and wearing a long dress. Things like this combined with the one quote that is clearly wrong makes me wonder the reliability of the site.

[Of course, all we have is "No it's not! How dare you even imply it?" as evidence from the Christians that the fish was uniquely and 'divinely' inspired to them.

I have been under the impression that a person presenting a claim should be the one to give supporting evidence. I think that in this case the null hypothesis is that the Christian fish is independent, and the burden of proof is on those who want to establish a link. Simply saying that "it could have happened and you can't prove otherwise" is not enough.

To reiterate, the fish symbol was around before Christianity started its campaign to assimilate pagan traditions. Its use differed in meaning from the existing symbolism. There are several "natural" explanations for fish as Christian symbol (acrostics, "fishers of men", five breads and two fish).

I think that you would be hard-pressed to come up with even one simple symbol that doesn't have any existing religious meanings at all. Consider, for example, the rainbow. An old Christian symbol for God's mercy (rather ironically, IMO, since it came just after world-devastating flood), nowadays largely affliated with homosexuals. Do you think that Gilbert Baker thought about the Christian mythology when he designed the Rainbow Flag?

[quote[It doesn't really matter where the fish they tacked on their car came from. (A plastic mold in a factory, actually.) It only matters that it is such fun mentioning it to them and comparing them.[/quote]

Well, if you are into that sort of fun, why don't you also explain to them that Satan has given you a power to make miracles.

In my opinion, a much more fruitful case can be made against Christmas, since its pagan origins are undeniable.

(Alexander the great - on a free encyclopedia)
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

An interesting article, sure, but I don't see how it relates to this discussion.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Some points;

Where did you get that figure (2000 men)? Any sources?

I'm sorry, I mis-wrote that. The 10th Legion was reduced to about 2000 men after Masada. This would have been the Legion that Mark wrote about.

..about Legion numbers and the Jewish Revolt of 66CE to 73CE
1. One of the symbols of the 10th Legion was the Boar - a bit more macho than the pig - but probably as offensive to the Jews.
2. There were 4 legions involved in the siege of Jerusalem, along w/ various auxiliaries and allies. These were;
Legio V = Macedonica
Legio X = Fretensis
Legio XII = Fulminata
Legio XV = Appolinaris
3. An imperial Legion consisted of 10 cohorts, 9 of approx. 480 men each - and the 1st cohort of about 960 - nobody really knows why the 1st was twice as large as the other (oh, those crazy Romans!). W/ attached cavalry and artillery the total count was approx. 5,500, as stated earlier - at full strength.
4. The figure of 2,000 for Legio X in Jerusalem probably represents the 4 or so cohorts garrisoned in the city, as occupation duty would normally see a legion broken up and stationed among key towns in a territory.
5. Likewise the figure of 15,000 represents a - more or less - full strength Legio X w/ attached auxiliaries and allies.
6. All figures from ancient sources must be taken w/ a large grain of salt as ancient author's (here, primarily Josephus) were notorious for playing w/ the numbers to make their patrons look good.

On paper, the outcome of the struggle would normally have seemed relatively certain - the Roman Tenth Legion of nearly 15,000 experienced troops (see Roman Legions), against less than 1,000 Jews, many just ordinary people with no military experience.

It took the Romans almost two years to conquer Masada, at the cost of many casualties, ..."

Correct - the fortress of Masada - built by Herod Agrippa (yes the Herod of the bible) was a tough nut to crack as it was built on top of a mesa and was all but unapproachable. The Romans were forced to build a huge ramp so that their siege towers could be winched up to the walls. The fact that the fortress was in the middle of the desert and that the Romans had to pack in food and water to sustain 15,000 men over a 2 year period only added to Roman difficulties.

Finally, there was no pitched battle at the end as once the Roman's completed their ramp, the Zealots - realizing that there could only be one outcome - decided to commit mass suicide rather than adorn some Roman general's triumph.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

 

[calladus]

Fish and Believers

I'm not angry at believers in general - As an atheist, (Freethinker) I tend to try to judge each person on his or her individual merits. In some case, I will lump a group of Theists together, but usually only when that group is self-identified.

I do, however, have some anger at individual theists - like the anonymous jerk that keyed my car the week I put my Darwin Fish on it.

Had that car for 3 years with no damage, didn't change any of my driving or parking habits. What a coincidence.

I think it may be more appropriate to ask why some xtians are so angry at eveyone that doesn't believe as they do?

Calladus

 

[pgwenthold]

As requested, Foodbunny's post.

For what it's worth, here's my opinion -

Some believers hold the position that people I loved, who I cared about more than anything in the world, and who brightened my life beyond measure, are now suffering unimaginable, endless torture, for no crime other than critical thinking. They believe that this is a good thing - that it is the way the world should work, and that my loved ones deserve this. They believe that this is justice.

Well, fsck them. If I were in charge, the only people I would even consider for such a despicable fate would be those who can worship a deity that would inflict that on others.

My usual argument is that God apparently created me with a rational mind and the ability for critical thinking, and as a result of that ability, I do not believe God exists. To actually believe in God despite the lack of rationality would mean that I am not using my God-given gift to its full extent, which would be a sin. Thus, if God exists and is my creator, it would be a sin for me to believe it.

To address the topic, let me say it in a way that christians can understand: I'm not angry at believers, I am just angry about the things that some of them do (i.e. hate the sin, love the sinner)

 

[pgwenthold]

So, yes, the fish could be unrelated, and yes, the fish could be related. The evidence for womb/fish being 'the same word' (Delphos) in Greek (and Christianity has a lot of Greek influence), the presence of Greek gods and demigods predating the savior on a stick which have more or less the same story as him, the use of fish symbols in Roman pagan artifacts, and heavily used in Egyptian religion (which influenced the Greeks when they conquered Egypt 300 years before 'God Jr.') all of that (admittedly circumstantial) evidence could be totally unrelated to the 'fish' being adopted by Christians. Of course, all we have is "No it's not! How dare you even imply it?" as evidence from the Christians that the fish was uniquely and 'divinely' inspired to them.

Moreover, we have plenty of clear examples of early christians adopting pagan traditions as their own. The celebrations of Christmas and Easter, to start.

Christians borrowed heavily from pagan culture. Is it a shock to learn that they borrowed the fish symbolism, too?

 

[Martin]

My usual argument is that God apparently created me with a rational mind and the ability for critical thinking, and as a result of that ability, I do not believe God exists. To actually believe in God despite the lack of rationality would mean that I am not using my God-given gift to its full extent, which would be a sin. Thus, if God exists and is my creator, it would be a sin for me to believe it

It's a good argument. Somewhat related to this one:

God, being omniscient, knows what it would take to make me believe.

God, being omnipotent, has the power to provide that.

Therefore, if God wants me to believe I will.

And yet, I don't.

Therefore, God does not want me to believe.

 

[pgwenthold]

It's a good argument. Somewhat related to this one:

God, being omniscient, knows what it would take to make me believe.

God, being omnipotent, has the power to provide that.

Therefore, if God wants me to believe I will.

And yet, I don't.

Therefore, God does not want me to believe.

I would modify the last sentance slightly:

Therefore, God, if he exists, doesn't want me to believe. His will be done.

Very similar to the one I gave, yes.

 

[justsaygnosis]

Re: Fish and Believers

I do, however, have some anger at individual theists - like the anonymous jerk that keyed my car the week I put my Darwin Fish on it.

I think it may be more appropriate to ask why some xtians are so angry at eveyone that doesn't believe as they do?

Calladus

Vandalism of that sort can be done by any generic idiot.
I'm willing to bet MOST fundies wouldn't know that symbol from another.
It's long out of date but one of my favorite bumper stickers was prevalent in the late 70's and early 80's.
"The moral majority is neither."
Short, sweet and to the point.

 

[triadboy]

Re: Fish and Believers

I do, however, have some anger at individual theists - like the anonymous jerk that keyed my car the week I put my Darwin Fish on it.

That's why I don't put anything on my car. There's no telling what will set someone off. People get 'eat up' with strange stuff. But don't worry about that jerk - he's on his way to hell. ;-)

 

[Loki]

MartinM,

To the heart of the matter, as always!

------------------------------------------------

Syn,

Thanks...I needed the laugh.

 

[calladus]

Re: Re: Fish and Believers

Vandalism of that sort can be done by any generic idiot.
I'm willing to bet MOST fundies wouldn't know that symbol from another.
It's long out of date but one of my favorite bumper stickers was prevalent in the late 70's and early 80's.
"The moral majority is neither."
Short, sweet and to the point.

I agree, it is possible that it was just a coincidence.

MY favorite bumper sticker is usually, 'No Gods, No Masters.' But I don't dare use it here in California's bible belt. Maybe if I moved to the coast.

 

[LaserCool]

I'm sure there is more than one atheist who has "outright hatred" for Believers, whatever Believer means. I'm more inclined to the "hate the sin" variety as proposed above.

If my born-again sister wishes loudly that I find Jesus, I quitely chuckle. It's quaint, amusing and mostly harmless. I'm more concerned with how she raises her two kids, and what kind of f*cked-up values they will have.

But, and here's the big thing, I have unbounded hostility towards the people who justify harm towards non-Believers (there's that word again), and have the temertity to justify it with "and it's for your own good".

That sort of driving-home of the message, that the collective or God knows better what's in your interests is the part that really rankles. It's been used to justify any level of abuse from Foodbunny's example, to our good friend Rev. Phelps (the God Hates Fags guy) to the institutionalisation of racism (Jesus expounds upon how to treat a slave in the Gospels, and those ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ were just getting too uppity "for thier own good").

The FYOG message can justify anything, just as it can take away every ounce of independence from you. Somehow, devoid of God, believers think you can't possibly act FYOG. And somehow, with God, believers think not only can they manage thier own lives, but the have the duty and right to change you FYOG. The less a Believer objectively controls his own life, it seems, the more he's likely to try to control you FYOG.

The atheist is something of a cultural outlaw, and by his very existence is a reminder to the Belivers that something is fundamentally flawed in thier outlook - that somehow, mastery over aculturation, indoctrination and control were not flawless, and someone got through the cracks.

I'm amused to this end by how much the movie The Matrix, can serve as an example, but I'll leave that to you to imagine.

This leaves believers with a quandry - either listen to the atheist and see if any of his arguments are valid, or shut him out.

Believers have an inherent distrust towards reason, because it's anathema to faith in critical areas. Listening and considering reasoned critical arguments exposes a major flaw in faith, specifically the fact that the methodology of faith is not how the Universe operates.

The universe operates on the methodology of logic and causation, and reason is the only tool that humans have to understand logic and causation in any meaningful way. Therefore, faith is not sufficient to operate in the Universe.

This destroys the foundation of faith, and by extension, the foundation of the Believer.

The only alternative the Believer has is to silence, smother or diminish the atheist, not only for his own good, but for the good of the community. I've met Believers who truly felt that atheism would destroy civilization if it were allowed to be given equal space. It's FYOG run amok.

So if there's hostility from atheists, I submit it's the wary eye of someone who's had to fight the intellectual, emotional, economic and in some cases physical opression and assaults that the Belevers launch to "protect" themselves and thier interests.

 

[triadboy]

www.landoverbaptist.org has the best and funniest stuff