No bunfights please, a genuine question about Atheists.

[BurlyShassey]

some of this cut and copied from another thread after a suggestion to maybe start this one-

genuine question- just wondering-

Do the Atheists here go on threads about other faiths -Allah,Krishna,Mohammed, (bit naive here, just starting to study other faiths) and the rest and dismiss them as much as they dismiss Christiantity?

Asking as Ive never come across it anywhere else.
as I said,genuine question- just wondering-

do the atheists here go on threads about other faiths -Allah,Krishna,Mohammed, (bit naive here, just starting to study other faiths) and the rest and dismiss them as much as they dismiss Christiantity?

Asking as Ive never come across it anywhere else.

We are called to respects each others beliefs/non beliefs, even if we don't acceptt tthem, and I know (looking at a few thread titles on this site) people are asking for honest opinions or experiences.

Be nice ! Please.

And on the subject of respect, although I profoundly disagree with it, I do have a sort of respect for religious fundamentalists, ie. people who follow the logic of their religious commitments wherever it takes them.

The thing I find completely baffling are people who believe the universe and human beings were created by an all-powerful supreme being according to some unfathomable plan, who then by divine revelation gave his creation a fairly small number of strict instructions, with warnings of dire punishments if the instructions are not followed. But then can't be bothered to follow them.

I can understand finding it difficult not to be jealous for example, but how hard can it be not to eat pork for example (if Muslim). I find it absolutely bizarre!

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. CS Lewis

Yes Contor. I often see posters say 'my Christianity is private and personal, I keep it to myself'. Sorry but the NT is pretty clear about evangelism. If there's people in your life who don't know what you believe and why and that you want them to believe it too then you're doing it wrong.

Just to clear something up. Someone said that 'Atheism is a definite belief there is no God'. Technically it may mean someone who says there is no god, but that's not the usual meaning nowadays.

I'm atheist in the sense that I don't believe in anything without at least some reason to suppose it might be true. So I don't believe in the tooth fairy, allah or jehovah for exactly the same reasons. The way you likely feel about Thor the thunder god is how I feel about Jehovah and Allah. But if you come up with even a little proof I'd be happy to examine it and would then naturally change my position.

While discussion about Christianity is more likely to arise here in the UK I feel just the same about Islam, Judaism etc and am happy to say so.

Like someone else said that would be the end of it for me and no reason to even discuss it, but I live in a country where organised religion has undue influence on politics and law and needs to be resisted.

BackOnlyBriefly you're agnostic then, not atheist.

No, an agnostic is undecided whether or not there is a god. Backonly briefly is saying she currently has no reason to believe in god (no evidence) but would change her position IF evidence became available. That's the scientific view of the world, you change your mind when convincing evidence is available.

That's it.

The meaning of the words has blurred a little too. For example I've often debated on here with a poster who claims to be agnostic. She is 100% sure that god exists - just not sure of the fine details.

Agnostic is also used (wrongly imo) to mean "me? I don't have a clue". Whereas I am quite sure there is no evidence for any gods so it would be quite wrong to go around believing in them.

I'm probably agnostic as I can't definitively say there is no god. I am certain however that there is no god that is lovingly interested in mankind.

The way i have always understood it is that atheism is simply the absence of a belief in god or gods (nothing to do with denying or believing, just the absence of a belief).

Agnosticism is also not about belief, but is about knowledge - the oed defines it as one who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

So, an atheist may also be agnostic, and an agnostic may be a theist or an atheist.

I regard all religions in the same way. The only exceptions I would make are Buddhism and Taoism, because neither require a belief in god, and both focus on how we live our lives now since that is all we can really know, not on the next life even if there is one. As such they are really philosophies rather than faiths (at least in some of their forms).

I would also make an exception for the Quakers, since they do not require a belief in any particular doctrine. I would also see many pantheistic traditions in a different light as often (not always) the gods and goddesses are seen as aspects of ourselves or of nature rather than actual divine entities, so are really a way of understanding our world and ourselves rather than being some kind of supernatural overlord.

So, I think i'm trying to say that I come on these threads because I have a massive curiosity about philosophy and spirituality, but given that the majority of threads address this through an Abrahamic faith perspective, it is in that context that debate generally occurs. I wish there was more interest here in some of the other schools of thought that I've mentioned or other concepts of spirituality, but they generally get dismissed as woo bollocks - it isn't just Christianity that is given a hard time!

I'm sort of atheistic, and I'm more likely to go on threads about Christianity than other religions because I was brought up by Christians, taught predominantly about Christianity, and am living in a society where Christianity has more sway than any other religion.

So I have more knowledge of it, and it has more impact on me.

I'm unlikely to go on a thread about a religion like Buddhism for example because I don't know any Buddhists, I know little about the religion, and it has no impact on my life.

When my children go to school they are unlikely to have to take part in Buddhist ceremonies.

When laws are made that affect atheists in the UK they are unlikely to be affected by pressure from Buddhist pressure groups/organisations.

And so on.

I don't dismiss anyone's beliefs. They obviously mean something to them, whatever they are or aren't.

Feel a bit defensive about the presumption that all atheists are dismissive, tbh.

Also I should have read the thread, shows why I don't click on threads about Buddhism (and why I possibly should)!

I am atheist. I am genuinely baffled why grown adults feel the need to believe in fairy stories. But each to their own.

I would probably be more likely to post my views on a thread about Christianity because it is a religion about which I know a fair bit (having been brought up in the UK with the usual prayers and bble stories at school). Also, you are unlikely to receive death threats for expressing fairly strong views against Christianity. The same cannot be said for all religions...

I generally wouldn't on the whole be bothered to comment on any religious thread but in a general discussion if someone were saying something I disagreed with based on their religious views then I may comment.

I don't understand how people feel believing in a god for whom there is no proof is less weird than believing in fairies, goblins, aliens - but as long as it doesn't harm anyone then I cant see any reason to give them a hard time.

I also agree that as a white, raised Christian person I would feel freer to comment on Christianity without being accused of bigotry....I do however regard all religions with equal bemusement.

QueFonda you say you feel a bit racist if you comment about Islam, but do you not think by commenting about Chritianity that can also be -not racist but something-ist?

I can't speak for the poster who worried about seeming racist but I think I know what they mean. Tabloids have done a great job of associating Islamic terrorists to a certain ethnicity which can make people a little over cautious when challenging Islam.

I have no qualms about challenging the claims of Christianity. It would only be an ism if I made assumptions about all Christians and treated them accordingly.

'Atheism... it's a definite belief there is no God"

This is what I thought for most of my life, which is why I was calling myself "agnostic". Then I was told (and verified for myself) that "atheist" has come to mean "someone who isn't convinced by the God argument", which is what I am.

As in, someone comes and tells you all about their belief in an Abrahamic God, with all its details, and you ask "Is there any proof for any of that?" and the reply is "No". So you say "That doesn't sound at all plausible to me, so I don't believe any of it".

In this sense, it is not a definite belief that there is no creator of the universe, but that we don't believe the story we have been told because it is preposterous.

There's not supposed to be any proof. That isn't what faith is about, so it's pointless trying to "prove" it one way or the other.

I think it's worth looking at the differences between

1. The relationship between the traditional Church of England, the establishment and the state.

2. The life and teachings of Jesus and how these may inspire us today.

I can see why (1) would put people off Christianity. But is that what Christianity really is? If a faith is misrepresented by one branch of a church, does that make the whole thing wrong?

I'm an atheist and most of the religious threads I post on are to do with religion in schools, which I have strong feelings about, and I think it is perfectly legitimate for atheists to tackle Christianity in particular on that issue, because of the church influence on the British education system.

I am not keen on any kind of state-funded faith school, including Muslim or Jewish ones, but non-Christian state schools account for relatively small numbers of the total. So far, a non-believer is unlikely to find that their child is forced to go to an Islamic school because that is the only option in their area, but for many people there is no local alternative to church schools. If Islam grew to the point where it had the same kind of privileged position in British society as the Church of England, I would be equally vocally opposed to it.

"There's not supposed to be any proof. "

Why? Is it because the indoctrinated faithful say so?

No, because that's the definition of faith and belief.

Who benefits from there not being any proof of the existence of God?