kat10

Of course I'd be most happy if everyone would be willing to listen to reason and to accept logical arguments. But very wishfull thinking at this point I'd say.

pescifish

AntiChris made the two points I had in mind.

I will add however, that not everyone who is believer or religious thinks that "Atheism stands for everything that is wrong". I actually have spent most of my life around people who have much more disdain for the blindly religious than people who think about their personal impact on the world.

With the celebrity of 'fallen' tv evangelists and the horror of terrorist acts done under the umbrella of religion*, it is easier to see the danger of blind faith. And many people do recognize this.

* include abortion clinic bombings, Northern Ireland with the more obvious Islam and Israeli conflicts.

ManM

Brian,
Imagine for a second that you believe in God. This God will judge all people in the next life, yadda yadda. The atheist is not only going to hell, but he might drag others with him. What could be more dangerous and evil than one who causes others to be subjected to eternal torment? Given those beliefs, can't you understand why honest Christians have a bad impression of atheists?

Also, Christians have a common ground to their moral beliefs: God. In the language of social contract, the atheist is one who has not signed the predominant contract. They get their morality from somewhere else, and that place is usually very nebulous when compared to ten commandments set in stone. This is especially true when talk about self-interest comes into play. Not everyone is a philosopher, and taken on face value, self-interest can be perceived to be very dangerous. The Christian thinks that the only reason the atheist is being moral is because they see it is to their advantage. As soon as that advantage goes away, the atheist will lie, steal, cheat, and kill without a second thought. Of course this isn't the case, but that is the simple conclusion when an atheist talks about self-interest. Tell me, is it easier to trust someone who believes in set moral laws or someone who doesn't? And so the atheist is morally unreliable. They don't subscribe to the same contract as the rest of us. This gives rise to the image of a backstabbing dirtball only interested in himself.

Finally, you add intellectual snobbery to the picture. Just look at some of the posts here on infidels and you can see them dripping with contempt. There is a pervading (and quite silly) 'holier than thou' attitude in the intellectual sense that really turns people off.

This leaves the very unflattering picture of the atheist: a morally unreliable egomaniac who thinks everyone who disagrees with him must be a moron.

While the atheist may never be able to escape the criticism of leading people to hell, he certainly can take care of the other things. I firmly believe that people know goodness when they see it, and so all the atheist needs do is live a moral life. Moral criticisms will decrease when the number of atheist Saints increases. Also, the holier than thou attitude is just as undesirable in atheists as it is Christians.

As an endnote, these are just the impressions I see. I'm sure that you guys in the atheist camp get a very different impression... The atheist is an enlightened soul in the midst of darkness. He is one who has the courage to fight against the tyranny of religious belief, a belief which causes all sort of evil in the world. Or something like that.

Hopefully my analysis can shed some light on the theist side of the impression, and I hope I have not offended anyone.

spin

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
Imagine for a second that you believe in God. This God will judge all people in the next life, yadda yadda. The atheist is not only going to hell, but he might drag others with him. What could be more dangerous and evil than one who causes others to be subjected to eternal torment? Given those beliefs, can't you understand why honest Christians have a bad impression of atheists?
----------------------

While we are fantasizing, imagine for a second that this god of yours were in control of the situation: those pesky athiests can't take away fellahs that've been earmarked as chosen for bigger and better things. Individuals have free choice, don't they, ManM? It's surely between them and your god, and those nasty atheists have nothing to do with that relationship, do they?? If individuals don't have free will, then this test run on earth is useless.

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
Also, Christians have a common ground to their moral beliefs: God.
----------------------

Naaa. Christians have a common ground in theor belief in the morals of their god, a moral standard which cannot be checked out. How do you know your god is moral? You can't. You can only hope. As there is no standard for his morals -- who can one compare you god to? -- then he has none.

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
In the language of social contract, the atheist is one who has not signed the predominant contract. They get their morality from somewhere else, and that place is usually very nebulous when compared to ten commandments set in stone.
----------------------

Where are these stones? In the imagination of the writers who had heard of laws in stone from Babylon?

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
This is especially true when talk about self-interest comes into play. Not everyone is a philosopher, and taken on face value, self-interest can be perceived to be very dangerous. The Christian thinks that the only reason the atheist is being moral is because they see it is to their advantage.
----------------------

The non-religionist thinks the only reason the christian is being moral is because he is coerced to be because of his/her religion. There are laws like thou shalt not. This has nothing to do with morals, but trespassing, breaking rules and suffering consequences. Any morals you want to drag up come mainly from the Greeks who thought of much of the morality that was given to Jesus.

I think christians have no morality whatsoever.

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
As soon as that advantage goes away, the atheist will lie, steal, cheat, and kill without a second thought.
----------------------

I notice how much Bertrand Russell lied and cheated. Have you found a christian who fought as hard for his ideals without having ulterior motives. "You'll never get to heaven if you don't toe the line." Or whatever it was.

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
Of course this isn't the case, but that is the simple conclusion when an atheist talks about self-interest.
----------------------

Not all non-religionists talk of self-interest.

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
Tell me, is it easier to trust someone who believes in set moral laws or someone who doesn't?
----------------------

I wouldn't trust a christian as far as I could throw him/her. They have no morals. They merely subject themselves to ancient pagan laws. Nothing to do with morals whatsoever.

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
And so the atheist is morally unreliable.
----------------------

On the contrary, someone running on pie in the sky is has no commitment at all towards human beings or anything else, their only commitment is their wished-for meal ticket to the next world.

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
They don't subscribe to the same contract as the rest of us. This gives rise to the image of a backstabbing dirtball only interested in himself.
----------------------

The rest of you have no contract at all. You just cede control to the unknown, trusting that by believing the rot you'll get to heaven and you will do anything you can for a second bite at the cherry. I'll be good. I'll try to follow god/jesus/mothermaryandjoseph. I'll confess. I'll pray. I'll do good works. I'm saved and I wanna stay that way. See the problem? Total lack of morality.

(One doesn't have to even be conscious of the process, hiding one's motivations from oneself is a common psychological process and hiding the fact that one has hidden one's motivations is just as well known.)

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
Finally, you add intellectual snobbery to the picture. Just look at some of the posts here on infidels and you can see them dripping with contempt.
----------------------

Justifiably so. Who could not have contempt for the hypocisy, blindness, damage, stupidity and wilfulness of the christian dominated history of the last few thousand years?

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
There is a pervading (and quite silly) 'holier than thou' attitude in the intellectual sense that really turns people off.
----------------------

This is called "projection". Holier-than-thou-ness has oozed for the millenia from our christian friends. When faced with people who hold such misguidedness for nothing of value, you overlook the inherent holier-than-thouness of your own position and that of your forebearers and project like crazy your own wantonness onto other people.

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
This leaves the very unflattering picture of the atheist: a morally unreliable egomaniac who thinks everyone who disagrees with him must be a moron.
----------------------

Can you think of any more morally unreliable egomaniac than muvva Teresa of Calcutta, who cared more for saving souls than for saving bodies? I would certainly prefer to trust the Bertrand Russells of the world. Altruism only has significance without the hidden persuaders.

It is, I must admit, a little difficult not to think of the average christian with contempt. I wouldn't necessarily say "moron", more (usually) parentally lobotomized. Supple young minds raped to maintain blind faith in an empty sky.

The role of a parent is to provide children with opportunities not to take them away, as good christian parents do by indoctrinating children from before they can choose. (I will admit there are a few converts, but on average they are a drop in the ocean.)

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
While the atheist may never be able to escape the criticism of leading people to hell,
----------------------

According to your religion, each person has an individual relationship with your god. If they suck up then they're ok. If they don't then they're not. It's all up to them. There is no leading astray, this either is a red herring or you haven't thought enough about your religion.

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
he certainly can take care of the other things. I firmly believe that people know goodness when they see it,
----------------------

The American slaveowners sure did, didn't they? All good christians as well, weren't they?

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
and so all the atheist needs do is live a moral life.
----------------------

According to whose yardstick, the christians' blind faith in the empty sky?

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
Moral criticisms will decrease when the number of atheist Saints increases. Also, the holier than thou attitude is just as undesirable in atheists as it is Christians.
----------------------

Moral mumbling will cease when the christian demonstrates a viable yardstick to measure their morals by. We sure need more saints like muvva Teresa. Saints are are a christian phenomenon to give carrots to the naff. The number of atheist sainsts won't increase. saintliness is a prerogative of the heaven crowd, you know the child mind molesters.

ManM writes to Brian:
----------------------
As an endnote, these are just the impressions I see. I'm sure that you guys in the atheist camp get a very different impression... The atheist is an enlightened soul in the midst of darkness. He is one who has the courage to fight against the tyranny of religious belief, a belief which causes all sort of evil in the world. Or something like that.

Hopefully my analysis can shed some light on the theist side of the impression, and I hope I have not offended anyone.
----------------------

The society we live in, which has been dominated for the last umpteen centuries by the whims of christian unreason. It is quite difficult for an ordinary person to climb out from under that stone. Imagine when the Sultinate of Oman was liberated from medaieval institutions, the liberated slaves could not lift their heads to look people in the face because they had spent all their lives with their heads down. Getting out of the clutches of christianity is a little like that: it will take a long time before the society can lift its head up. Without the struggle to do so, society will be left in the hands of those who rape children's minds, trying to have them taught such unreason as creationism, that the next life is better than the only one we know about, that the soul is more important than the body... The children have no protection from you. They have no safe haven to go to. Give me some morals any day. If christians have morals, it is despite their beliefs.

(Or would you like to argue that the acceptance of ancient laws attributed to some fellah talking to a burning bush which is supposed to be your god's presence on earth is some standard of morality, ultimately according to christians based on the standard of your god whose morality cannot be checked on because he is supposed to be so massively beyond us that we have no way to check his morality at all?)

kat10

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ManM:
<strong>Tell me, is it easier to trust someone who believes in set moral laws or someone who doesn't? And so the atheist is morally unreliable. They don't subscribe to the same contract as the rest of us. </strong>

Correct me if I'm wrong Atheists, but Atheists don't say they don't subscribe to moral laws, even some of those set forth in the bible. I've seen numerous times thoughout this forum atheists saying that several of the moral principles in the bible are good ones. The basics, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. It's just the rest of the contract we don't like.

<strong>Moral criticisms will decrease when the number of atheist Saints increases. </strong>

Ok, can I just say this is obviously not possible. I sense some heavy sarcasm, and it's not very practical to say this since church law forbids something like this. Canonizing an Atheist? PS, am not offended, you are just being silly.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: kat10 ]</p>

kat10

This may be leading to another topic, most likely, but I've had problems understanding something. Christians really shouldn't be upset with atheists and their existence. If god made everyone, and he's "running the show", obviously according to your faith, he created us as well. Atheists I mean. Maybe he made us to challenge your faith so you'd be better able to prove yourselves. So shouldn't you be gratefull to have atheists? Or are you questioning god's intentions? Cause everyone knows god cannot possibly be flawed.

Eudaimonist

Sure, contempt for theists who post here only to preach, say arrogant things (e.g. "atheists know deep down that God exists"), or use tired old arguments such as Pascal's Wager. But honest, thoughtful, respectful theists, such as gixxer, get compliments and respectful treatment. Respect must be earned around here.

Of course, you are simply talking about the impression that theists may have -- rightly or wrongly -- about non-theists, but I just want to give the non-theist perspective.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

(I don't mean you, specifically, but theists in general.)

But I suppose people can be blind to this on both sides.

ManM

Heh, and this is what I didn't want to happen. But what will be will be.

Spin,
You have brought a ton of theological presuppositions with you, most of which I don't subscribe to. Even more, you have completely missed the point of the post. I believe Brian was asking why the general view of atheists is negative, and so I tried to oblige him. In doing this, I brought the common conceptions (even misconceptions) to the table. Misconceptions are still important and have a profound impact on the image of any group.

kat10,
The foundation for morality is different, and that is all that it takes to breed mistrust. This is just an observation from my own experience in talking with both Christians and atheists. For a good example of this sort of mistrust, see Spin's arguments above. Also, the Saint comment was a metaphor. Please don't take it any further than that.

Eudaimonia,
Thank you for understanding the drive of my post. I do know that the 'holier than thou' sentiment runs rampant through all camps, and it really is a shame. I suspect discussions would be much more productive without it.

*edited for grammar

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]</p>

99Percent

Theist: "Look at that poor atheist, he is going to suffer hell for all eternity".

Atheist: "Look at that poor believer, he is wasting his only life thinking he is going to go to heaven".

JL

I'd say what 99percent said but with a few extras:

The Christian's whole moral framework rests upon the assuption that there is a God and that He is the origin and enforcer of morality. Religion and morality are not synonymous, but I think exception can be made for Christianity, that is at least from the Christian perspective. So when I tell a Christian I'm an atheist a slew of assumptions can't help but be made by that person. And rightfully so, given what they probably don't know about how and why I came to be an atheist, and how I manage to continue as moral or more a person since I lost belief. Not to speak condescendingly here, but given the nature of their religion it may be too much to ask for most to seriously entertain the possibilty that an individual or even a society could exist happily and successfully without submission to a god. Would this not amount to blasphemy?