Is atheism geared more toward christianity?

[Rebel]

It also has to do with the fact that the Christian's (at least in America) have the most political power out of all the other religions.
I don't know how many times I've heard on the news about the the uproar when people want 'In God We Trust' off of the money there, or about their pledge having 'Under God' taken out. These phrases were introduced fairly recently compared to the age of the country. You can cry persecution all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the American government (in theory) is secular. Putting one religious group of peoples viewpoint and thrusting their beliefs it into the public sector is gonna make a few people angry.

If the Muslim's or Wiccan's, etc had the same sort of power in society and were trying to change the laws to suit them, you can bet the atheists and other groups would be fighting back on them.

Fact is, Christians in America are in a position of privilege.
Don't be surprised that the minority religious groups and the minority unreligious aren't completely happy with this.


There is this small cable tv show that runs for one hour every Sunday night in Austin, Texas. I watch it on YouTube.
It's 2 people sitting at a table explaining their beliefs, encouraging like-minded people to call up, and leaving the phone-lines open to people who want to call up if they disagree with the hosts.

It's called "The Atheist Experience".

It's funny how many times people identifying as Christian have rung up the show to threaten them with hell, to ask the hosts why they love satan, why they like to eat babies, and declaring that they're only atheist's because they haven't read the bible yet. There are also a lot of people asking why they are attacking Christianity and proclaiming that they're not atheist, they're anti-Christian. Some demand that the show be taken off the air because it's offensive to them and their beliefs.
On the other hand, a lot of the atheists calling up are doing it because it's their only chance to talk to another atheist.

[SongsOfDragons]

Just to throw another word into the ARGH, I class myself as an Apatheist - a portmanteau word. At least it's what I put on the Census last year. It can most likely be fitted into lots of varying definitions of atheism and/or agnosticism...but as the name suggests, I'm not really entirely bothered. The UK, despite the presence of the Church of England, doesn't seem to be as bad as the US in terms of mad religious people.

I can only understand religious stories as somewhat regimented fairy tales...but many of them that I've been told are quite awesome. Muhammed and the Cat is one of my favourites ^^ and I had a set of children's illustrated Bible stories as a young'un. And I've read my (vaguely Christian) housemate's books on Church archaeology and architecture out of fascination and liking for shiny things.

[jackfaire]

Most of my friends that are atheists it's because they have a live an let live policy. Buddhists rarely in great numbers use our faith to influence government policy yes on an individual level it may help decide how we vote but you won't see us lobbying governmental bodies on a religious basis.

Christianity is one of the only faiths that not only believes they themselves should follow their religious laws but that everyone regardless of faith should follow their religious laws even if those laws violate the beliefs of other religions.


EDIT: Note not all Christians believe that but the large vocal groups of them that lobby the government do.

[KabeRinnaul]

To say Atheism is a religion is to say science is a belief.

I think a great deal of trouble in the world today comes from people who legitimately believe that. And even more so when they also feel it's a belief incompatible with their religious beliefs.

Just to throw another word into the ARGH, I class myself as an Apatheist - a portmanteau word. At least it's what I put on the Census last year. It can most likely be fitted into lots of varying definitions of atheism and/or agnosticism...but as the name suggests, I'm not really entirely bothered. The UK, despite the presence of the Church of England, doesn't seem to be as bad as the US in terms of mad religious people.

The word I've heard for that is "nontheist".

And a major reason it's so bad here is because certain political parties found they could score easy votes by telling their undereducated churchgoing constituents that their opponents were the servants of Satan himself. Unfortunately, they've let go of the reigns at this point and the Crazy Choir is practically running the show.

And, agnostic atheist, for the record. I have no faith or belief in any deity, but I feel that accepting and rejecting belief in a deity are equally sound, as proof is impossible in either case.

[Jaden]

I think a great deal of trouble in the world today comes from people who legitimately believe that. And even more so when they also feel it's a belief incompatible with their religious beliefs.

The so-called war between science and religion is one of the dumbest things holding people back these days, I feel.

[Hyena Dandy]

The so-called war between science and religion is one of the dumbest things holding people back these days, I feel.

Had a three hour debate with someone that I COULD be a Christian without thinking there's no science.

He was trying to argue that the fact that computers worked meant that religion was false, because science is 'the exact opposite' of religion.

[jackfaire]

He was trying to argue that the fact that computers worked meant that religion was false, because science is 'the exact opposite' of religion.

So he was the exact opposite of smart?

[BlaqueKatt]

My understanding is that the Old Testament is, with the exception of the Ten Commandments, only supposed to be used as reference material. A history book, if you will. Teach your lesson from the New Testament, but refer to the Old Testament where needed.

incorrect-know your bible-and the words of christ himself

Matthew 5:17

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[Hyena Dandy]

In the section you quote, Christ says He comes "To fulfill" the law. Then he says that these laws are true and appropriate, "'till all be fulfilled." Christ is here to fulfill the laws. Obey the laws until they are fulfilled. Which he does. Thus... We don't have to obey the laws, because of Christ fulfilling the covenant.

And observe that there are conditional statements in Matthew 5:19. "Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, AND shall teach men so"

The word 'so' can be taken two ways. One you can take it as "Those who break the laws and teach others to break the laws really suck" but based on, well, the rest of Matthew, it seems more obvious that he's saying "Those who teach the law, but don't follow it, really suck."

The conditional matters there. Because they need to be teaching AND breaking the commandments. Not just breaking the commandments.

e.g. Someone who says you need to follow the old commandments, but doesn't follow ALL of them, is being a dick.

[Jaden]

In the section you quote, Christ says He comes "To fulfill" the law. Then he says that these laws are true and appropriate, "'till all be fulfilled." Christ is here to fulfill the laws. Obey the laws until they are fulfilled. Which he does. Thus... We don't have to obey the laws, because of Christ fulfilling the covenant.

This. Jesus did say He had come to fulfill the law, and he did not destroy it. He fulfilled the law so that we no longer have to live under it. He simplified it - love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Hence why I can eat shellfish

The Old Testament isn't meant to be used merely as a reference book - that's a large part of it, but there are certainly some lessons to be learned and a lot of wisdom in that section of the Bible, particularly in Proverbs, Isaiah, and Ecclesiastes (probably the single most philosophical book of the Bible, besides maybe Proverbs). The New Testament may be Christianity's salvation, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of good stuff taught in the Old Testament as well.

[Seifer]

The New Testament may be Christianity's salvation, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of good stuff taught in the Old Testament as well.

There's also a lot of horrible stuff in the Old Testament. That's what I take offense to - people who use the more hateful portions of the Old Testament as an excuse to dehumanize or degrade others.

[fireheart17]

I've actually seen a lot of criticism of Muslim practices from atheists/non theists. Particularly sharia law in the middle east. (lots of videos of women being stoned to death or whipped for petty cultural reasons). I think as bad as some of the Christian fundamentalists are here in America, at least they're not completely in the dark ages. The few videos I've seen of Islam fanatics are truely terrifying.

I don't criticize Muslims because I know plenty of them. For the most part, they are fairly content to excuse themselves to go and pray, not eat for Ramadan and all that, but otherwise most Muslims here are just trying to fit into our society, who seems very quick to think "anyone with a headscarf=boat person, send em home".

My beef with Atheists I deal with is that they think they know what Christianity is and try and cite random quotes from the Bible that are either taken out of context or laws that are no longer held.

I don't know how many times I've seen an atheist try and use the Laws of Leviticus in an argument. Save that for the Jews, not the Christians. They sound just as idiotic as the so called Christians that try to cite them themselves.

Usually the people I've encountered who use Leviticus for an argument are usually trying to throw it back at the people who use the same verse to justify banning same-sex marriage. That's the ONLY time I've seen it used.

Alternately, if you're trying to deal with the preacher nuts down here, you might throw a quote or two at them to counteract their own arguments (they are absolutely insane-they have stated that they only use New Testament, but often quote Old Testament passages in their protest)

I dunno, it's the very common accusation of practicing "Pick-and-Choose Religion."

I actually find it hilarious that those same evangelicals do not practice what they preach.

You can tell the story of Creation, or the story of Noah and the Ark, or Moses leading the people out of Egypt. Those are history lessons, in a sense.

The Steiner/Waldorf school I am going to for placement does just that for their Year 4 class (referred to as Class Three). The stories are NOT told as Gospel, they are told strictly from a cultural perspective: the Class teacher reads the stories from a Child's Bible, but does not refer to the verse or divide the stories, he also referred to God as "Yahweh" (IIRC, that was the name used by one group...can't remember which ) and he would have the kids sing Hebrew songs, make their own bread and things like that.

And before anyone jumps down my throat about alternative education, they don't spend the whole year on the Bible stories, they do cover things like Ancient Egypt and whatnot. Other classes look at Ancient Indian or Japanese culture, my class will be covering Australian legends-things like that.

[Hyena Dandy]

I actually find it hilarious that those same evangelicals do not practice what they preach.

Yeah, the ones who are legalistic don't. The thing is when people like me, or Andy, who aren't literalists are accused of practicing pick-and-choose religion because we aren't literalists.

[macphile]

Why does any religious (or in this case, non-religious) group need to be "anti" anything?

I'm Christian, by the way, and I don't rant about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, atheism...I may criticize individuals, but hopefully, I don't go further than that. Should efforts to advocate "for" atheism be designed to advocate, wholesale, "against" another group?

[Andara Bledin]

Why does any religious (or in this case, non-religious) group need to be "anti" anything?

Atheists don't need to be anti-theist. Nor do theists need to be anti-athiest.

My boyfriend and I (non-religious and Christian respectively) coexist quite peacefully and have for over a decade, despite having notably different religious views.

Neither of us is threatened by the fact that the other doesn't feel the same way and neither of us feels any need whatsoever to try to convert the other.

I would like to think that this is the default position of most religious and non-religious alike, but humanity is tribalistic by nature, and it takes a great deal of tolerance to avoid behaving like people who think differently are inherently wrong. Even just keeping to this forum, which sets the bar rather higher than the norm, you can find dozens of threads where one side vilifies the other for no good reason other than that they don't agree on matters that don't inherently have any negative impact.

^-.-^