Is Atheism exist is just to "HATE" religion?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
.............. there is some corruption among unregulated buddhist monasteries. you should look it up
*SOME*
As opposed to rampant, uncontrolled corruption among Catholic, Mormon, Pentecostal, Muslim organizations... Need I go on?
Any organizations containing human beings are going to have corruption present somewhere... That's not really preventable. But churches facilitate corruption by pretending that corruption cannot exist in people who agree with their viewpoints.
As a whole, atheists would readily admit that there have been horrible atheists in the world (Stalin as a golden example), but most atheists don't think Stalin was a good man.
Whereas christians would never admit that 90% of incarcerated persons in the USA are devout christian believers... Usually people utterly convinced that their "sins" in this lifetime will be forgiven "in the next", therefore so long as they are devout they have nothing to fear.
People also forget Adolf Hitler was a Catholic... He even played with the idea of being a priest when he was younger. Go figure. But the religious will call label him atheist, which sidelines the point entirely.
But the Buddhists never had a Jihad or Crusade, really. So there is indeed that.
Just because people claim Stalin and Hitler were atheists, doesn't mean they were. I would say that having deluded beliefs about your own deification, then enforcing your twisted, genocidal ideologies on your populace is pretty much the definition of religion, which is: the belief in or worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. The only difference between a subservient Christian and a domineering Hitler is that in the Christian's mind he worships the God, while in Hitler's mind he IS the God.
Stalin created a totalitarian, murderous personality cult in Russia, and Hitler created a Martin-Luther style anti-Jew genocide campaign compounded by twisted eugenic beliefs about Nordic supremacy.
Indeed, but that's what I meant: Stalin and people like him (Pol Pot?) were atheists who committed atrocities, but they did not do them in the name of/for the sake of atheism, they did what they did to keep/attain power and dominance over political and ideological rivals.
If any ancient teaching promotes thorough scrutinization of human psychology, morals and cultures it's Buddhism. I'd just like to point out that the quote you referenced isn't actually what Buddha said. His words were: Now, Kalamas, don’t take any of these as realities: reports, legends, traditions, scriptures, conjectures, inferences, analogies, agreements through pondering views, probabilities, or conclusions of bias by the thought ‘this sage is our teacher.’ Rather, when you know for yourselves that particular qualities are skillful; that particular qualities are blameless; that particular qualities are wise; that particular qualities when adopted and carried out lead to welfare and to happiness, then you should enter them and remain in them.”
However he was attributed somewhere to saying that prophecies and scriptures in particular are by their own nature, unbelievable... I may be thinking of a Dalai Lama or something instead... Not sure.
But it was the gist of the statement from what I remembered.
The Bible is not a source or moral authority or any supernatural wisdom. Nothing that is written in the bible screams supernatural at all.
Atheism does not exist to "HATE RELIGION". It is simply a rejection of the theistic claim that there are gods or a God. If we have no scientific evidence for the supernatural there are two options; either the supernatural does not want us to know about them i.e. God does not really want us to know him, or there is no God to begin with. The latter I think is more likely.
to be most precise, American Atheists know that the alleged god of the bible Jehovah/YHWH & alleged triune Jesua Nasoret & Ghost Holes is too absurd to be logically considered... the alleged bible god hides in burning talking bushes, instructs his most fervent believer, the alleged Abram to murder his only alleged son, Isaac, claims to impregnate a vaginal virgin and have her birth an alleged baby god in a dirty donkey stable allegedly his name is amongst many aliases to be Jesua Nasoret ..... I refuse to capitalize the title god nor conform to the bigotry of monotheistic xians who pretend their alleged god is the only god and can use the title god as "his" name as if such a god has a penis ? It is difficult to not burst out laughing when considering the English speaking world cult of xian god belief
Atheism does not exist to "HATE RELIGION". It is simply a rejection of the theistic claim that there are gods or a God. If we have no scientific evidence for the supernatural there are two options; either the supernatural does not want us to know about them i.e. God does not really want us to know him, or there is no God to begin with. The latter I think is more likely.
Your approach seems to be more agnostic than atheist, tbh.
agnosticism is a non-sequitur ... only Atheism is true while theism is obviously false .... an agnostic claims humans CAN NOT KNOW whether the insane claims of believers are true or not .... simple demands for proof is sufficient to settle the question ... we can know where and what an alleged god is when believers submit such a location and evidence ... absent such, the Atheist has always won the so called "debate" that is not improperly formed as a false leading question.... the number of extant gods is zero while the number of alleged gods is probably more numerous than the number of believers .... with Hindus each claiming hundreds, Jains claiming dozens and xians claiming 3: Ghost Holes, Jehovah & Geebush... approach is also a non-sequitur ... it does not "follow" that rational people debate the wild irrational delusions of believers who have zero evidence for their alleged gods
Our Atheism is a love of science, logic, evidentiary process and compassion for the victims of religion. Naturally some emergent young Atheists may express anger towards rapist priests, hell threatening preachers or heaven bribing sex partners conditioning "love" upon shared belief. Mature Atheist sisters and brothers are not hateful but instead pacific. We hold mostly pity for the victims of faith. We are proud to walk through doors without belief in doors. We do not follow the non-sequitur of "belief in" anything. We Atheists are free from theism. We just say no to faiths offered to us. Buddhism is a faith of sorts in attitudes and sentiments towards "struggle" "pain" "fear" and such. Most Atheists I know do not subscribe to the errors of such a faith, regardless of whether Buddhists subscribe to zero, 400 or any other number of alleged gods by any name. Dial an Atheist anytime, that is me 843-926-1750 @AtheistVet my twitter Larry Carter Center is my name
And I never called myself a Buddhist, but I respect them of all "recognized world belief systems" due to its being a set of teachings more than an actual "religion". There are, however very odd sects of Buddhism that rely on prayer/ritual set on supernatural superstition... And those sects are more silly to me, especially considering the original 'Buddha' had attested to there being no gods at all.
I admire that of all the organized 'belief systems' also that they have the lowest corruption/zealotry statistically.
Now, as far as the number is that a hotline of some sort? Because if it is, that's kinda neat.
well......... I have to concede to that, Nordic
And how did this turn into a seminar on technical physics??
Not particularly sure? Haha
Also the book I mentioned on another thread... I had forgotten another good book... It's not perfect, but it points in a great direction: "Nailed: 10 christian myths" by David Fitzgerald, makes for a good read.
"And how did this turn into a seminar on technical physics??"
I am partly to blame for that, I get annoyed when someone spouts of pseudo-intellectual woo physics that is easily debunkable with an appropriate high school education. I am sorry for hijacking the thread, but I am not sorry for dispelling the misinformation.
Pages