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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I know what you mean... Of course Bible could not be proof for the existance of God. But it's unfair to forbid to quote it in any case, if it's relevant to the debate and it's not for preaching purposes. For instance, I myself quoted the Quran in another thread to show the similarities between the things in it, with the ones the Bible preacher Longwinded77 was saying.
First, I want to thank Angiebot for several thoughtful and respectful (to other points of view) posts. I wish I were as courteous when challenged.
I do want to point out that if the atheist posters on the board can post quotes from Dawkins and others, than the theists have an equal right to quote versus from their bible ... even if it is known to be a fruitless activity. I do think that both sides of the debate(s) need to keep these references pertinent to the subject matter, be brief instead of posting an epistle, and let the quotes speak for themselves without the posters personal commentary as to the quote's (actual) meaning.
I agree, all references -not just the biblical ones- should be short and pertinent to the debate.
Thank you very much for you comment, Mbrownec, and for taking the time to read this long post.
Well in that case I would offer a few quotes from my perspective(I would like to think it's 'our' perspective in regards to atheist, but it's inappropriate to talk for others)....
Richard Dawkins - "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further"
Christopher Hitchens - "To 'choose' dogma and faith over doubt and experience is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid."
Sam Harris - "Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle."
Daniel Dennett - "The problem is that no ethical system has ever achieved consensus. Ethical systems are completely unlike mathematics or science. This is a source of concern."
Hurray for the Four Horsemen's wisdom! I'd like to add some other quotes from atheist women:
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." (Susan B. Anthony)
“If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." (Tracie Harris)
“The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.” (Ayaan Hirsi Ali).
"The happiest people I have known have been those who gave themselves no concern about their own souls, but did their uttermost to mitigate the miseries of others". (Elisabeth Cady Staton)
“Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.” (Marie Curie)
“I do not believe in God, because I believe in man. Whatever his mistakes, man has for thousands of years been working to undo the botched job your god has made.”
― Emma Goldman
"why should I allow that same god to tell me how to raise my children, who had to drown his own" - Robert g Ingersoll
To some extent John Breezy is correct. Atheists are likely to be all those things that he has mentioned, but the reality that is just a gloss over of the real dynamic.
Free thinking is a product of several factors. Opportunity is one, probably the main one. If you are denied an education, if you are forced into an institutional religious brainwashing, if your life is threatened by religious law for questioning religious authority, you will not have the opportunity to think freely.
The western societies have been much more democratic in the past 100 years, so freedom of thought is far more likely. With freedom of thought, certain patterns arise. The likelihood of being an atheist, of being Liberal. The fact that most of these people are Caucasian is due to the fact that the west is predominantly Caucasian. It isn't a hard fast rule. As minorities assimilate into western nations they gradually lose the identity of their past homelands. Thus the likelihood of being the prototypical atheist with exception of their race becomes more prevalent.
So atheism isn't based on race or background, but instead on environment and opportunity. As the world becomes more of a single society overall, the chances of atheism grows exponentially.
Right, I grant that there are dynamics being glossed over; but those are the same dynamics which get glossed over when people make blanket statements abought being Christian only because you were born in a Christian country.
As a side note, I'm not quiet sure how much oppression actually inhibits your beliefs. Christianity for example thrives in oppression. Persecution guaranteed the spread of Christianity: "the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church." Even within our ranks, when Catholics became the oppressors, it gave rise to Protestantism.
That's the story of humanity everywhere. Wherever there is oppression, there is a desire to rebel against it. I would expect to see more atheism rising up in the difficult oppressive environments of the middle-east, than in the laid back, Netflix environment of the US.
Jon, why do you call it a Christian country??? Is it because you're the majority? Then why don't you call it a 'Female country', or a 'Working-class' country, or 'White's' or 'Brunette's' for instance, if you only take into account majorities?
Can you see how bigot and disrespecful is that for the rest of the inhabitants of your country?
P.S. I only call a country by its religion when it's institutionalized, so that no other religion is allowed. But if you say that freedom of thought is allowed, then there's no point in calling it by the religion of the majority, because, as I say, it sounds offensive to the ones that don't share it.
No ma'am I do not find that disrespectful. And yes, we are talking about majorities. When you suggested that being born in another country/culture equals having another faith, I assume you were talking about majority faith of that country/culture were you not?
Well, John, I was talking about higher probability of professing one religion or another. In my country, it's more pausible to be born in a Christian Catholic family than in any other (70%), but since Spanish Constitution says: (art. 16.3) "No creed will have state endorsement", I would find offensive if someone call my country "Christian" or "Catholic".
As I say, your country's population is 70% Caucasian people. Try to be in a black person's shoes for a second and imagine you listen to your President (as the example of Bush Sr. I wrote): "This is a White country, black people cannot be called citizens or patriots". How would you feel? Can you see the parallelism?
You can do the exercise with other words, just to see my point. "This is a working-class country, poors cannot be...". "This is an middle-aged people country, youngs and elders cannot be.."
I mean, if you were part of a minority (well, atheists are the big minority in your country, as a matter of fact) that is not included in the "X country" definition, you'd certainly feel that you're not part of the country, that you are not even a second-class citizen, but no citizen at all.
I understand, but being offended is a choice, one that I can only make for myself and not others. Labels exist for simplicity, not for exclusion. I use labels for simplicity, not for exclusion. You added the exclusion when you wrote "black people cannot be, the poor cannot be, etc."
I'm 100% Hispanic, and have no problem with someone saying America is a white country.
I added the exclusion to paraphrase Bush Sr., but in a different context. He said that USA was a nation under God, so atheists were no citizens or patriots.
Being offended is a choice, you're right, but as well as being offensive...
Maybe because you're white... I'm guessing for your picture. Ok, I've taken a look at the USA demographics. Hispanic people have similar percentage as atheists (well, a few less if you consider non-believers, agnostics and atheists as a whole), so it's perfect for the comparison.
What if the sentence was "America is a non-hispanic/ hispanic-free country". Will you be then offended? (If you say no, you're lying xD)
I wouldn't be offended. I don't attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.
Good point. I guess we can say you're offense-free. That's remarkable, but then you make me think that when you say that you live in a Christian country, it's not malice, but... :P
lol in that case, don't attribute to ignorance what you can attribute to miscommunication.
Hahaha (ya, ya... ahora no vale...)
Ok, let's call it a "miscommunication", then. xD
Good point John. We have seen a rise of ex-muslims here on the forum. However, I say that with oppression comes extremism more than anything. I think that in the oppressive nations a simultaneous action happens, that many become atheists and many become devout, and many become radical. What doesn't happen is that there is a growing number that takes no action.
Could I be bold to suggest sir, that perhaps you may have forgotten the punishment for not believing within certain parts of the Middle East?!
I would imagine there being a rise of say 'closet atheists' but life is preferable to death so I would imagine that is why it's not displaying a public surge in certain regions where oppression is rife.
The same was once in Britain, the Catholics during the 16th century for sure, were terrible for burning 'heretics' at the stake... Thomas More quelled the rise of Lutheranism in this way during the Tudor period.
I would imagine countries where aposicy is not punishable by death, or punishable at all... is more likely to see atheism rising.
This would explain the rise of it in certain areas of Europe.
So persecution makes religion thrive, but atheism decrease.
No I wouldn't say that,
I would ask one to consider the possibility that persecution stirs a primeval evolutionary trait amongst humans to prefer life over death, and if you are in a country that has barbaric punishments for apostasy then you are unlikely to see public support for any train of thoughts that support whatever position is being persecuted.
Where as in tolerant countries where those views are encourages it should see that position blossom.
In the case of atheism, it's sort of in the middle I would argue... because even in western civilisations atheism is frowned upon so it's still not quite there.
But with better knowledge and understanding, along with the freedom to discuss these matters without punishment, it can only improve.
Can you think of an example in which persecution and oppression ever successfully stopped an idea?
"Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way" -Viktor Frankl
Nothing can ever be stopped especially ideas, but one could say that those ideas can be suppressed.
Which is why I added the caveat of 'public support'... for example if in the UK we protested of our right to be atheist it is not punished, in fact it will barely be noticed by the media.
However if that was to happen in particular areas of the world? Well we have seen what happens...
Friedrich Nietzsche - "Is man merely a mistake of gods? or god merely a mistake or man?"
To the OP: I agree with most of the posters here about why I don't want to hear Bible verses. I listened to those fairy tales for 67 years, and -- after something tragic happened in my life recently -- finally threw up my hands and said, "I am done believing this crapola!" And part of it is the Bible passages themselves. Over and over and over. I used to sit in church and think, "Can't they find some new stories to tell us to make their points?" "Why do I have to listen to stories about miracles that happened 2,000 years ago? How about some current miracles?" Well, the reason is simple -- it's too easy to debunk current miracles. At least in my case, if hearing those Bible verses for 67 years didn't work, having more of them forced on me is unlikely to work, either. So just stop.
Hi, Phetaroi, I agree with you 100%: The bible and the church sermons were the most compelling reasons for me to become a non-believer... It's tiresome to read/listen to those passages, even more when they don't make any sense to you anymore (well, if in the past they did, which is difficult!)
Thanks for taking the time to read it.
phetaroi,
The purpose of the biblical miracles was to illustrate the promise made in Exodus 34:10 (CEV) = "A Promise and Its Demands
10 The Lord said: I promise to perform miracles for you that have never been seen anywhere on earth. Neighboring nations will stand in fear and know that I was the one who did these marvelous things."
All of the biblical stories illustrate one or more of the Ten Commandments, which are found in Exodus 34:11-28. So when one of the stories are told or read the person is supposed to associate it with the corresponding Commandment(s). Sometimes the stories show the positive effects of observing the Commandment and sometimes the stories show the effects of disobedience.
They didn't have tv then so they had to do something.
I can't speak for anyone except myself. But in response to the stories getting old (some of the stories are more than 2000 years old) and the sermons which can get boring, I was in the same state not too long ago.
What made the difference for me was realizing that every time I hear the same story, I take away something different and that's what kept me in the faith. Kinda like how some people reread poetry or novels and focus on different aspects of the story just because they already know how it's gonna end.
Thanks for that post. I will keep that in mind on this forum.
Pages