Why are people afraid of atheism?

[Gone4Now 4]

Well, I've been telling people you eat babies....sorry.

I am sorry - I took it to mean you consider the source of the Christian, not the *idiots* who think you eat babies.

[Gone4Now 4]

In addition...I think I take hits more personally being a Christian than being an athiest.

I don't believe in the Great pumpkin - so if I were arguing with a person who did, I don't think it would be as heartfelt as the person who believes. Unless a Great Pumpkin worshipper had pissed in my Cheerios...then I'd be grumpy, but still not at all GP'ers...just that ONE.

So, my apologies to TommyO and Wasa if I mistook your posts to be attacks.

[TommyO 5]

I am not upset by this thread, I do think that some people tend to read each post as if they are directed towards them. If I read that atheists, because they do not believe in God can not have morals I react. The reason for posting what I did was to show the hypocrasy. I read because I don't believe in God I can't have morals, I say anyone who believes that is an idiot. I do not think that my response was any worse than the statement I was responding to. The response to me was that I was a bad person for posting what I did. Oddly the accusation that atheists are immoral was not seen by those on the other side of the argument as a negative post. People tend to ignore the negativity when it comes from those they percieve to be on their side but rail against any slight from their oponents. One of the reasons I dislike partisan politics, although I know I am very partisan myself, funny!!

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

In addition...I think I take hits more personally being a Christian than being an athiest.

I don't believe in the Great pumpkin - so if I were arguing with a person who did, I don't think it would be as heartfelt as the person who believes. Unless a Great Pumpkin worshipper had pissed in my Cheerios...then I'd be grumpy, but still not at all GP'ers...just that ONE.

So, my apologies to TommyO and Wasa if I mistook your posts to be attacks.

Wait a minute....

It hits you harder BECAUSE you are a Christian when someone calls you an idiot? Yet it doesn't hit us as hard because we are atheist? Does the word have less meaning to one group vs. the other?

I don't let it get to me because I'm used to it. People speak from a place of ignorance, for some that's all they have. And no, I am not referring to you.

[Gone4Now 4]

Wait a minute....

It hits you harder BECAUSE you are a Christian when someone calls you an idiot? Yet it doesn't hit us as hard because we are atheist? Does the word have less meaning to one group vs. the other?

I don't let it get to me because I'm used to it. People speak from a place of ignorance, for some that's all they have. And no, I am not referring to you.

Yes...and no. Being called an idiot is going to be taken pretty much the same way whether you believe in anything or not. No matter if the person IS an idiot, it's not really effective to call them that. I think the Sears repairman from the weekend was an idiot - Christian or not - but I refrained from telling him that.

I may be going on a limb here, but TO ME, I *think* that a belief in God, or higher power is more personal, than a non-belief is. So, attacks on a believers ideals is taken harder by that person than attacks on a non-believers ideals. I don't get the eat babies comments...I am sure THAT is personal to you and I'd be grumpy. I'm really not talking about people who think you are a heathen, damn you to hell, and make claims that you eat children. I'm also not trying to take away from your non-belief.

Look at people who feel God at church, or the people who set out on long pilgramages - it's deep and it's very personal. I *think* that's why this post is being taken to heart by the Christian side and on the athiest side you have theories and science - but it doesn't seem to be as personal. One side is speaking from the heart, the other from the head.

[brandyII 9]

In addition...I think I take hits more personally being a Christian than being an athiest.

I don't believe in the Great pumpkin - so if I were arguing with a person who did, I don't think it would be as heartfelt as the person who believes. Unless a Great Pumpkin worshipper had pissed in my Cheerios...then I'd be grumpy, but still not at all GP'ers...just that ONE.

So, my apologies to TommyO and Wasa if I mistook your posts to be

attacks.

1. Since when are Great Pumpkin worshipers Cheerio pissers:confused:

2. I think babies are too many points on the Weight Watcher's plan if anyone is interested.:tongue2: brandyII

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Yes...and no. Being called an idiot is going to be taken pretty much the same way whether you believe in anything or not. No matter if the person IS an idiot, it's not really effective to call them that. I think the Sears repairman from the weekend was an idiot - Christian or not - but I refrained from telling him that.

I may be going on a limb here, but TO ME, I *think* that a belief in God, or higher power is more personal, than a non-belief is. So, attacks on a believers ideals is taken harder by that person than attacks on a non-believers ideals. I don't get the eat babies comments...I am sure THAT is personal to you and I'd be grumpy. I'm really not talking about people who think you are a heathen, damn you to hell, and make claims that you eat children. I'm also not trying to take away from your non-belief.

Look at people who feel God at church, or the people who set out on long pilgramages - it's deep and it's very personal. I *think* that's why this post is being taken to heart by the Christian side and on the athiest side you have theories and science - but it doesn't seem to be as personal. One side is speaking from the heart, the other from the head.

Idiot means the same regardless of personal belief. An insult is an insult, period.

Your religion does not make you more feeling or caring about slams due to a belief or lack of belief.

We have feelings too, this is a point many Christians forget when they start loving us.

[MacMadame 81]

Why not? Usually it's domination not sexual pleasure for humans and, I believe it's the same with other animals - at least, from what I've read about the behavior.

Not from what I've read. With humans you have both the issue of consent -- which is why when adults have sex with children it's always called rape even if the adult gets the child to say yes and there isn't physical force. You don't get that with animals. Plus there is the purpose of the behavior. Fighting with another dog over who is going to be alpha dog is a lot different than raping a woman to get a cheap thrill. Or if it's a male animal and they are going after a female in heat, the purpose really is to procreate. I don't know any human rapists who do it in order to get a baby.

Well, I certainly wasn't saying humans are dogs (although I've dated my share, I guess). I was saying we're animals, and pack animals at that.

So first of all, many types of animals are pack animals and they have a wide spectrum of behavior. You've got the dog/wolf packs, the prides of lions, the schools of fish and the whatever of whales or dolphins. Yes, they are all traveling in packs and there is some similarity, but there are often way more differences.

Humans share more DNA with chimpanzese so if you are going to compare them to a pack animal, that would make more sense than to dogs.

Second, animals aren't going around raping and killing each other all the time. Most of the time this is considered very aberrant behavior and very rare. The most common killing of the same species is about who gets to be Alpha animal in the pack. The young'uns challenge the alpha periodically and when the pack leader gets old and feeble, one of the stronger young ones kills him. This is actually good for the pack in the long run. There is stability as long as the leader is strong and when he's not, he gets killed and the pack isn't handicapped by him.

Another type of intra-species killing is when one pack goes after another. Sometimes this is about survival but sometimes it's maladaptive behavior that really does hurt the species.

But Darwin-ism doesn't say that all animals always act in order to preserve either their own life or their species. It say that behavior that helps with survival is rewarded and behavior that doesn't help get punished so that bad behavior is less likely to happen (the individual or species doesn't survive) and good behavior is more likely to happen (the individual or species procreates and makes more of the fitter version).

I may be going on a limb here, but TO ME, I *think* that a belief in God, or higher power is more personal, than a non-belief is. So, attacks on a believers ideals is taken harder by that person than attacks on a non-believers ideals.

I think you've proven you are overly sensitive. There is no way that telling people they are an idiot is not personal and many people take it personally when you ridicule their beliefs. To convince yourself that somehow it's worse when people ridicule your beliefs than other's beliefs is being too sensitive by definition no matter how you try to rationalize it.

[gadgetlady 4]

I really feel God has laid it on my heart to let the atheists posting here know that He loves you very much and will welcome you with open arms at any point in your lives. I know by saying this right now, it is likely that none of you is interested, and you even think me foolish, but I need to put it out there in case at any time in your lives you have a change of heart. There is nothing God wants more than to have a relationship with you and have you in His family and there is nothing you have done or could do that He won't forgive.

Again, I say this knowing I am opening myself up to ridicule, but also knowing that there are many famous (and not-so-famous) former atheists (like Anthony Flew mentioned above) who have changed their opinions about the existence of a deity or of God Himself. So I know change is possible, even if not right now, at this point in your lives or at this point in this thread :tongue2:. You are loved more than you could possibly know.

[MacMadame 81]

I know change is possible because I used to believe in God... then I grew up. :tongue2:

[Jesusislove 26]

Hi, Macmadam, What caused you not to believe in God anymore?

[plain 12]

I think what Glouc was trying to say is that religious belief is a very personal thing. For many Christians, it is what defines their lives. I would think that athesists can't really say the same thing. I mean, how can not believing in something be the central tenant in one's life? There are a lot of things I don't believe in....let's take BrandyII's great pumpkin (I know it's a joke, :tongue2:. If Brandy insulted me for not believing in the GP...whatever. But to a true believer it's a huge issue.

At least I think that's what Glouc was getting at. And as for loving athesists...Christians try, but some athesists make it very difficult.

[brandyII 9]

I think what Glouc was trying to say is that religious belief is a very personal thing. For many Christians, it is what defines their lives. I would think that athesists can't really say the same thing. I mean, how can not believing in something be the central tenant in one's life? There are a lot of things I don't believe in....let's take BrandyII's great pumpkin (I know it's a joke, :tongue2:. If Brandy insulted me for not believing in the GP...whatever. But to a true believer it's a huge issue.

At least I think that's what Glouc was getting at. And as for loving athesists...Christians try, but some athesists make it very difficult.

Just wait, I've got the seed packet already to go and my little starter soil container. I will have the Great Pumpkin this year, and then we'll see who has the last laugh:lol:

[plain 12]

BII, I think it'll go smoother if you get a dude named "Linus" to watch w/ you.

[brandyII 9]

Hey I am the Linus of my pumpkin patch:w00t: