Why are Christians angry at Atheists?

[Zzyzx]

.
Atheists (self-identified) compose about 1.5% of the US population, Agnostics account for another 2.5% (and a total of "unaffiliated" 16%).

A great deal of hostility and anger, if not outright hatred, is directed by Christians toward Atheists in particular.

Why?

[Zzyzx]

Pascal said that since God is a binary set...either He exists or He doesn't,

Pascal's wager and your "told you so" both make a glaring mistake -- assuming that the problem is a dichotomy (god vs. no god) and overlooking / ignoring the thousands of proposed "gods" that all have an equal chance of existing (since no conclusive evidence for any one is presented).

Thus, the "safe" option is to worship ALL the "gods" (be an ultimate polytheist) because choosing any one has a half percent chance (0.05) of being correct (among the two thousand "gods" identified).

[ElCodeMonkey]

Pascal said that since God is a binary set...either He exists or He doesn't,

Pascal's wager and your "told you so" both make a glaring mistake -- assuming that the problem is a dichotomy (god vs. no god) and overlooking / ignoring the thousands of proposed "gods" that all have an equal chance of existing (since no conclusive evidence for any one is presented).

Thus, the "safe" option is to worship ALL the "gods" (be an ultimate polytheist) because choosing any one has a half percent chance (0.05) of being correct (among the two thousand "gods" identified).

Except some require monotheistic worship. If you worship all, that certainly discludes you from some. Gotta go with who has the best rewards and worst punishments

[dianaiad]

Pascal said that since God is a binary set...either He exists or He doesn't,

Pascal's wager and your "told you so" both make a glaring mistake -- assuming that the problem is a dichotomy (god vs. no god) and overlooking / ignoring the thousands of proposed "gods" that all have an equal chance of existing (since no conclusive evidence for any one is presented).

Thus, the "safe" option is to worship ALL the "gods" (be an ultimate polytheist) because choosing any one has a half percent chance (0.05) of being correct (among the two thousand "gods" identified).

All right, perhaps I should have written 'at least one god.' I'll give you that one. Either there is at least one, or there aren't any.

The point is, I wasn't talking about 'safe options,' or indeed, any act or decision. "Belief' is not a choice; the faith one puts IN that belief is, but belief isn't...and I didn't write, or even indicate, that there was a choice. The thing is, (and I will freely amend this to 'at least one god' to keep the nit pickers from getting at me...though frankly, since what I WROTE was 'I just figure that either there is a God or there's not a God. Either there is an afterlife or there isn't an afterlife."

If I missed writing 'at least one" rather than 'a' (though, quite frankly, that should be inferred by the use of the article 'a' rather than simply writing 'God exists or He doesn't") please forgive me, note the correction, and go on.

Pascal's wager is all about what someone who is attempting to decide how to live his life to bet; according to Pascal, it would be wagering lesser loss (some mortal inconvenience, perhaps) against the possibility of eternal bliss. Under those specific circumstances, such a wager would make sense. Of course, as you have pointed out, this leaves out a lot of stuff...like which god to believe in and what one would have to 'pay' in order to get in the game.

My example had none of that. For one thing, the only real dichotomy is afterlife/no afterlife. That is not a false dichotomy, after all; either there is or there isn't. It doesn't matter what form that afterlife might take. It doesn't matter what God (or lack of same, those darned Buddhists...) might exist. Only if there is one, and only if we can communicate with one another upon getting there, could the atheist and I have a conversation...and of course, given that the conversation itself would be impossible if the atheist were correct, then the only person who could say 'I told you so' would be...the theist who had 'told him so' (that is, that how about that, there's an afterlife.) What form that afterlife might take is irrelevant. It might be that the theist who says it is going to be a great deal unhappier about it than the atheist he's crowing over---but the thing is, the atheist will never be able to say 'See? I was RIGHT!"

Yeah, that's not the most enlightened and mature thought to have...but danged if I, after being treated to being told how I am delusional, stupid, a child abuser, ignorant, racist...insert every insulting adjective you can come up with...simply because I do believe in an afterlife, indulge in such a thought every once in awhile.

Perhaps especially after I've been told that teaching my children my beliefs is child abuse, or that someone's right to to their non-belief trumps my right to my beliefs in my own home, church and life, or when someone's right to have me approve of them trumps my right not to...even as they think that their right to disapprove of me trumps my right to think my own thoughts and exercise my own faith.

When things get uneven like that, yeah, I indulge that one. Not to the point that I can condemn non-believers to hellfire and such, my own beliefs don't allow me to do that. But to know that I might be able to say 'I told you so' when there's no way an atheist will ever be able to say that to me?

(grin)

Yeah, that's sometimes fun. Think if it, if you must, as Pascal's wager turned on its head; if I'm right, I get to say I told you so. If I'm wrong about an afterlife, then I don't have to listen to you guys ridicule me. Sounds like a win/win to me.

.................and its a win/win no matter what either one of us ends up choosing to believe, or do, about the situation.

[Zzyzx]

. . . the only real dichotomy is afterlife/no afterlife. That is not a false dichotomy, after all; either there is or there isn't. It doesn't matter what form that afterlife might take. It doesn't matter what God (or lack of same, those darned Buddhists...) might exist. Only if there is one, and only if we can communicate with one another upon getting there,

Yes, afterlife vs. no-afterlife is a true dichotomy.

However, the "told you so" position assumes that one is admitted to an afterlife (since there is no guarantee that all are admitted). For all we know the god or gods (could be many " no way of knowing) may allow admission only to those wise enough to NOT fall for tales by humans who set themselves forth as religious leaders. It is all conjecture and no credible evidence to support any theory presented -- so any one is as valid (or invalid) as any other.

[Wolfbitn]

.
Atheists (self-identified) compose about 1.5% of the US population, Agnostics account for another 2.5% (and a total of "unaffiliated" 16%).

A great deal of hostility and anger, if not outright hatred, is directed by Christians toward Atheists in particular.

Why?

I havent seen this happen... do you have any examples?

.

[Wolfbitn]

. . . the only real dichotomy is afterlife/no afterlife. That is not a false dichotomy, after all; either there is or there isn't. It doesn't matter what form that afterlife might take. It doesn't matter what God (or lack of same, those darned Buddhists...) might exist. Only if there is one, and only if we can communicate with one another upon getting there,

For all we know the god or gods (could be many " no way of knowing) may allow admission only to those wise enough to NOT fall for tales by humans who set themselves forth as religious leaders. It is all conjecture and no credible evidence to support any theory presented -- so any one is as valid (or invalid) as any other.

This is a completely unfair estimation. I do note too that you seem to take every opportunity too to take cheap shots at Christians... I'm sure you know how personally insulting it is to an individual believing in God, to call their most deeply held beliefs as "tales"... I note that some use "fairy tales" as often as possible.

So really... you should be asking why certain Atheists love taking cheap shots and personally insulting a religious believer at every opportunity?

.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 45 by Wolfbitn]

read the countless testimonies of families disowning abandoning and shunning sons and daughters for their non-belief.

"In the United States, six state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office"

Public polling also shows that atheists are the most hated group in america

Kids get bullied because of it. People are shunned in bible belt communities because of it. People get fired because of it as well.


Just because you don't see something doesn't mean its not happening.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 45 by Wolfbitn]

read the countless testimonies of families disowning abandoning and shunning sons and daughters for their non-belief.

"In the United States, six state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office"

this is true. However, the state that attempts to prevent an atheist from holding public office on the strength of it loses in court; and knows it. In fact, The Supreme Court ruled that religious tests for office were unconstitutional way back in 1961, and every single time anybody tried to exclude an atheist from serving since has lost in court.

BTW, polygamy is unconstitutional in Utah, at the insistence of the federal government. That one got thrown out pretty recently, too, if I remember right.

So here's the deal; yes, six states (I think it may be still six...I'm not certain) have an unenforceable provision in their constitutions prohibiting atheists from holding public office. So what? Those provisions are unenforceable and have been for over fifty years. Atheists have won that one, as they should have.

However, every state in the union, as well as the federal government, now has laws and court precedents that affect how Christians can exercise their own religious freedoms. Why are you not just as upset about that, as by unenforceable and outdated constitutional rules, that most of the folks in the states involved probably don't know exist?

Is it a 'we stopped you from messing with us, now it's our turn to mess with you" sort of agenda?

Public polling also shows that atheists are the most hated group in america

Unfortunately, that's true. Have you wondered why? Could it be because all the lawsuits against theists so far have been supported, encouraged or begun by atheists?

When people fear, there's usually a reason. perhaps it's an overblown one; in fact, quite frequently it is. However, I think that if atheists want to be accepted by society, and not simply overturn it to their advantage, they should seriously think about those reasons and take responsibility for some of 'em.

Kids get bullied because of it. People are shunned in bible belt communities because of it. People get fired because of it as well.

Yes. They do.

And I was bullied because I was a Mormon. So were my kids. I've had rocks thrown at me because of my religion. You do NOT want to be a Mormon in a bible-belt community; atheists definitely have it better...and yes, I have been refused jobs because of my belief system--and one of those refusals was from an atheist.

Yes, fundamentalists call me names that I can't repeat here...but atheists have been every inch as vitriolic to, and about, me and my own faith. I have no sympathy for atheists who cry 'poor us' when they use the sort of rhetoric I've been subjected to, and sue people because they are exercising THEIR freedom of religion.

In sum, and to be very blunt, nobody here has a real reason to cry 'persecution' to the point that it's being shouted. Atheists? you are here, you can sue, you can shout, you can post without fear of being jailed or tarred and feathered. If you get fired, you will have a line of lawyers eager to represent you that winds around the county, and you know it--because every one of 'em knows you'd WIN the case. Rightly so, of course, but still.

The point is, you need to understand something that you wrote yourself, only turn it around regarding attacks on Christians:

Just because you don't see something doesn't mean its not happening.

Yes, atheists have been, and still are, discriminated against. That does not excuse discrimination against theists. The reverse is also true; both sides need to, well, grow up.

[Zzyzx]

However, every state in the union, as well as the federal government, now has laws and court precedents that affect how Christians can exercise their own religious freedoms. Why are you not just as upset about that, as by unenforceable and outdated constitutional rules, that most of the folks in the states involved probably don't know exist?

What laws are you referring to here? In what ways are religious freedoms being restricted by law?

Are there actually state and federal laws directed at Christian religious freedom? Or do the laws apply to all religions?

I am aware of laws that disallow government support of any religion " which would preclude promotion of all religions in publicly owned facilities and government functions. That seems reasonable if we honor separation of church and state.




Those who are opposed to religion need only to be patient. Religiosity is decreasing in the US population as it has in Europe (while increasing in Africa and in parts of South America and Asia). In the US, younger age groups are less religious than their elders so as the older people die out much of their religiosity should die with them (unless large numbers of people "find god" in middle age).

The percentage of people who said that they are not religious or not very religious is significant, and the figure for the U.S. (around 31 percent) matches that of other studies.

A 2012 Pew Research Center survey, for example, found that the fastest-growing religious cohort in America are the nones (those with no religious affiliation) at 20 percent (32 percent of adults younger than 30), broken down into atheists and agnostics at 6 percent and the unaffiliated at 14 percent. The raw numbers are staggering: with the U.S. adult population (age 18 and older) at 240 million, this figure translates into 48 million nones, or 14.4 million atheists/agnostics and 33.6 million unaffiliated. That's a powerful voting block.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ng/?page=2