Why all the Athiest/Christian bashing?

by AK - Jeff 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Norm

  One of the most tragic occurrence in human history was the day the first monotheistic religion was conceived and implemented.
  That day when the idea that there is but one "true" God and all others were false a period of horrible intolerance and war
  followed. One only has to read the Bible to see what the "true" religion was capable of - genocide, misogynistic, brutal and intolerant.

  Today we have 3 monotheistic religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. All of them of course are right, they alone have the "truth" and everyone else are "unbelievers" or "infidels". Students of history know the untold tragedy and misery that has been caused by these religions which continues to this day. No matter who you are and what you believe in all this is facts, reality.

  Norm
• 

  nicolaou

  Nice topic Jeff and I agree with your sentiments about us getting along, though I suppose we all have different tolerances.

  Not a week goes by without one side starting a fight with the other, then the other retorts with it's position. Lots of wordsmiths appear and try to reason above the other persons head, and make naked accusations about an entire class of persons unknown. Lot's of name calling, innuendo, and verbage gets spilled in the mix. Then a few days later we do it all again.

  One man's fight is anothers enjoyably heated debate. One posters sensitivity can be percieved as 'thin skinned' or 'touchiness' by another. Got a tougher hide? Then you're insensitive.

  I've been here almost 6 years and I've found that I now give newer posters a lot of leeway until I get to know them a bit better. Us old-timers know where we're all coming from so I feel comfortable turning 'both barrels on 'em'!! It's fun too.

  I do deplore personal attacks however, there is never any need for that.
• 

  Abaddon

  I don't think that anyone doesn't think we are free to believe what we want.

  We are also free to believe what another believes is offensive, or nonsense.

  I would first differentiate between Christians. I think there is an important distinction between what I would call literal fundamentalists; those who take the Bible literally and have very 'traditional' interpretations of what the Bible means and what god is, and more liberal Christian thinkers.

  That later group and the athiestic lobby rarely argue in the way the first group and athiests argue. A liberal christian and an atheist can agree on many things - apart on the existence of god, which they'd probably agree is undeterminable (although both would still feel their opinion on the existence of god was more valid than the other's).

  I suggest that the difference in paradigms between atheists and literal fundamentalists is the main cause for conflict.

  Literal fundamentalists to an atheist believe in utter nonsense; to literal fundamentalists atheists are the enemy and have been decieved, probably due to their own wanton desires.

  A second reason is the (and I stress this is opinion) misconception some people have; this is not a soap box, for all that some use it as one. Some people object to the very fact others disagree with them in a forum for discussion.

  People can disagree with me about evolution until the cows come home; I am not insulted or bothered by it, in fact I enjoy the debate. The criticism that certain literal fundamentalists might pour on those beliefs means nothing. If someone has a belief in ghosts and someone criticises those beliefs, then they seem far more likely to be offended. This is in part due to the fact that the paradigm they use is one relying on personal experience rather than one more relaint upon evidence, and as such doubters doubt THEM. If an atheist is doubted it is the facts of their argument that are doubted; it's less personal.

  As such I believe that a certain amount of oppostional discourse between the above two paradigms or lobbies is inevitable as it is implicit in the characteristics of those paradigm.
• 

  moshe

  Yes, I appreciate the openess on JWDF- not like some other ex-Jw boards where, if someone questions the teeniest thing about their newfound religion , well they get booted off. I remember going into a Christian bookstore in 1996 and asking for the book, "The Five Gospels". I was told that they don't carry it.-"we don't want to stampede the horses" was the clerks reply. Christianity is big business and it works for politicians , too. I try and remember to say-" that's just my opinion"- and I welcome all opinions,too.
• 

  BizzyBee

  I really love you all. Atheist, Christian, pagan, Wicken, Buddhist, Jane, Jew, Black, White, Gold or Pink

  What about gays and Republicans? Gay Republicans?
• 

  kid-A

  Why do fights arise between these camps? Usually due to self-serving, self-righteous comments like this from god-fanatics:

  And what the Heck? Even if you never can find him and you spent a fraction of your 70-or-so pitiful years, searching in vain, for hope on this Godless rock….. what difference does it make???? Get busy living or get busy dying… but please, don’t pull anyone else down into your hopelessness with you!

  When the fight is just....I will take up my 'rhetorical' sword and do mighty battle with my foes....LOL........
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  I love a good discussion - but when one realizes that his 2 cents might result in being called the fool for his opinion, it stifles honest banter.

  I agree with you Jeff. It's very difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone who resorts to personal insults because your point of view disagrees with theirs. I left that kind of judgementalism behind when I left the jws, along with my self - righteous attitude. It sometimes seems that some people have held on to theirs.
• 

  Abaddon

  I think another important factor in these discussions is the nature of beliefs that are supported by some.

  For example, anyone who believes in a flat-earth, the re-establishment of slavery, beating women, that the Earth is the centre of the solar system, that children can give informed consent to sex, that Santa Claus is real, that a woman saying 'no' is saying 'yes', that African races are inferior, that Jews are evil and out to take over the world, that the Holocaust didn't happen or that a holographic projection of planes was the only thing thatb hit the World Trade Centre are idiots.

  You may choose to express it differently, but I doubt if under the surface you think any different UNLESS you hold one of those above beliefs. They are 'no braners'; subjects that any reasonable person will disagree with.

  There are some beliefs that the athiest group feel belong in the above catagory. Direct Creation and the Noachian Flood, for example. Those supporting those beliefs, as they use a different paradigm, take the grouping of their beliefs with those held by flat-earthers, nazis, pedophiles and rapists as a deep insult.

  Yet when called to differentiate their belief with those of the above group they can not do so to the satisfaction of atheists - which insults them again.

  Some people feel that people holding 'fringe beliefs' like Direct Creation and the Noachian Flood should be treated differently to those holding 'outmoded beliefs' like racism or flat-earthism.

  But if someone is arguably an idiot for believing the Holcaust didn't happen, why are they NOT an idiot for believing in the Noachian Flood?

  Importantly, most of us happily will describe JW beliefs in the most uncomplementary terms even to the face of those holding them. Why is is suddenly wrong to be so open about one's opinion when one describes beliefs that have a similarly shakey foundation as those held by JW's?

  Obviously a lot of the classification is down to opinion. But to me there is often a double standard applied; ream the Dubbies but don't be too hard on the Creationists and Noachain Flood believers.

  The VAST majority of Christians in the developed world hold beliefs that DO NOT fit into the group I have discussed above. Except maybe in parts of the USA (according to surveys) where literalistic fundamentalism is very popular.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  This discussion has been fruitful - not a single person called another person names for his opines. Precisely my point.

  Disagree - certainly - and even though one's intellect and paradigm might indicate that someone from another perspective is foolish for having that different perspective - disagree without being disagreeable.

  I certainly support the idea of free exchange of opinions - but not attack. Attack stifles, - discussion, even total disagreement - educates and stimulates. No one wants a bland, homogenous community of like thinkers. At least I would not stick around long if that were the case. But, it would be nice to pop one's head into a topic in which one is clearly the minority opinion, without feeling the need to duck the gunfire after posting a divergent opinion.

  Jeff