Atheists understand 'believers'......

[None of the above]

Why are atheists so feared and misunderstood by SOME people of faith? (especially it would appear Christians in the USA)

SOME Christians seem to just go to pieces over atheism and seem to have the most bizarre preconcieved ideas about them, mostly completely wrong.

Most 'atheists' can be regarded as atheists almost by default. I say this because they are essentially 'logical' people who don't believe in things that have absolutely no proof to support them.

You could call atheists 'reasoners' or 'realists' or 'logical'. But the religious 'right' have almost managed to make 'atheist' a byword for denial. It IS NOT. In fact it's the exact opposite. The fundamentalist religions are the deniers, not the atheists.

Let's break this down. I've had many debates with creationists, where I've asked them what proof they would need to accept evolution as fact. The ones who've actually answered have usually told me that they would never accept evolution as fact no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

This is a faith based position.

However, most atheists are simply atheists because there is no evidence of a 'creator'. If that changed and scientifically provable evidence was discovered to show the existence of a creator then most atheists would accept it because they are not limited to a position of 'faith' that cannot change.

Atheism is an open minded, reasoned position. Nothing more or less.

A faith based position is by definition not dependant on proof or logic or any of the rules that guide the rest of our lives moment to moment. 'We' believe 'despite' any other considerations, which pretty much requires one to be rather 'closed minded' to some extent.

[libstaK]

"Most" believers are not "creationists" - generalisations work both ways as does fundamentalism and dogma - just saying.

[White Crane Feather]

I wouldn't call atheism more logical than all theists positions. Certainly you have a point with fundamentalists. Calling atheism "logical" denotes theists are illogical. This is not true. Both positions start with an unproovable premise, and is long as fallacies are avoided to the conclusion then premise must be logical. Not necessarily right but not illogical. Something that atheists and theists alike avoid.

[White Crane Feather]

"Most" believers are not "creationists" - generalisations work both ways as does fundamentalism and dogma - just saying.

This is true. The eronius belief that atheists do not have dogma or beliefs is a prime example. No one is logical just because they say they are.

[None of the above]

"Most" believers are not "creationists" - generalisations work both ways as does fundamentalism and dogma - just saying.

Which is why I specified that this related to creationists. Assumptions work both ways too.

[None of the above]

This is true. The eronius belief that atheists do not have dogma or beliefs is a prime example. No one is logical just because they say they are.

Most atheists are open to the evolution of their knowledge as 'mankinds' knowledge and understanding advances through proven research, how is the unecumbered quest for knowledge for it's own sake not the most logical stance to take?

The pretence that atheism is a 'belief system' in the same way that religion is, is simply ridiculous.

[None of the above]

I wouldn't call atheism more logical than all theists positions. Certainly you have a point with fundamentalists. Calling atheism "logical" denotes theists are illogical. This is not true. Both positions start with an unproovable premise, and is long as fallacies are avoided to the conclusion then premise must be logical. Not necessarily right but not illogical. Something that atheists and theists alike avoid.

Most 'atheists' are defined as such via a logical position that there is no basis in proven fact for a religious 'belief system'. How could that not be more logical than a system of 'beliefs' that is based soley on faith without any proof?

[+and-then]

Why are atheists so feared and misunderstood by SOME people of faith? (especially it would appear Christians in the USA)

SOME Christians seem to just go to pieces over atheism and seem to have the most bizarre preconcieved ideas about them, mostly completely wrong.

Most 'atheists' can be regarded as atheists almost by default. I say this because they are essentially 'logical' people who don't believe in things that have absolutely no proof to support them.

You could call atheists 'reasoners' or 'realists' or 'logical'. But the religious 'right' have almost managed to make 'atheist' a byword for denial. It IS NOT. In fact it's the exact opposite. The fundamentalist religions are the deniers, not the atheists.

Let's break this down. I've had many debates with creationists, where I've asked them what proof they would need to accept evolution as fact. The ones who've actually answered have usually told me that they would never accept evolution as fact no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

This is a faith based position.

However, most atheists are simply atheists because there is no evidence of a 'creator'. If that changed and scientifically provable evidence was discovered to show the existence of a creator then most atheists would accept it because they are not limited to a position of 'faith' that cannot change.

Atheism is an open minded, reasoned position. Nothing more or less.

A faith based position is by definition not dependant on proof or logic or any of the rules that guide the rest of our lives moment to moment. 'We' believe 'despite' any other considerations, which pretty much requires one to be rather 'closed minded' to some extent.

First I would question how well any person truly understands the intimate beliefs of others but that aside, I agree with your premise EXCEPT the idea that we fear Atheists. Christ gave everyone a choice and does not hold that between themselves and Himself until the rejection is final. I think too much emphasis is put on the opinions of people who break most of the tenets of the faith - hate and abuse others of different opinions - and generally act in very non-Christ like ways. My greatest contact with self described Atheists has been here at UM. Some have been snotty, condescending to the point of overbearing, and others have been reasonable well mannered proponents of their choice. I do not imagine that I understand them intimately but I take it as a source of pride that Christians are considered illogical by a secular mind. Our scripture tells us it will be so. There is room for everyone in this life - even Muslims, as long as they can live with the rest of us in peace.

[csspwns]

i am atheist but once i actually hoped tat God was real so tat there would be an easy explaination for things. its was said he could answer prayers and if u dont kill people or do anything superbad then u would go to heaven and have enternal happiness. the priest tat told me tat said tat all i have to do is be baptised and become a christian then all my dreams would come true. i said i would think about it so i went to private skool for about a year but i wasnt baptised or christian yet. then as i grew older, i was 5 at the time the priest told me all this, i began to grow skeptical i began to wonder about those stories in the bible and stuff. they were to fantastic to be real. and one incident a friend of mine was in the hospital because he was in a car crash. i prayed to god tat he wont die but 2 days later they said he died of heart failure. tats when i decided to become an atheist forever

[GoldenWolf]

I wouldn't call atheism more logical than all theists positions. Certainly you have a point with fundamentalists. Calling atheism "logical" denotes theists are illogical. This is not true. Both positions start with an unproovable premise, and is long as fallacies are avoided to the conclusion then premise must be logical. Not necessarily right but not illogical. Something that atheists and theists alike avoid.

Too many try and justify mass murder and genocide as justice (for the most petty and vain of reasons), so, I don't think they are logical.

Edited July 15, 2012 by HavocWing

[libstaK]

Which is why I specified that this related to creationists. Assumptions work both ways too.

No you didn't the title of the thread says believers and atheists, creationists are clearly mentioned as an example within the frame of your OP - which generalises the context of your OP.

The context is clarified in the following from your OP:

Let's break this down. I've had many debates with creationists, where I've asked them what proof they would need to accept evolution as fact. The ones who've actually answered have usually told me that they would never accept evolution as fact no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

This is a faith based position.

However, most atheists are simply atheists because there is no evidence of a 'creator'. If that changed and scientifically provable evidence was discovered to show the existence of a creator then most atheists would accept it because they are not limited to a position of 'faith' that cannot change.

Notice your "breakdown" denotes creationists but the premise of the argument of the OP is about believers - it is perfectly within context that believers are therefore generalised as creationists.

Also to support the rebuttal begins with "however MOST atheists ....

It is a common an easy trap to fall into - people do this all over the forum, blame entire races/religions/secular groups for the actions or positions that radical minorities within them choose to take.

Edited July 15, 2012 by libstaK

[White Crane Feather]

Most atheists are open to the evolution of their knowledge as 'mankinds' knowledge and understanding advances through proven research, how is the unecumbered quest for knowledge for it's own sake not the most logical stance to take?

The pretence that atheism is a 'belief system' in the same way that religion is, is simply ridiculous.

I have not met very many of those atheists. A chosen stance of skepticism is a lot different than an open mind. Not necceseraly a bad stance, but defiantly not open. Many atheists believe in the fairy tail of the non belief. I will Mabey accept this from the week atheist position which is really just agnosticism as opposed to the the strong atheist stance which certainly is a belief and yes if it is based on science it is a system.

[White Crane Feather]

Most 'atheists' are defined as such via a logical position that there is no basis in proven fact for a religious 'belief system'. How could that not be more logical than a system of 'beliefs' that is based soley on faith without any proof?

Not all theists have faith. There are more kinds of evidence than empirical evidence, circumstantial, anecdotal, personal experience etc etc. there are theists that have seen the other types of evidence mount up to surpass the need for empiricism. Scientists do this all the time with their theories, then they go on the quest to find the empirical evidence. There are things in the universe that can never be prooven emphirically ( spiritual or otherwise) it is illogical and Honestly conceded to think that we little nats can actually comprehend everything to scale. This is the atheists fallacy and yes their belief. I understand rejecting religions, I do it my self, but a strong atheistic position is in no way more logical than a theists position. Atheists do not have a monopoly on logic. In some ways many worship empiricism to the point of being just as illogical as a fundamentalist.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

Too many try and justify mass murder and genocide as justice (for the most petty and vain of reasons), so, I don't think they are logical.

You are generalizing here. China murdered people in Tibet in the name of atheism and uses your very argument as why. That's not very logical either is it. "religion is poison" -- "seven years in Tibet"

[Arbenol]

A chosen stance of skepticism is a lot different than an open mind.

But it shouldn't be. Scepticism simply means to question everything, not to doubt everything. And being open-minded is completely overrated. I think it's far healthier to be discerning-minded. Think of your mind as you would your house. It's good to have a welcoming home, but if you're not at least a little discerning as to who you let in, you're going to end up with a lounge full of Jehovah's witnesses and vacuum cleaner salesmen.

[White Crane Feather]

But it shouldn't be. Scepticism simply means to question everything, not to doubt everything. And being open-minded is completely overrated. I think it's far healthier to be discerning-minded. Think of your mind as you would your house. It's good to have a welcoming home, but if you're not at least a little discerning as to who you let in, you're going to end up with a lounge full of Jehovah's witnesses and vacuum cleaner salesmen.

Or worse ----

The problem arises, when I won't let anyone in because I have chosen to my position, made up my mind that everyone is a theif or a salesman.

Fundamentalism is no good on either side if the coin. And yes some atheists and usually the more vocal of the group are fundamentalists, just as some theists, and usually the more vocal of the group are also fundamentalists.

[Arbenol]

Or worse ----

The problem arises, when I won't let anyone in because I have chosen to my position, made up my mind that everyone is a theif or a salesman.

Fundamentalism is no good on either side if the coin. And yes some atheists and usually the more vocal of the group are fundamentalists, just as some theists, and usually the more vocal of the group are also fundamentalists.

Absolutely right. Nothing worse than dogmatic adherence to an ideology. But I think the OP had a decent point. Many think that atheists are hostile toward the idea of a god, but I don't think this is necessarily true. Hostile to religion? Definitely. But that's a different matter. Good evidence for god/s could have quite an effect. Now the argument is about what constitutes good evidence.

[White Crane Feather]

Absolutely right. Nothing worse than dogmatic adherence to an ideology. But I think the OP had a decent point. Many think that atheists are hostile toward the idea of a god, but I don't think this is necessarily true. Hostile to religion? Definitely. But that's a different matter. Good evidence for god/s could have quite an effect. Now the argument is about what constitutes good evidence.

Now where would they get that idea ?

See my posts above. Dogmatic adherence to empiricism is the problem here.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Seeker79

[GoldenWolf]

You are generalizing here. China murdered people in Tibet in the name of atheism and uses your very argument as why. That's not very logical either is it. "religion is poison" -- "seven years in Tibet"

Well, what china did wasn't logical either, I don't pick sides, that would include atheists that committed mass murder and genocide also. Or muslims, or jews. I don't think you can ever justify mass murder or genocide.

I prefer to speak as an individual, not lump myself into any one group.

Edited July 15, 2012 by HavocWing

[White Crane Feather]

Well, what china did wasn't logical either, I don't pick sides, that would include atheists that committed mass murder and genocide also. Or muslims, or jews. I don't think you can ever justify mass murder or genocide.

I prefer to speak as an individual, not lump myself into any one group.

Right. The point being that people comit those crimes for any number of political or ideological reasons. It will happen with or without theistic beliefs. Logic is not morality. don't confuse the two. There can be very good logical reason to comit genocide.., that dosnt make it right.

[Arbenol]

Dogmatic adherence to empiricism is the problem here.

However, we know that empiricism works.

[GoldenWolf]

Right. The point being that people comit those crimes for any number of political or ideological reasons. It will happen with or without theistic beliefs. Logic is not morality. don't confuse the two. There can be very good logical reason to comit genocide.., that dosnt make it right.

Do you think what is happening in syria right now is logical? People are going to go against tyranny, history proves that. So even attempting it is illogical.

[Habitat]

However, we know that empiricism works.

You don't know it "works" for this subject, in the way you assume it should.

[Ashotep]

I don't think Christians fear atheists they just want to convert them, save their souls, that is not fear, maybe annoying to a atheist.

[White Crane Feather]

However, we know that empiricism works.

For science. Science is based on the empirical. Origins, divinity, etc etc is the realm of philosophy. Empiricism itself is a philosophy. Logic leads to a conclusion empiricism prooving that conclusion. Science cannot even begin to converse with the unproovable. It can't it's underlying philosophy is empiricism. Our next best avenue of exploration is deduction/induction..... Logic, in which we have to take into account other kinds of evidence.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Seeker79