Why hate Athiest?

[Angrboda]

And how is "having the holy spirit" any different from a subjective declaration of "true" Christian or not?

Being born again is a spiritual experience in which people are grafted into God and they become a new person. God changes their desires and they receive grace and power from God in order to live a Holy life. God speaks to people and directs them and does miracles in their lives. This is the normal way that Christianity works.

No, this is how you want it to work, so that you don't have to do any heavy lifting. You have historically looked for an "easy out" from complex and difficult realities. First it was drugs, which offered an easy out, and now you've adopted a theology which also promises an easy out; you just wave your stick figure God in the air, and suddenly you're a different person. Not happening. You were an asshole before you turned to Christ, and you're still an asshole with Christ; you haven't changed. You've simply changed how you express the flaws of your character. (Come to think of it, your vapid generalizations of "atheist this" and "atheist that" are simply another side of it. Instead of coming to terms with the variety among atheists, their complex and sometimes inconsistent motivations, and their existence as human beings first and atheists second, you've created a paper cutout that's infinitely more simple to deal with than the grungy, detailed reality of these people. Everywhere you turn, you substitute a simple lie for the complex truth, because you don't like complex, difficult truths. You prefer the simple lie, whether that's a drug induced bliss or a Christ who does all the work for you so you don't have to do any of it yourself. It's the same thing.) You've just adopted a conveniently self-serving fable so you can excuse yourself from having to do the necessary work of changing your character.

(Watching your posts around this forum, the term that kept coming back to mind was that you show all the hallmarks of a dry drunk. The drugs are gone, but the thinking and behaviors remain. You've just found a religion which offers you a way to deny that. But denial doesn't lead to sobriety; it only leads to deeper and deeper denial. "[A]s one wise old drunk put it, if a horse thief goes into A.A. what you can end up with is a sober horse thief.")

[jstrodel]

I don't think all atheists are the same, but there are a lot that you can generalize 60-80% of their behavior about. Of course there are some that don't fit the generalizations but what about those that do? Isn't the more scientific way to deal with facts and numbers as opposed to some vague idea of kindness or giving people the benefit of the doubt?

I am sorry if I offended you. My intention is not to offend, it is to open peoples eyes.

How do you know I have looked for an easy way out? I have spent a very painful journey over the last 8 years learning about religion, first as a Jew. I studied philosophy in college. I moved around the country and lived in places where people believed differently from me just to understand God. I spend 6 or 7 or more hours a day thinking about philosophy or religion a day. How do you know that I look for an easy way out?

Atheism is the easy way out. Atheism says make up your own view of ethics without any kind of rules or oversight and if you screw up, don't beat yourself up, no big deal. Some people may work hard at it, but the majority I have encountered don't.

I would be burned alive for what I believe.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Atheism is the easy way out. Atheism says make up your own view of ethics without any kind of rules or oversight and if you screw up, don't beat yourself up, no big deal. Some people may work hard at it, but the majority I have encountered don't.

No, RELIGION is the easy way out. RELIGION has a nice set of rules and guidelines for you to follow. Because you, as a person, aren't strong enough to be able to decide for yourself what is right or wrong or what is moral or not.

The average person should be able to know what is wrong, and if they do something wrong, they feel guilty about it. No religion necessary for that. It's called empathy.

You think you need a promise of heaven or a punishment of hell to do good in the world? Then stick with Christianity, I'm afraid you might track my IP and burn my house down otherwise. Since, you know, without religion, there's no set rules or morals, so you'll just become a crazy motherfucker like the rest of us!

[jstrodel]

How do you know how to relate the feeling of empathy to specific actions? How do you relate quantities of empathy to actions. Or by empathy do you just mean "I try and be a nice person and basically do whatever I want"

[Angrboda]

How do you know I have looked for an easy way out? I have spent a very painful journey over the last 8 years learning about religion, first as a Jew. I studied philosophy in college. I moved around the country and lived in places where people believed differently from me just to understand God. I spend 6 or 7 or more hours a day thinking about philosophy or religion a day. How do you know that I look for an easy way out?

I don't know. But I strongly suspect, and your reaction to my drawing the parallel between your prior addictive behaviors and your unusual experiences in another thread is all too telling. First, you deleted the bulk of what I had said in quoting my post, for which you received a moderator warning (apparently, the mere sight of it was distressing). And then, instead of addressing my observations, you attacked me and tried to shoot the messenger. And you obsess over your past history of drug addiction and project onto anyone and everyone else who even so much as mentions drug use; it's obviously an issue you have yet to come to terms with and find peace over. This is classic behavior and I don't need a degree in chemical dependency counseling to see it. I don't "know," and yes I made some simplifications and assumptions, but I think the ones I made are quite justifiable.

As to whether I take offense or not, the overwhelming feeling in my heart from watching you on this forum last night was a profound sadness. I don't blame you for being who you are, but I don't want to excuse your faults either. I think, like many people, you simply aren't cognizant of what your actual behavior is. (I study psychology and cognitive bias as a hobby, and most people are blissfully unaware of the powerful ways the mind uses to fool itself.) But I see you viciously attack people like becca, simply because she corrected you over a minor factual error on your part. What the fuck? She did nothing to deserve the bile and hatred you piled upon her. I wanted to tear you a new asshole right then and there, but my religious principles stayed my hand, as it was becca's play, not mine. You have been routinely insulting, accusatory and aggressive towards anyone and everyone on this forum. You routinely stereotype and justify your attacks based on those stereotypes. I see no Christ here. I see only you. And what I see you doing is harmful and unwarranted. So, much as I feel for you, as I think life has dealt you a bad hand, from which you've yet to recover, I can't excuse the real wrong that you do.

As to your investigating philosophy and such. I don't know. Sometimes that can be fruitful, many times not. A local Buddhist I knocked heads with recently told me that he had tried to figure things out intellectually, and he came to the point where he said he had to abandon such intellectual "masturbation" and get on with the business of enlightenment. I for my part found that a telling statement, both that he considered the intellectual approach to be masturbation, and that it was opposed to the process of becoming enlightened. I see room for both, being both a very intellectually oriented person and someone who follows religious traditions firmly rooted in mysticism. When I suggested to him that perhaps it wasn't the intellectual approach which had failed, but perhaps him and his pursuit of it, and that I didn't think he would have the answers I sought (about Buddhism), he kicked me out of the Buddhist reading circle which he ran. (Does that kind of violent, defensive reaction ring any bells with you? It should.)

Atheism is the easy way out. Atheism says make up your own view of ethics without any kind of rules or oversight and if you screw up, don't beat yourself up, no big deal. Some people may work hard at it, but the majority I have encountered don't.

I think you're projecting again. I know a lot of atheists, both on the forums and in my personal life (I'm very active in discussion groups and book clubs organized by atheists and humanists). If anything, I see atheism as one of the hardest paths to follow. Existential despair is, I think, a not uncommon occurrence (though I suspect it's more common among those recently separated from religious belief, and is more a grief reaction as a consequence of the loss of the ideological supports of their former faith). I don't know any atheist who has it easy, least of all because they are one of the most hated minorities. Nobody chooses to be an atheist "because it's easy"; they choose it because to them, it is simply the right thing to do; it is what their truths and searching have led them to. Nobody sets out to become an atheist, but all the same, I think most atheists are profoundly proud of the truth they've come to. They see their atheism as a result of always doing the hard bits, and not taking the many easy outs offered by other paths.

I would be burned alive for what I beleve.

I don't know what you mean by this, so you're going to have to explain it to me. I rather doubt anyone would burn you alive today, and historically, that punishment has been reserved for people with odd, unorthodox beliefs (heresy), or non-belief and/or apostasy and/or paganism. Since it's obviously not the latter, I can only guess that you are suggesting that your religious views are heretical, which makes all your talk about True Christianity rather suspect. (In addition to it appearing to be a hydra headed no true Scotsman argument; were you the one who called that an "atheist" fallacy, made up by atheists to persecute believers? I believe it was you. You and Andrew_2013 need to realize that attacking well settled principles of classical logic and argumentation is not going to do anything for your credibility or help your arguments. Leggo my logic!)

Anyway, do tell me more about why you feel yourself in danger of persecution for what you believe. (You can tell me in PM if you like.)

[jstrodel]

Please post where I have viciously attacked someone else. I don't viciously attack people. I want to see a cut and paste of where I have viciously attacked someone.

What you are doing on this board puts people in severe danger. I write with zeal because I am angry. I have seen a lot of lives destroyed. Those are my psychological motivations, you are free to speculate but if you want to understand the reason that I write. I am angry, I have lots a lot because of atheism.

But I don't viciously attack people. I am against drugs and I am against atheism, and the two certainly go together.

[CleanShavenJesus]

I am against drugs and I am against atheism, and the two certainly go together.

You keep saying that. Practically every post you make says that (followed by a random statistic that you obviously made up as you were typing). But what is your proof? That you were into drugs when you were atheist? So?

You weren't into drugs because you were atheist. You weren't atheist because you were into drugs. And if you were (either of those cases), it wasn't the evil of atheism that made you an addict, it was you, and you alone. You keep claiming atheism is the easy way out because there are no consequences for your actions, but that was only what you told yourself when you were an atheist in the drug scene. Yes, that is speculation, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. But I have shocking news for you: you're an individual case. Just because you did that, doesn't mean [insert made-up percentage here] of atheists do the same thing.

[jstrodel]

What kind of evidence do you have for your speculation? Do you think that there is any connection between atheism and if not de jure nihilism, de facto nihilism? I think any reasonable person would be forced to accept this. Do you think there is any connection between philosophical nihilism and destructive lifestyle choices?

The argument that I made follows simply from the diversity of views on atheist approaches to ethics. Some are nihilists, others aren't. Have you ever heard of a position called non cognitivist moral anti-realism? There are a lot of serious atheist intellectuals who subscribe to it.

The argument you made is basically psychological speculation presented without any evidence.

[CleanShavenJesus]

What kind of evidence do you have for your speculation? Do you think that there is any connection between atheism and if not de jure nihilism, de facto nihilism? I think any reasonable person would be forced to accept this. Do you think there is any connection between philosophical nihilism and destructive lifestyle choices?

The argument that I made follows simply from the diversity of views on atheist approaches to ethics. Some are nihilists, others aren't. Have you ever heard of a position called non cognitivist moral anti-realism? There are a lot of serious atheist intellectuals who subscribe to it.

The argument you made is basically psychological speculation presented without any evidence.

You're not getting it. I'm not sure what else to say, because I obviously have difficulty making it clear. There are users on this site who can speak much better than I can, I guess I'll let them do it.

[jstrodel]

I asked you for evidence and you respond by refusing to provide it. It is almost like you have this song in your head saying something like "DARE lied to us, the church lied to use, the x y and z, it is all propanganda, they are liars, atheists are not drug users, there is nothing wrong with rave music, not all rock musicians use drugs, it is all propaganda propaganda propaganda" and you are saying it over and over and over again and over and over and over again.

What makes that propaganda? What if it is true? Just because someone doesn't listen to the same kind of music that you do doesn't mean that they are wrong about everything. It doesn't mean that they are brainwashed, if they listen to a different kind of music as you do.

I don't think it is wrong to draw connections between culture and the effects it has on people. I don't think that is something like racism, a generalization, unkind, something close to mean, to say that there are a lot of atheists that take recreational illegal drug use to have no moral implications.