I really hate fundie fucktards.

[tavarish]

If a person feels they are an atheist and through atheism she learns religions are morally corrupt
Then she goes and burns down a church would you hold atheism responsible? yourself as an atheist?

That would be a brilliant analogy if atheism indeed mandated to behave in a certain way, but it doesn't.

You might very well be walking the line, as might some others, but don't pretend that people aren't choosing sides. Atheists responses are somewhat less predictable, than a fundamentalists, but predictable as well.Just look at the convert stories on this forum as a whole. Don't pretend that self-labeling as atheist doesn't hold societal expectations and a connotation, as does the label Christian. I learned that very well my first few weeks here. I don't know anything about Saul Alinsky, but it sounds like a call for action to me, and what is that if not a mandate.

Societal stigmas and personality traits are not the same as internal dogmas and social control.

Would you like to know WHY the term "atheist" brings negative connotations? It's due to the fact the religious majority of the world views it as taboo and against the beliefs that they hold dear. Christopher Hitchens advocates the Iraq War - something that he did on the back of a ticket fueled by his books based on his rejection of belief. Does that mean that other atheists should follow his political views? Of course not. Richard Dawkins makes many points that I disagree with. I can do that because I hold allegiance to no one. I don't look up to famous atheistic debaters (although I do look to them for debating strengths and weaknesses), and I won't answer any call to arms unless my rights are being infringed or I or my loved ones are in danger.

Just because some people are outspoken and urge others to think like them does not mean it has any internal regulation or dogma. Those are the views of those people, and those people alone. They are not speaking for anyone else but themselves.

However, Christians speaking for their religion, acting on religious beliefs, ARE promoting an internal dogma. When they approach the public stage, they represent their religious denomination, as there ARE mandates that urge Christians to act within certain boundaries.

It's not a fine line, it's a huge difference.

[Tiberius]

Person believes she is an X
X mandates that she act in a certain way
P acts in that way and Y is a consequence
Therefore society label X is (at least partly) responsible for Y

As leo already pointed out, atheism doesn't mandate that anyone act in a certain way, so atheism cannot be 'X'. I'd also like to point out that similar de-conversion stories does not imply similar actions, i.e. that these people will react in the same way to different scenarios. There are plenty of atheists who despise religion, there are plenty of atheists who just don't care, there are plenty of atheists who respect it, etc.

I contend that people are far more likely to act in a certain way due to a political or idealogical belief, rather than a lack of belief. A lack of belief in a god no more mandates a way to behave than a lack of a belief in unicorns. A belief in a god might very well do that though, given that something is believed.

[fr0d0]

However, Christians speaking for their religion, acting on religious beliefs, ARE promoting an internal dogma. When they approach the public stage, they represent their religious denomination, as there ARE mandates that urge Christians to act within certain boundaries.

It's not a fine line, it's a huge difference.

Bollocks.

Do you see how hypocritical that statement is?

Well known atheist says something ...that isn't representative of atheism.
Any Christian says something - somehow that's automatically Christian dogma and all Christians believe it.

Bollocks.

[Tiberius]

I agree with fr0d0. It's only representative of Christianity if that is an actual view within Christianity itself. People like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, etc are not representative of Christianity; they are only representative of their particular twisted view of Christianity, and to claim that this mandates all Christians is ridiculous.

[Thor]

Who would you have me blame? Is the religion now a person accountable for things? She was the one who believed what she did, she was the one who let the child starve to death, she was the on ewho took this course of action and it was ultimately all her fault. Are you suggesting that instead of putting her on trial for this, we should put the religion she classified herself under on trial?

As I said, I BLAME BOTH. I blame the woman for being stupid enough to let her child starve to death. She should certainly go to jail. I also blame her religion for injecting fucked up beliefs into her head that made her think she was doing the right thing. Obviously, we can't put the religion on trial because ultimately a person is responsible for their own actions. In this instance, I consider the religion to be the equivalent of an unindicted coconspirator.

[LEDO]

Person believes she is an X
X mandates that she act in a certain way
P acts in that way and Y is a consequence
Therefore society label X is (at least partly) responsible for Y

As leo already pointed out, atheism doesn't mandate that anyone act in a certain way, so atheism cannot be 'X'. I'd also like to point out that similar de-conversion stories does not imply similar actions, i.e. that these people will react in the same way to different scenarios. There are plenty of atheists who despise religion, there are plenty of atheists who just don't care, there are plenty of atheists who respect it, etc.

I am sooo confused. So does this make atheists, "X- Men?" Or are X-Men, atheists?

[tackattack]

@Adrian, if a church can be found guilty of villifying muslims, what makes you think that atheist foundations couldn't be found guilt of villifying religion. I don't think atheism as a label is a religion or even a world view. I think it does expect extrodinary evidence for extrodinary claims. By, default rejects al intangible claims, not commonly accept by science, and a lot of atheists have unjustly been attacked by religion, and feel it right to fight back. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but without even acknowledging it I fear hate and division will continue to be the human way.

[Minimalist]

People like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, etc are not representative of Christianity

Ah, but according to their followers they are not only "representative" of xtianity they are far more faithful to it than catholics and episcopalians and lutherans etc., etc., etc.

For myself, I never begrudge anyone who wants it the title of "xtian." You believe in the dead-jew-on-a-stick? You're a xtian as far as I am concerned.[/code]

[tavarish]

However, Christians speaking for their religion, acting on religious beliefs, ARE promoting an internal dogma. When they approach the public stage, they represent their religious denomination, as there ARE mandates that urge Christians to act within certain boundaries.

It's not a fine line, it's a huge difference.

Bollocks.

Do you see how hypocritical that statement is?

Well known atheist says something ...that isn't representative of atheism.
Any Christian says something - somehow that's automatically Christian dogma and all Christians believe it.

Bollocks.

Notice where I said "Christians speaking for their religion and acting on religious beliefs", not "if any Christian says anything".

I also said they "represent their religious denomination", not necessarily Christianity as a whole. I chose my words carefully.

---

I agree with fr0d0. It's only representative of Christianity if that is an actual view within Christianity itself. People like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, etc are not representative of Christianity; they are only representative of their particular twisted view of Christianity, and to claim that this mandates all Christians is ridiculous.

I illustrated that they represent their denomination (or "twisted view") of Christianity, not that any Christian on the public stage is suddenly a spokesperson for the religion as a whole.

[Watson]

As I said, I BLAME BOTH.

Bullshit. You can't blame the religion for letting the child die. The mother let the child die. No one else. She is accountable only for her own actions, and her beliefs are her own, no one elses.

I blame the woman for being stupid enough to let her child starve to death. She should certainly go to jail.

And so you've answered your own conundrum...

I also blame her religion for injecting fucked up beliefs into her head that made her think she was doing the right thing.

Apparently you think all human beings are weak-willed, spineless *explicitive of your choice here*s who can't even think for themselves. The woman had the choice to reject or accept the ideas presented to her. Even though the ideas were imbecilic in nature, she still accepted them. That's her fault, not the religion's.

Obviously, we can't put the religion on trial because ultimately a person is responsible for their own actions. In this instance, I consider the religion to be the equivalent of an unindicted coconspirator.

I bolded where you pretty much reaffirmed my point. Ultimately, a person makes their own decisions, and whether or not they have the good sense to resist foolish ideas s up to them or not. If they can't resist stupid concepts, shame on them, not on the concept itself. You're basically asserting that there is no such thing as an individual and that we are all shaped by outside forces. Bullshit we are, the internal is the only thing wich makes you you, and your choices reflect who you are.