Why are Atheists afraid to insult Islam and Jews?

[*Deidre*]

Not "exaggerating" anything. Jews and Muslims and Christians cant get along. Their respective governments circle the wagons and protect their respective tribes. Those governments have weapons. And are willing to die over old books. That to me is insanity. And you should consider what is more important, an "insult" or a nuclear war because this is also the same rock you live on.
Now you'd advocate for the sake of political correctness they don't get picked on when they are holding our planet hostage? You must not watch the news that much.
Make all three of them a deal, when they stop fighting then I'll stop picking on them.

I was indoctrinated as a kid into Christianity. I carried it with me into adulthood. Over the past five years, and I was still a theist when I met most of these people, I became friends with more atheists than theists. I've dated more atheists than theists, as well, even when I was a theist. Having said that, not a one ever insulted me. They didn't respect religion in a general sense, and believed that Christianity was the folly of fools. (did this make me a fool? perhaps) But, they educated me. And I educated myself. I began to look at Christianity without subjective rose colored glasses and started to examine it for what it truly is...at best hearsay, at worst...lies. Maybe a combination of both. It became a natural conclusion for me to position myself with atheism. But, even then, last year I felt myself missing the lies! The comfort of the lies. And I was insulted by a few people who I thought were my friends, but since returning to my rightful position of atheism, those people have since apologized. But, I understand why they insulted me. And they understood why I missed faith. Deconversion is not easy for people who have lived a life of faith. I can see clearly now how silly religion is, but back then...I didn't. 

If you ever come across a theist, befriend one. Take one under your wing, and teach him/her...educate him/her. Not in an attacking or forceful way but in a way that seems inviting. That is how religion will die out, if it ever does. You can't insult away an ideology. If it were that easy, religion would have been eradicated a long time ago. 
That's all I'm trying to say, Brian. 

---

@Brian

Bill Maher is quite funny (coming from a non-native English speaker) but he is also anti-vaccination - As I said before, no one is free from delusions

Religious people kill over their beliefs? So what? People kill over politics, ideology, money, pieces of land, sex and love - Why do atheists give special treatment to religion? Do you believe that killing for religion is worse than killing for ideology? Your assertion is (much like many intellectually weak atheist arguments) overly narrow minded and only displays a very specific viewpoint on religion

The point of Deidre is that in social circles atheism is sometimes associated with insulting and hating religion when there is no absolute commandment for that - Some atheists like Alain de Botton think religion can teach atheists something and we should just steal those positive aspects from it. New Atheism in particular is characterized for a fierce criticism of religion. Seeing the world trough one group's perspective is harmful to oneself and prevents self-examination and self-critique. If you spend your life listening to lectures by Richard Dawkins you will most likely grow up thinking religion is a force of evil to be eradicated or that it is a disease/virus that spreads trough the mind and corrupts people. Not everyone shares the view that atheists need to be hostile towards religion and not everyone spends their live writing books like The God Delusion. 

Wake up - Atheists can be as delusional as other people. Not believing in god doesn't make you a special snowflake or give you intellectual superiority like Dawkins indirectly advocates - It just means you are rationalizing well on the field of theology. It doesn't mean anything else. The fact atheism is just a lack of belief in god is not important as much as what atheists do with their lives and how they organize themselves, and we are prone to the same dogmas, groupthinking and narrow views as everyone else. Atheists don't have different brain patterns or chemical properties. We function the same way. There's no reason to promote groupthinking mentalities of atheists V theists specially considering much stronger divisions in the world like social class.

Not "exaggerating" anything. Jews and Muslims and Christians cant get along. Their respective governments circle the wagons and protect their respective tribes. Those governments have weapons. And are willing to die over old books. That to me is insanity. And you should consider what is more important, an "insult" or a nuclear war because this is also the same rock you live on.

I always wonder if you ever considered why tribalism is wrong... I think tribalism, even if it sounds outdated, is a natural instinct and there's nothing in it to be afraid of. I prefer my own group to others. I prefer my family (tribe) to the rest of society. That is a valuable concept for the future of our societies that will probably drastically change in the next 50 years (And I will be alive to see it). Jews, Muslims and Christians have got along during history in certain time periods. What exactly do you think religion is causing? Under what evidence? Do you think that Obama is attacking ISIS because of Christianity? 

Now you'd advocate for the sake of political correctness they don't get picked on when they are holding our planet hostage? You must not watch the news that much.

Make all three of them a deal, when they stop fighting then I'll stop picking on them.

You sound exactly like a preacher saying "i'm right because I said so". Did you notice that? Do you have any proof for your claims? What planet is hostage? Only if you consider humans the captors

The ugly truth is religion teaches humans to die over old books and Sam Harris is right, and so is Ayaan and Bill, far too many well intended liberals on the left use arguments like in this thread to shut down a conversation.

Hmm not all religions have books (if we consider them all) and if we exclude the problematics in Islam I think there's many justifications to kill or not and you can find them theologically or ideologically. Killing each other is part of the natural state of affairs as well. Sam Harris shows a narrow view on religion like the rest of New Atheism (seriously - atheism can't have dogma right? Why do they all sound the same then?) - You should try to read on someone who shows a different view.


As for your argument about leaving superstition - It's not that easy. You see, I'm educated, middle class and privileged - Because I know something about science, I have time to develop my intellect and I don't need religion I can understand how our universe works (the basics) and justify my non-belief in god. You don't get to mock someone for believing in god or even creationism if they don't have an education, are extremely poor and no one helped them get out of ignorance. If you are intelligent you shouldn't mock people who have lower IQ's and have trouble understanding easier concepts and letting theist beliefs go. Some people go trough desperate life situations and believing in something higher helps them cope. I never lost a relative in a terrible situation like some of my friends did - My brain isn't a copy of other people's brains, and therefore I can't judge people for being religious or believing on the basis of my perspective and life experience when no one shares it (only me).

The vision that destroying religion will create a better world is a narrow minded reductionist naive one and reminds me vaguely of the final goal of converting everyone to the same faith. If we consider social circumstances, nurturing and biological aspects that lead to religion, I think it is impossible a world without religious people unless you want to become a soviet Union. Even if you provided a perfect society, considering there's about 7-10% of elite scientists who are religious, I think we can only conclude it's in some people's nature. To believe otherwise is going against human psychology, sociology and our history - It's a delusion like any other. Human beings are not known for being rational. Atheists are rational towards the god question, but we can be irrational for everything else.


Don't get me wrong - You can criticize religion everyday all you want, but if you want to be freethinker try to avoid narrow minded perspectives and actually search for the truth

---

Well-intended liberals remember what has happened when bigotry is not checked. There is a difference between being polite to the point of seeking political correctness and attacking someone's beliefs merely to attack their beliefs.

I agree that every group needs to be checked. Organized atheism is not an exception. Thinking one group is magically different and right is naive and leads to disasters. No one thought the national-socialist party of Germany would get anywhere. Believing something will not happen is the reason why it happens. Atheists are not free from dogmas and they usually replace religious dogmas with other dogmas even if they don't realize it themselves (we all do it subconsciously). 

[Cephus]

The French should, the Muslim who recently took hostages at the Jewish Deli was black.

It was a grocery store from what I remember, may have had a deli in it. But there was a Muslim also who helped hide Jews preventing them from getting killed.

I was thinking deli because the Muslim in question hid Jewish customers in the walk-in refrigerator but you could be right.  It doesn't really matter since the whole point was that the Muslim terrorist in question was black, not Arab.  Islam is not a race in any way, shape or form, no matter how you contort it.

---

No, it won't destroy religion, but to a lot of religious people, even questioning their religion is the same as direct, personal insults against them.  They cannot see their religion as anything but the core principle of their self-image.  Heck, look at the Middle East, atheism absolutely has to be synonymous with walking on eggshells, if it comes out that you're not a Muslim, you face being ostracized, imprisoned or worse.

---

No, it won't destroy religion, but to a lot of religious people, even questioning their religion is the same as direct, personal insults against them.  They cannot see their religion as anything but the core principle of their self-image.  Heck, look at the Middle East, atheism absolutely has to be synonymous with walking on eggshells, if it comes out that you're not a Muslim, you face being ostracized, imprisoned or worse.

[Brian37]

"Bigot" now we've gone from "insult" to "bigot".

Never said atheists are special or get a pass either. Don't accuse me of being "dogmatic" because of my bluntness. Atheists are perfectly capable of being dogmatic which is why when I run into those who want to write their own list of moral codes I warn them not to PRECISELY  because I don't want to see that word go from a mere position to a religion itself. You think I don't go after atheists too?

Don't get me wrong - You can criticize religion everyday all you want, but if you want to be freethinker try to avoid narrow minded perspectives and actually search for the truth

Good, then if I can, what is your problem? "Freethinker" and words like "humanist" are far too often, not always, but words people use because they don't like the stigma of the word "atheist".

Not about being closed minded, that is another code argument people use shut down a conversation.

Closed minded would be what the Church did to Galileo. Bigoted would be still insisting blacks use separate schools and bathrooms. Bigoted is what causes a huge uptick in hate groups upon Obama's first election. Bigoted is what Islam does when you say boo to them.

If you don't like my bluntness that is fine, not your thing.  Being open minded does not mean humans have to cling to old books or give bad ideas that lead humans to hurt other humans a pass.

Former Muslims

https://www.facebook.com/exmna

Black atheists

https://www.facebook.com/BlackAtheists

Iranian atheists and agnostics
https://www.facebook.com/IAAMT

Syrian atheists

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Syrian-At...10?fref=ts

Hispanic atheists

https://www.facebook.com/HispanicAtheist...ca?fref=ts

India atheists,

https://www.facebook.com/groups/532498580118390/

https://www.facebook.com/IndianAtheists?fref=ts

Thats just a few, atheists are worldwide. And there are many more groups on other social media and tons more on facebook. And every single atheists  has family and friends and co workers who are still in religion.

Do not imply that my bluntness is bigotry and don't imply or accuse me of being closed minded.

---

The vision that destroying religion will create a better world is a narrow minded

Bucking social norms is why blacks are no longer slaves, and why women can vote, and even now why many states allow for gay marriage. Now wanna bet when those oppressive laws existed where the source for their morality was coming from to do those oppressive things? What do you think the source of morality was for the 9/11 hijackers was?

"Destroy" is when you use weapons and murder. No one should be out to physically force anyone to stop believing. No one should be out to physically destroy past history either. 

But that does not mean we as a species need to be clinging to the past. If our species never questioned social norms our species never would left the caves. 

Now again the facts are far too many humans put religion as the thing they are willing to die for as their top priority, their morality is coming from old books. Those people are in government and have weapons. So please don't presume blasphemy or cussing is the same as bigotry.

[isalexi]

Maybe because they are scapegoated groups ...and the victimizers are usually Christians

[Brian37]

UGGGGGGGGGGGGG

This isn't about one label, this is about human's flawed perceptions.

When you blame Christians you miss our species entire history of bad logic.

The terms "majority and minority" are geographical and time frame based.

A Christian in the west complaining about being oppressed while being the real bigot is being a crybaby. A Christian living in Iraq being murdered by Isis has a right to bitch. Just like a Muslim living in America is going to be more likely to be treated as suspect than a Christian.

People completely missed one aspect of France and the Hebdo murders. Jews in Europe complain about bigotry, and they are right. Muslims also complain about bigotry and they too are also right.

But what all three miss is that RELIGION itself is cause of human divisions. You sell the idea that your tribe deserves to be given a pedestal you can get to a political level of thinking the "other" is a separate species.

All three religions are full of fan club members who get stuck on pretty which causes them to be too sensitive and over protective and doesn't allow them to a great enough degree to see others as being the same species.

You cannot get rid of religion, but you can face humans with the fact that we are the same species. Which is why we need to speak in terms of logic and not speak in terms of labels or "us vs them". Religion is poison because it take our natural range of human behavior and turns it into a comic book. Not even "atheist" should be treated as if it is a patent holder of human morality. Our species morality is in our evolution, not the labels or clubs we invent.

[Hatshepsut]

• "Bigot" now we've gone from "insult" to "bigot"...
  
• "Freethinker" and words like "humanist" are far too often...
  
• another code argument people use shut down a conversation...
  
• Closed minded... Bigoted would be still insisting...
  

(rearrangement of quoted material mine)

As Star Trek's Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating." First, two formerly unrelated words, insult and bigot, are now married to each other in most discussions that touch the topics Political Correctness oversees. Then another pair of formerly unrelated words, humanist and atheist, became aliases for anti-theist as well as for one another. Among the most common codes foreclosing a conversation is rape apologist. Bigotry has moved far from advocating "coloured" water fountains to the least suggestion that Michael Brown's behavior may have contributed to his demise last year in Ferguson.

Political Correctness indeed represents a major shift in the English language and has altered our logic just as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis predicts it might. It's really PC that is afraid of offending Jews or Muslims over religious sensibilities, although its conception of historical oppressors and proclivity for deconstruction require Christians now be fair game. Bill Maher and Sam Harris deviate significantly from PC in this respect.

Thanks for the multicultural Facebook spectrum sample of atheism, however.  

[Brian37]

Now at the risk of pissing off Star Trek fans, they do have to know that just like Big Bang Theory distorts the reality of scientist's geeks and atheists, Spock and Kirk were metaphorical characters, but also distortions of what constitutes logic.

Metaphors are not bad, but should never be used to replace reality.

Even Star Trek fans can flip out when you tell them the show did not invent anything. The things we have now were due to scientists and inventors outside that show. The same sample rate error causes the fans to miss all the things in that show that will never be a reality like Tribbles and Klingons.

No different than when religion points to the pretty things in their motifs which occur outside their clubs.

I have a friend just last week reminded me of an evolutionary fact, people can and do divide over everything. He is a country music fan, and has told me that banjo players literally fight over which is a better type of banjo. No different than people fighting over their favorite sports teams.

You can literally take several people who do not know each other, say 12 people who have never met and don't know anything about each other, divide them up, create a game for them to play, 6 on each side, and the rivalry kicks in.

[Hatshepsut]

Now at the risk of pissing off Star Trek fans...[who might] flip out when you tell them the show did not invent anything.

I'm hard to offend. I just love when Mr. Spock raises his eyebrows since you know some emotion has  to be there. For emotion itself is a part of intelligence, associated with the brain's limbic system. Persons whose emotions are disordered have serious problems and don't make intelligent decisions as a rule. So I see truth when you say that Star Trek  distorted a lot of stuff.

It's also quite true that the science of Star Trek  is absurd, except maybe the handheld "communicators." Star Trek  was mostly a sociological and political commentary, in the original series taken from the Cold War American ideal. That "don't interfere" Prime Directive and first thing Cowboy Kirk does is sock the shy native who is spying on the landing party after beam-down! Yet for me in 1974, reruns of this show were godsent in the universe of drivel littering network TV you got via rabbit ears. The only action-adventure alternatives were The Six Million Dollar Man  with Lee Majors or Hawaii Five-O 's "book 'em, Danno!" Leonard Nimoy's writers did acknowledge emotion in Spock in their own little subtle ways. Theodore Sturgeon wrote for them once.

I think the human group joining-or-dividing over any criterion is called "fission-fusion" society. Just like those fission-fusion bombs in the world of wartime physics!