News5 mins ago
Why are atheists so mistrusted (despised?) by those who believe?
139 Answers
I've often heard it said (mostly by Americans on TV) that they'd rather vote for someone who was religious, regardless of their religion, than they would an atheist.
So two questions:
Question A: Christians, who would you prefer to have as a neighbour - a muslim or an atheist?
Question B: Muslims, who would you prefer to have as a neighbour - a christian or an atheist?
So two questions:
Question A: Christians, who would you prefer to have as a neighbour - a muslim or an atheist?
Question B: Muslims, who would you prefer to have as a neighbour - a christian or an atheist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Keyplus - “... Because Atheists are arrogant...”
Oh dear. Your simplistic arguments are wearing rather thin my old friend. This website is replete with your bigoted and foolish posts. I could argue with you but at this moment in time I see no reason to since Lazygun has asked you a series of questions that are direct and pertinent to the discussion.
I do hope you will be attempting to address his questions soon but I strongly suspect that you will simply ignore them as that is your modus operandi when dealing with questions you don't like the look of. I suspect your inner coward will prevail.
Prove me wrong.
Oh dear. Your simplistic arguments are wearing rather thin my old friend. This website is replete with your bigoted and foolish posts. I could argue with you but at this moment in time I see no reason to since Lazygun has asked you a series of questions that are direct and pertinent to the discussion.
I do hope you will be attempting to address his questions soon but I strongly suspect that you will simply ignore them as that is your modus operandi when dealing with questions you don't like the look of. I suspect your inner coward will prevail.
Prove me wrong.
The question I posed was asking why atheists are largely distrusted (and often despised) by their deist counterparts. I've never really heard an atheist saying that they hate christians or muslims or buddhists or sikhs, or mormons, or... whomever.
However, I have heard it said by deists that they would find it preferable to have as a neighbour someone who was religious (of any denomination) as they are more likely to be law abiding and moral than an atheist. The implication being that atheists are somehow less trustworthy and less moral than those who believe in god.
All that being said, I think that your question is a very interesting one deserving of its own thread. Do you want to do the honours? ;-)
However, I have heard it said by deists that they would find it preferable to have as a neighbour someone who was religious (of any denomination) as they are more likely to be law abiding and moral than an atheist. The implication being that atheists are somehow less trustworthy and less moral than those who believe in god.
All that being said, I think that your question is a very interesting one deserving of its own thread. Do you want to do the honours? ;-)
Americans will vote for someone with whom they can identify in some way and, since the majority believe in god and attend church, they aren't going to identify with someone who doesn't do either. There were concerns about JFK being Catholic,to the extent that he felt compelled to make a speech about it, but at least the ordinary American could accept him as believing in god and attending church. Likewise, Mitt Romney being Mormon was seen as a handicap, but at least he was true in his beliefs and worshipped god.
If Americans might distrust someone of a Christian religion because his version was not their own, an atheist has no chance, however moral and upstanding he is. Politicians there make a point of saying, not only which branch of the faith they belong to, but even which church they attend. That is obviously regarded as important, in showing the person to be 'normal' by their standards.
If Americans might distrust someone of a Christian religion because his version was not their own, an atheist has no chance, however moral and upstanding he is. Politicians there make a point of saying, not only which branch of the faith they belong to, but even which church they attend. That is obviously regarded as important, in showing the person to be 'normal' by their standards.
Keyplus, //But I reached a conclusion after reading few books of your saint Richard Dawkins that this illusion of self-praise is the core of your faith.//
Of course you did. ;o)
Saints are not a consideration to atheists, they don’t have ‘faith’, and many of them disagree with some of what Richard Dawkins says, which is more than can be said for you and your prophet. You wouldn’t dare! Despite having been told that many times before, you find it impossible to comprehend that others can and do live their lives without relying upon other people for guidance. Atheists have outgrown childish dependence - they take responsibility for themselves.
Of course you did. ;o)
Saints are not a consideration to atheists, they don’t have ‘faith’, and many of them disagree with some of what Richard Dawkins says, which is more than can be said for you and your prophet. You wouldn’t dare! Despite having been told that many times before, you find it impossible to comprehend that others can and do live their lives without relying upon other people for guidance. Atheists have outgrown childish dependence - they take responsibility for themselves.
Birdie; //I have heard it said by deists that they would find it preferable to have as a neighbour someone who was religious (of any denomination) as they are more likely to be law abiding and moral than an atheist.//
While I don't believe either atheists or the religious have a monopoly on morality, when I was secretary for a branch of Amnesty International and we needed to send emergency funds to 'dangerous' parts of the world, we usually used as contacts religious leaders of one sort or another, on the basis (and hope) that they would be reliable, - which they always were. This doesn't mean to say that an atheist contact would be less so, but in certain circumstances it can appear to be more of a guarantee.
While I don't believe either atheists or the religious have a monopoly on morality, when I was secretary for a branch of Amnesty International and we needed to send emergency funds to 'dangerous' parts of the world, we usually used as contacts religious leaders of one sort or another, on the basis (and hope) that they would be reliable, - which they always were. This doesn't mean to say that an atheist contact would be less so, but in certain circumstances it can appear to be more of a guarantee.
Khandro, //….in certain circumstances it can appear to be more of a guarantee.//
That’s rather disingenuous. In truth you would be more likely to choose a religious based organisation not because the religious are more reliable, as you imply, but since atheists do not adhere to a specific creed it follows that, in numbers, groups formed around religion far outstrip others and are therefore more in evidence.
That’s rather disingenuous. In truth you would be more likely to choose a religious based organisation not because the religious are more reliable, as you imply, but since atheists do not adhere to a specific creed it follows that, in numbers, groups formed around religion far outstrip others and are therefore more in evidence.
/////Oh, and according to you, Malela, you know, the young brave pakistani girl who survived the attempted assassination by the taliban, and a bullet in the head - she is somewhat responsible for what happens to her because she hated men in beards, or some other garbage./////
These are your words and not mine. I said that she got more attention in the west because she believed what I said about people with beard etc. Otherwise there had been so many other children in the same situation but no one knows or talks about them. According to my local knowledge so called Pakistani Taliban are American agents and are on CIA payroll. I (and majority of the people in Pakistan)have no doubt that CIA was behind her shooting and the objective was to divert people’s attention from other issues. Otherwise I will ask you a very simple question that an uneducated Rikshaw driver asked me when I was in Pakistan at the time she got shot, I could not answer so perhaps you can have a go. Second or third day after she got shot there were big neon signs with her picture printed on them on lamp posts and behind and on the side of public transport including Rikshaws. Now here are two very simple questions,
1 – Did someone already know that she was going to get shot as in a country like Pakistan it is almost impossible to get that number of sign boards ready, and placed everywhere within a couple of days?
2 – Who paid for all that as on average one board like that costs around 500RS and total cost would be in millions? But does not matter who paid. The question is was that paid in advance as someone somewhere knew that these boards would be needed?
As you asked about my thoughts about the other girl got killed for looking at a boy. Then you may get disappointed but in my eyes that is an action of an individual and these sorts of things has, are and unfortunately would be happening anywhere and anywhere. In my mind that is a murder and punishment for that should be death penalty. BUT THEN AGAIN YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH DEATH PENALTY, DO YOU?
These are your words and not mine. I said that she got more attention in the west because she believed what I said about people with beard etc. Otherwise there had been so many other children in the same situation but no one knows or talks about them. According to my local knowledge so called Pakistani Taliban are American agents and are on CIA payroll. I (and majority of the people in Pakistan)have no doubt that CIA was behind her shooting and the objective was to divert people’s attention from other issues. Otherwise I will ask you a very simple question that an uneducated Rikshaw driver asked me when I was in Pakistan at the time she got shot, I could not answer so perhaps you can have a go. Second or third day after she got shot there were big neon signs with her picture printed on them on lamp posts and behind and on the side of public transport including Rikshaws. Now here are two very simple questions,
1 – Did someone already know that she was going to get shot as in a country like Pakistan it is almost impossible to get that number of sign boards ready, and placed everywhere within a couple of days?
2 – Who paid for all that as on average one board like that costs around 500RS and total cost would be in millions? But does not matter who paid. The question is was that paid in advance as someone somewhere knew that these boards would be needed?
As you asked about my thoughts about the other girl got killed for looking at a boy. Then you may get disappointed but in my eyes that is an action of an individual and these sorts of things has, are and unfortunately would be happening anywhere and anywhere. In my mind that is a murder and punishment for that should be death penalty. BUT THEN AGAIN YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH DEATH PENALTY, DO YOU?
@Keyplus - and still your sympathy for Malela, such as you can bring yourself to offer, is hedged about with caveats and evasions.
Given the history of the Taleban and their documented actions against schools and education of girls, it is an obvious and pathetic resort of the apologist to declare conspiracy when everyone can see the Taleban were the agents of this assassination attempt.So, now all can see you are an apologist for the Taleban and their actions.This is not the first time you assert conspiracy - you and others like you prefer to see a conspiracy rather than recognise the truth.
And as for the other girl, who died from a vicious, cruel and barbaric acid attack at the hands of her parents - again - no sympathy offered for the girl, no comment on the reasons as to why her parents attacked her - the motive tied in to the perversion that is "honour" killing - a twisted and evil action derived from a mixture of social, familial, cultural and religious observance.
And your solution, your action is to recommend yet more killing.
Nothing you have said here offers neutrals any evidence of the peaceful nature of Islam. On the contrary, you always seem to be offering excuses or rationalisations for those fanatical, murderous loons that make up the Taleban.
And the only kind of action you recommend? The death penalty. Yeah, that sounds like the religion of peace alright. Fortunately for the rest of society, your type of thinking is on the wane. It is a shame that such inhumane views take such a long time to die. You an apologist for an especially virulent example of a zombie religion - it shambles and shuffles, reacts to everything with murderous destruction and is extremely reluctant to die - but die they always do, eventually, and the world is a better place without them.
And it atheists and humanists who are despised or mistrusted by those of faith - astonishing.
Given the history of the Taleban and their documented actions against schools and education of girls, it is an obvious and pathetic resort of the apologist to declare conspiracy when everyone can see the Taleban were the agents of this assassination attempt.So, now all can see you are an apologist for the Taleban and their actions.This is not the first time you assert conspiracy - you and others like you prefer to see a conspiracy rather than recognise the truth.
And as for the other girl, who died from a vicious, cruel and barbaric acid attack at the hands of her parents - again - no sympathy offered for the girl, no comment on the reasons as to why her parents attacked her - the motive tied in to the perversion that is "honour" killing - a twisted and evil action derived from a mixture of social, familial, cultural and religious observance.
And your solution, your action is to recommend yet more killing.
Nothing you have said here offers neutrals any evidence of the peaceful nature of Islam. On the contrary, you always seem to be offering excuses or rationalisations for those fanatical, murderous loons that make up the Taleban.
And the only kind of action you recommend? The death penalty. Yeah, that sounds like the religion of peace alright. Fortunately for the rest of society, your type of thinking is on the wane. It is a shame that such inhumane views take such a long time to die. You an apologist for an especially virulent example of a zombie religion - it shambles and shuffles, reacts to everything with murderous destruction and is extremely reluctant to die - but die they always do, eventually, and the world is a better place without them.
And it atheists and humanists who are despised or mistrusted by those of faith - astonishing.
Keyplus. I know I'm wasting my time asking you this but here goes anyway.Can you provide any proof that the majority of Pakistani people believe, as you do, that the CIA sanctioned the shooting of Malala Yousofzai?
Or is it a case, as I believe, that your assumptions become reality in your mind to suit your purpose?
Or is it a case, as I believe, that your assumptions become reality in your mind to suit your purpose?
According to Keyplus the US was responsible for 9/11 too – and were complicit in other atrocities carried out by Muslim fanatics – who, of course were responsible for nothing – not even the beheading of Ken Bigley – but then Keyplus is big on conspiracy theories – presumably because he thinks that one day the Taliban will be regarded as heroes.
Keyplus, As far as the little girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for wanting an education, this is what you actually said. // Perhaps their favourite person is not Obama and they still do not hate all of the men with beard and women with hijab like Malala does.//
…. which would rather contradict your CIA conspiracy theory.
Keyplus, As far as the little girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for wanting an education, this is what you actually said. // Perhaps their favourite person is not Obama and they still do not hate all of the men with beard and women with hijab like Malala does.//
…. which would rather contradict your CIA conspiracy theory.
