Why do atheists seem to dislike Christians?

[Whitney]

I split off the protesting discussion (well, most of it) to here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8072.0

[Medusa]

@ Medusa: Now, if you have a need for me to have a soft voice projecting this message, in order to even give it the time of day, well, I think the time is up for that

I'm not really sure what that even means. I'm a Satanist. Does it look like I need anyone to tip toe around their dislike for anything? I hate quite openly. And Whitney I am purposefully using that word to describe my own actions here. I don't dislike things as much as hate. I do balls out when it comes to emotions. Though you are right Gawen didn't say he hated Christians. He just dislikes all of them. My bad. I hadn't realized it was possible to dislike them all. But ok.

I don't think it's apathy keeping people from replying to this thread.

[xSilverPhinx]

I just noticed that I didn't add my own views to this thread whcih worries me slightly because I get people in real life speaking for me all the time so...

It's not that I dislike Christians because they are Christians (or whatever other religious denomination). That argument is essentially fallacious, and a false generalisation. I dislike what people use a positive philosophy to do and justify behaviours that I find to be wrong and undesirable. Outside of those, there are no conflicts with what I think and what other people choose to believe in their private lives.

I'm certain that even within the Christian religion, people can (and do) cherry pick parts of the bible that I don't see any problem with. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus can be a good moral teacher to some people, if they should choose to follow his philosophy. On the other hand, I know some people who I hope never leave religion, because...I'm not so sure about what they would do without a god in the sky always watching them and holding them to external and imposed standards.

The main problem I have with religious philosophies is that they really do think that they are god's messenger's on Earth, and use that to justify (and especially remove their own personal accountability from) their behaviours. Not to mention religion actually encourages non critical group-think, which is almost always disasterous.

[Gawen]

I just noticed that I didn't add my own views to this thread whcih worries me slightly because I get people in real life speaking for me all the time so...

Bad bad Phinx. Does silver tarnish?...*mischievous grin*
I don't mean to pick you apart, so don't take it that way? But I'm not understanding a few things.

I dislike what people use a positive philosophy to do and justify behaviours that I find to be wrong and undesirable.

How do you reconcile that, with this:

The main problem I have with religious philosophies is that they really do think that they are god's messenger's on Earth, and use that to justify (and especially remove their own personal accountability from) their behaviours. Not to mention religion actually encourages non critical group-think, which is almost always disasterous.

I'm certain that even within the Christian religion, people can (and do) cherry pick parts of the bible that I don't see any problem with.

But don't you find the cherry picking a problem in itself?

As far as I'm concerned, Jesus can be a good moral teacher to some people, if they should choose to follow his philosophy.

Have you studied Jesus' philosophy? When compiled and seen as a whole, it's anything but good and moral. And this should one way or another take you back to your cherry picking comment. What good is a philosophy that is corrupt and what is good of a person who cherry picks what they feel is the good parts of a corrupt philosophy and claim the entire philosophy and themselves as good?

On the other hand, I know some people who I hope never leave religion, because...I'm not so sure about what they would do without a god in the sky always watching them and holding them to external and imposed standards.

I hear that!!

Once again I'll say this. I don't have a problem with religion, per say and theists. What I dislike is the few American segments of a so-called Christianity who would push their views on the entire society AND those other segments that do not quite believe the few who won't stand up to it...and that is just about all American Christians.

[Gawen]

@ Medusa: Now, if you have a need for me to have a soft voice projecting this message, in order to even give it the time of day, well, I think the time is up for that

I'm not really sure what that even means. I'm a Satanist.

If you, as a Satanist, have read what I posted throughout this thread, and haven't understood it, then I beseech you to take another look. Satanist and atheists have much to fear. But I'm not going to explain it all over again. The underlined in the quote above is a response to what I perceive as you may be thinking I'm too harsh about it. I may be wrong.

Does it look like I need anyone to tip toe around their dislike for anything? ... Though you are right Gawen didn't say he hated Christians. He just dislikes all of them. My bad. I hadn't realized it was possible to dislike them all. But ok.

When you put words in my mouth that aren't there, I find it dishonest. What I find most disturbing is that you cannot see WHY I dislike nearly all theists, whether you agree with me or not. I've given my reason; some may say they are faulty or fallicious, but it's why I dislike them. Many Christians may be the brightest and most productive members of our society, but if they are not willing to uphold what the framers of the constitution designed for this country, or suffer some sort of apathy towards it, well....I simply dislike that.

I hate quite openly.

Yes, we've been told and seen just that.

And Whitney I am purposefully using that word to describe my own actions here.

Yet you would put the word "hate" in my mouth to make my actions seem what they are not.

I don't think it's apathy keeping people from replying to this thread.

Well, enlighten me as to what you think that is.

[Davin]

I don't think it's apathy keeping people from replying to this thread.

Well, enlighten me as to what you think that is.

I haven't limited my replies because of apathy or agreement, I've already said my piece and haven't been bothered enough say any more. If I saw anything that seemed to be irrational, I would question it to find out where the problem lies (often it is with my interpretation of what a person says). I am replying now to provide my own reason for not replying since you have been posting, in order to provide at least one alternative reason.

[Gawen]

I don't think it's apathy keeping people from replying to this thread.

Well, enlighten me as to what you think that is.

I haven't limited my replies because of apathy or agreement, I've already said my piece and haven't been bothered enough say any more. If I saw anything that seemed to be irrational, I would question it to find out where the problem lies (often it is with my interpretation of what a person says). I am replying now to provide my own reason for not replying since you have been posting, in order to provide at least one alternative reason.

I didn't mean you. I was addressing Medusa.

[Davin]

I don't think it's apathy keeping people from replying to this thread.

Well, enlighten me as to what you think that is.

I haven't limited my replies because of apathy or agreement, I've already said my piece and haven't been bothered enough say any more. If I saw anything that seemed to be irrational, I would question it to find out where the problem lies (often it is with my interpretation of what a person says). I am replying now to provide my own reason for not replying since you have been posting, in order to provide at least one alternative reason.

I didn't mean you. I was addressing Medusa.

I was replying because the line of this part of the discussion had come from what seemed like a general statement:

And I am genuinely surprised of the lack of replies in this thread after I've been posting even if one agrees with me or not. Apathy. It does a body no good.

If only Medusa is to answer this question, all she would be left with to answer would be speculation (especially if you feel that no one else can present their reasons). I think asking someone to present more than speculation, then saying the question was only directed at a person who would have no reasonable access to more than speculation, is a kind of trap. So now she can answer with more than just her initial speculation by using my post as an example of a reason for someone not posting that doesn't fit into your dichotomy.

You are calling out and dealing with having words put into your mouth or things you've stated taken out of context, so I didn't feel any particular pull to pipe up about those things. I just thought this one thing required another voice if you wanted Medusa to answer with more than speculation.

[xSilverPhinx]

I just noticed that I didn't add my own views to this thread whcih worries me slightly because I get people in real life speaking for me all the time so...

Bad bad Phinx. Does silver tarnish?...*mischievous grin*

Oh definitely 

I dislike it when people use a positive philosophy to do and justify behaviours that I find to be wrong and undesirable.

How do you reconcile that, with this:

The main problem I have with religious philosophies is that they really do think that they are god's messenger's on Earth, and use that to justify (and especially remove their own personal accountability from) their behaviours. Not to mention religion actually encourages non critical group-think, which is almost always disastrous.

I really ought to put more effort into choosing a better way of wording my sentences. 

What I meant by "positive philosophy" is that all forms of theism are ideological systems which have doctrines, tenets, dogmas, etc. Regardless of whether it's Islam, Christianity or any other, it is an ideological system. People do things in the name of their theistic ideological system.

Atheism (besides positive atheism, perhaps), on the other hand, is not a philosophy. It's not an ideological system which will influence a person's behaviour and values. It makes no sense whatsoever to do things in the name of atheism. So on the basis of just the labels 'atheism' and 'theism' alone they're not on comparative levels.

I didn't use 'positive' to mean 'good', but 'not empty'.

But don't you find the cherry picking a problem in itself?

No, I only have a problem with what some people choose to cherry pick, not the actual cherry picking. As far as I'm concerned, people can choose the better parts of the bible to construct their own personal philosophies. But you can't have it both ways: cherry pick and say that the bible is all perfect and inerrant.

The main thing is that that would mean that people have to be honest with themselves and put aside the double-think associated with interpreting the bible. I don't know just how difficult doing so is for some.

If there are people who inspired by the bible can do good things, why should I have a problem with that?

Liberal Catholics, for instance. Why should I care about what they base their values on if they're consistent with the moral zeitgeist? 
I guess the bad part of this is that they in some way validate institutions such as the Vatican. But even the Vatican depends on the believers to exist. If people's worldview changes, the Vatican will as well, even if at the pace of a dying but not yet dead snail. And I'd risk saying that they know this fact very well

Have you studied Jesus' philosophy? When compiled and seen as a whole, it's anything but good and moral. And this should one way or another take you back to your cherry picking comment. What good is a philosophy that is corrupt and what is good of a person who cherry picks what they feel is the good parts of a corrupt philosophy and claim the entire philosophy and themselves as good?

I think that thinks can be improved upon, which would mean interpreting things in light of modern societies, and not as a medieval barbaric cult would have it.

On a Catholic forum I even asked clarification for one of Jesus' passages that called his followers to kill unbelievers. An apologist said that it was meant in symbolic terms or something. Anyways, it doesn't really matter. What was going on is the guy gave other ideas moral precedence over one that said that unbelievers should be killed...cherry picking based on innate and cultural factors separate from the bible as a whole and source, even if he looked to the bible and interpreted it to validate them.

And that's the bible, there's something in it for anybody, and people can read it any way they wish and get very different messages from the same passage. Luckily, for most, their moral compass is separate from the bible (they just don't know that very well) and so [most] won't interpret that passage as meant to be taken literally nowadays.  ???

On the other hand, I know some people who I hope never leave religion, because...I'm not so sure about what they would do without a god in the sky always watching them and holding them to external and imposed standards.

I hear that!!

Once again I'll say this. I don't have a problem with religion, per say and theists. What I dislike is the few American segments of a so-called Christianity who would push their views on the entire society AND those other segments that do not quite believe the few who won't stand up to it...and that is just about all American Christians.

Tricky situation. Makes one wish they could go back to being apathetic. 

[Medusa]

The underlined in the quote above is a response to what I perceive as you may be thinking I'm too harsh about it. I may be wrong.

No. I don't think you are being too harsh in your opinions. They are yours and you feel strongly about them. I think you want my approval maybe? I don't know. I don't know why you feel the need to harp on how I view your opinion. So..let's move that along ok?

When you put words in my mouth that aren't there, I find it dishonest

I was wrong in stating you hated Christians. I think I made that clear that I made that mistake after Whitney pointed it out to me. I wouldn't want someone to do that to me. Which is why I mentioned that I had made that mistake. I then used the word YOU have been using over and over and over again. DISLIKE. I don't know what's wrong with that word, since you seem to use it quite often. Once again I apologize for saying you hate Christians. You dislike them. I got it.

What I find most disturbing is that you cannot see WHY I dislike nearly all theists, whether you agree with me or not.

I do understand your reasons. In fact in some other thread (or this one maybe) I made mention that it's your perception of things. And that I can't imagine what that would be like. I am not you and have not been through your experiences. It still seems you NEED me to agree with your reasons for disliking Christians. I am not you. And I simply cannot agree. I can understand perhaps. But I cannot agree. As you probably can't agree or understand my views on this subject as well. But I don't need you to understand me.

Yet you would put the word "hate" in my mouth to make my actions seem what they are not.

I've acknowledged my error. I apologized for my error. Let's move on from that.

Well, enlighten me as to what you think that is.

What Davin said.

[Gawen]

[/quote]I was replying because the line of this part of the discussion had come from what seemed like a general statement:

And I am genuinely surprised of the lack of replies in this thread after I've been posting even if one agrees with me or not. Apathy. It does a body no good.

If only Medusa is to answer this question, all she would be left with to answer would be speculation (especially if you feel that no one else can present their reasons). I think asking someone to present more than speculation, then saying the question was only directed at a person who would have no reasonable access to more than speculation, is a kind of trap. So now she can answer with more than just her initial speculation by using my post as an example of a reason for someone not posting that doesn't fit into your dichotomy.

You are calling out and dealing with having words put into your mouth or things you've stated taken out of context, so I didn't feel any particular pull to pipe up about those things. I just thought this one thing required another voice if you wanted Medusa to answer with more than speculation.
[/quote]I can't think of anything else to say, but, Sorry, for my bad manners.

[Sandra Craft]

Christianity also tend to have a large drive to evangalise which is incredibly annoying.

I've often thought that most of the hate Xtians see from atheists is actually annoyance -- at least it reads like annoyance to my atheist eyes -- and calling it hate is just being melodramatic or, worse, trying to set themselves up as martyrs for their religion.

I know I certainly get annoyed at anyone who wants to use the law to force their personal religious practices on everyone else, or who assumes I'm innately evil (or, at best, the unwitting servant of evil) because I don't believe what they say about an invisible, immortal superman or decide not to do what they claim their invisible, immortal superman wants me to do.

[Asmodean]

Why do atheists seem to dislike Christians?

Can't speak for atheists in general, but I do not dislike Christians - I dislike Christianity. Why..? Unfounded arrogance, lies, fascist-like attitudes, stupidity-by-choice, child abuse... Need I continue?

[Stevil]

But don't you find the cherry picking a problem in itself?

I cherry pick all the time. There isn't one person who I wish I was like, but almost everyone I have met has a quality that I admire and strive to emulate.

[LukevanVeith]

Maybe because of most of Christians dislike/avoid atheists and as a result atheists dislike Christians. (IMO)