Why are atheists hated so much?

No, dictionaries in reality don't matter, because they don't always represent the societal meaning of the word. Thats great if you want to go and tell people you're atheist, but they'll think you mean you believe there is no god. So if you are planning on having any further sort of logical conversation whith people about it, I recommend the word agnostic.

magnax1

Because the word belief has been divided between theistic intent and something once similar to conclusion. I say slang has bastardized many words, belief suggests something unbsubstantiated, something personal and based on faith in this society. Hence I avoid it, because my stance is just not a belief, period. (Need I repeat the stamp bit?) The modern comprehension of agnosticism is flawed and I won't adjust what I know my stance to be for suiting their lack of understanding. I seek to educate, because I bother to research things like this unendingly. Yes, definitions can grow thin and there are many forms of Agnosticism, but at it's most core and raw form, it admits uncertainty, it a belief that uncertainty is the best option. The unknowable. While theism and atheism remain opposites, belief and none. Based on my education, this is what I've gathered. I welcome anything compelling to the contrary.

People tend to hate or be afraid of what they don't understand. Atheists are really no more then just people who don't believe in a god. unfortunately religion appeals to a great amount of small minded people and small minded people tend to be unaccepting of other people who aren't exactly like them and don't believe what they believe. (I'm talking more about hardcore religious people here not trying to flame religious people in general)

Find people who accept you for who you are not people who accept you strictly because of what you believe.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="magnax1"]

This is just idiotic, really. I don't believe in God either, but all this dictionary stuff, and all the you don't have to believe in anything if you don't want to stuff is stupid.

magnax1

I'm saying a semantics debate is stupid, because everyone already knows what people think of when they say atheism or agnostic.

So, just giant ad hominems huh?Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Because they stay on topic?whatrevolution

Because I'm willing to provide counter-arguments? Ones that prove his given definition is clearly cherry picked out of many? Okay, cool.dhyce

This just sounds like a bunch of crying about his debate style.

Also, your comment "this is why people hate athiests" is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest generalizations I have ever seen.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]So, just giant ad hominems huh?whatrevolution

No, it was a cheap generalization.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

UGH. Stop the shenanigans. I'm saying something such as the electro-magnetic theory, all of these ludicrously complicated things you obviously have to study and learn about cannot come from your head, otherwise you would know of them and all concepts, no matter how complex, would come effortlessly. As this is all your design, and all information contained therein is of your making.

dreDREb13

Yeah.... if an ancient civilizations knew how to build a rocket.... they would be able to go to the moon. Why is that debatable? I think what you're saying is that ideas have to be built upon, which is obvious, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people create ideas. This thread has some of the most idiotic arguments ever.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]So, just giant ad hominems huh?whatrevolution

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

A mind cannot invent what it does not know? That is really not true at all. So you're basically saying no idea has ever been created? Which basically proves my point. Everything requires belief. EVERYTHING. Whether you like the fact or not, it is true.

dreDREb13

UGH. Stop the shenanigans. I'm saying something such as the electro-magnetic theory, all of these ludicrously complicated things you obviously have to study and learn about cannot come from your head, otherwise you would know of them and all concepts, no matter how complex, would come effortlessly. As this is all your design, and all information contained therein is of your making.

There's some philosophies that dictate man gaining knowledge is actually the process of becoming closer to god, since the figure of "god" is the only one that can truly know every answer.

Anyways, this debating over the definitions of agnosticism and atheism is pointless. You're both just going to quote different texts over the same crap and say which one is more right than the other and neither of you will think any differently about it afterwards.

I thought that map that was quoted earlier on the percentages of religion in the US was interesting. I'd like to know if there was any differentiation between people that call themselves Christian but don't really practice it, they just never bothered to do any "soul-searching", and people that are hard-core, believe the Bible literally, word-for-word.

I personally think atheism has such a negative reputation because of the number of lawsuits brought up over religion in government/public the past 20 years, and it's kind of a double-edged sword. I'm personally sick of people bringing up religious text during legal conflicts, as well as people that totally disregard "separation of church and state" and state that America was "founded on Christianity", so everyone else better take it or leave it.

By itself, suing over whether or not a child has to say "under god" during school is pretty trivial. But when it's reflective of something bigger, like the influence of religion in government, I can see why it may be important to change tradition. It's not about whether coins say "god" on them, it's that something reflective of our government is advocating religion when it shouldn't be. So, I'm sure Christian traditionalists see atheists as whiny cry-babies that can't leave anything alone, while atheists are trying to secure religious freedom from what they perceive to be waves of angry religious nutjobs.

Your, "counter-arguments", are obviously outputs rather than inputs. You are vomititing your belief as viciously and rapidly as possible to dominate your perceived opponent into submission to your self-proclaimed superior reasoning. You are unwaiveringly awaiting your turn to speak.whatrevolution

No, our turns are well met and equal. I say: I can provide definitions that counter your own. He says: yeah, well, definitions mean nothing! As recently exhibited. My reasoning is not superior, I seek to understand the opposition. Only trouble is, I'm getting loose definitions beside definitions that say what I'm saying and rhetoric either subjective or meaningless. (IE: This is all in your head.)

The reason athiests are hated on so much is that tons of people don't approve of "alternative" beliefs.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh, semantics. I get the general concepts just fine. Most I've known who have defined themselves as atheists (in addition to most dictionary references, although I read an article that states that it is changing towards your understanding of the definition of the word) positively affirm that there is no God. On the other hand, and the dictionaries do back me up on this one, define agnosticism as the lack of belief or rejection of a deity. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what words are used to describe what. But I prefer universal understandings of words for the sake of actual substantive conversation. Anyways, I think I'm going to get some sleep. I'll just leave with this quote from the wiki page, you non-believer.

"Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[31] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism."

SgtKevali

Which is what I'm talking about (bolded). But yes, language is tricky and shifty, and somewhat unreliable (as you can see with definition chains)

Agnosticism, however, isn't simply the lack of belief in god; it has an additional requirement, if you will.

Agnosticism: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

Eh, I mis-stated the definition. Essentially, agnosticism neither accepts not rejects the notion of a higher power, according to my understanding of it. The reason why one would not come to a conclusion is lack of knowledge regarding what is necessary to know whether or not God exists. So I really do not see the two as mutually exclusive. The probably unknowable does add a minor condition though.

[QUOTE="dreDREb13"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]
I am saying they came from someones head. So that therefore proves my point, you can create thing in your mind, there for a mind can invent what it does not know.

magnax1

Yeah.... if an ancient civilizations knew how to build a rocket.... they would be able to go to the moon. Why is that debatable? I think what you're saying is that ideas have to be built upon, which is obvious, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people create ideas. This thread has some of the most idiotic arguments ever.

If ideas had to be built upon, if they just couldn't be generated instantaneously, then obviously there are external limitations or other forces seperate from the mind. Ergo, everything does not come from the mind, the mind does not simply invent things, it discovers what these external limitations allow it to.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="magnax1"]

This is just idiotic, really. I don't believe in God either, but all this dictionary stuff, and all the you don't have to believe in anything if you don't want to stuff is stupid.

magnax1

I'm saying a semantics debate is stupid, because everyone already knows what people think of when they say atheism or agnostic.

Not true. Different people think different things depending on what definition they prescribe to. Universal definitions rarely exist; such is the failure of language.

You said that atheism is the belief that there is no god. Self-identified atheists (among others) disagreed. According to your line of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to "bend" to the definition of those who self-identify as the word in question? Because that's the definition most people here prescribe to (which is also, coincidentally, the general dictionary definition).

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh, semantics. I get the general concepts just fine. Most I've known who have defined themselves as atheists (in addition to most dictionary references, although I read an article that states that it is changing towards your understanding of the definition of the word) positively affirm that there is no God. On the other hand, and the dictionaries do back me up on this one, define agnosticism as the lack of belief or rejection of a deity. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what words are used to describe what. But I prefer universal understandings of words for the sake of actual substantive conversation. Anyways, I think I'm going to get some sleep. I'll just leave with this quote from the wiki page, you non-believer.

"Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[31] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism."

coolbeans90

Which is what I'm talking about (bolded). But yes, language is tricky and shifty, and somewhat unreliable (as you can see with definition chains)

Agnosticism, however, isn't simply the lack of belief in god; it has an additional requirement, if you will.

Agnosticism: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

Eh, I mis-stated the definition. Essentially, agnosticism neither accepts not rejects the notion of a higher power, according to my understanding of it. The reason why one would not come to a conclusion is lack of knowledge regarding what is necessary to know whether or not God exists. So I really do not see the two as mutually exclusive. The probably unknowable does add a minor condition though.

The definitions I've used for years, as they have been accepted by friends and various college professors...

Atheists believe there is no god.

Agnostics believe there is no point in deciding whether or not there is god, because there's no evidence proving one or the other.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="dreDREb13"]So you're saying the ancient civilizations could have flown to the moon, as all they needed to do was think up the designs? We are able to do what we can now because of years and years of research, with us improving upon older ideas. YES, there had to be an original source, but that original source was simple, like it is for children figuring things out.

Danm_999

Yeah.... if an ancient civilizations knew how to build a rocket.... they would be able to go to the moon. Why is that debatable? I think what you're saying is that ideas have to be built upon, which is obvious, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people create ideas. This thread has some of the most idiotic arguments ever.

If ideas had to be built upon, if they just couldn't be generated instantaneously, then obviously there are external limitations or other forces seperate from the mind. Ergo, everything does not come from the mind, the mind does not simply invent things, it discovers what these external limitations allow it to.

Then that really has nothing to do with my point that everything requires belief in the first place.

Which is of course, an ad hominem. It's not his definitions or reasoning you question, but how he presents them.Danm_999

I hate atheists because their arguments in this topic are too complex for me to follow. wstfld

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Which is what I'm talking about (bolded). But yes, language is tricky and shifty, and somewhat unreliable (as you can see with definition chains)

Agnosticism, however, isn't simply the lack of belief in god; it has an additional requirement, if you will.

Agnosticism: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

IzzieWaru

Eh, I mis-stated the definition. Essentially, agnosticism neither accepts not rejects the notion of a higher power, according to my understanding of it. The reason why one would not come to a conclusion is lack of knowledge regarding what is necessary to know whether or not God exists. So I really do not see the two as mutually exclusive. The probably unknowable does add a minor condition though.

The definitions I've used for years, as they have been accepted by friends and various college professors...

Atheists believe there is no god.

Agnostics believe there is no point in deciding whether or not there is god, because there's no evidence proving one or the other.

Eh, I'll stick with dictionary definitions.

Generally because they try to denounce religion at every turn for one. They seem to want to live but can't let live. Everytime religion is brought up they are the quickest to denounce it and use an excuse or incident to do so.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27353255&tag=topics;title

Like this situation.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Yeah.... if an ancient civilizations knew how to build a rocket.... they would be able to go to the moon. Why is that debatable? I think what you're saying is that ideas have to be built upon, which is obvious, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people create ideas. This thread has some of the most idiotic arguments ever.

magnax1

If ideas had to be built upon, if they just couldn't be generated instantaneously, then obviously there are external limitations or other forces seperate from the mind. Ergo, everything does not come from the mind, the mind does not simply invent things, it discovers what these external limitations allow it to.

Then that really has nothing to do with my point that everything requires belief in the first place.

Then that really has nothing to do with my point that everything requires belief in the first place.

magnax1

No, it has everything to do with it. The obvious proof of minds superior to our own all over this planet that can fathom more than we can ever proves that our individual minds are incapable of producing a reality more complex than it can comprehend.

[QUOTE="UbiquitousAeon"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"]I hate atheists because their arguments in this topic are too complex for me to follow. dreDREb13

Generally because they try to denounce religion at every turn for one. They seem to want to live but can't let live. Everytime religion is brought up they are the quickest to denounce it and use an excuse or incident to do so.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27353255&tag=topics;title

Like this situation.

Espada12

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Are you advocating the dictionary is not important in a semantics debate?SgtKevali

I'm saying a semantics debate is stupid, because everyone already knows what people think of when they say atheism or agnostic.

Not true. Different people think different things depending on what definition they prescribe to. Universal definitions rarely exist; such is the failure of language.

You said that atheism is the belief that there is no god. Self-identified atheists (among others) disagreed. According to your line of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to "bend" to the definition of those who self-identify as the word in question? Because that's the definition most people here prescribe to (which is also, coincidentally, the general dictionary definition).

No it would make more sense for everyone to bend to the general consensus so that we are all speaking the same language.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Generally because they try to denounce religion at every turn for one. They seem to want to live but can't let live. Everytime religion is brought up they are the quickest to denounce it and use an excuse or incident to do so.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27353255&tag=topics;title

Like this situation.

Danm_999

Did something strike you as funny?

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Then that really has nothing to do with my point that everything requires belief in the first place.

dhyce

No, it has everything to do with it. The obvious proof of minds superior to our own all over this planet that can fathom more than we can ever prove that our individual minds are incapable of producing a reality more complex than it can comprehend.

No, because if you believe everything is in your mind then you are creating all these ideas. There are no others except yourself. There is no "proof" without the belief that there are other minds existing.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Not true. Different people think different things depending on what definition they prescribe to. Universal definitions rarely exist; such is the failure of language.

You said that atheism is the belief that there is no god. Self-identified atheists (among others) disagreed. According to your line of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to "bend" to the definition of those who self-identify as the word in question? Because that's the definition most people here prescribe to (which is also, coincidentally, the general dictionary definition).

dreDREb13

No it would make more sense for everyone to bend to the general consensus so that we are all speaking the same language.

Consensus definitions and stereotypes are not the same things, and have nothing to do with eacho ther.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

I'm saying a semantics debate is stupid, because everyone already knows what people think of when they say atheism or agnostic.

magnax1

Not true. Different people think different things depending on what definition they prescribe to. Universal definitions rarely exist; such is the failure of language.

You said that atheism is the belief that there is no god. Self-identified atheists (among others) disagreed. According to your line of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to "bend" to the definition of those who self-identify as the word in question? Because that's the definition most people here prescribe to (which is also, coincidentally, the general dictionary definition).

No it would make more sense for everyone to bend to the general consensus so that we are all speaking the same language.

It's quite obvious there is no general consensus; that's why you have these arguments.

Looking for universality in language is almost laughable, though. Like I said, the huge lack of universality in meaning is a great failure of language.

No it would make more sense for everyone to bend to the general consensus so that we are all speaking the same language.

magnax1

Language can and should vary. For instance, English is my second language. I'm actually French. I do like to study language and unfortunately reach textbook conclusions. Slang versions of words have no meaning to me, especially those referring to specific matters. When nearly all dictionaries provide my claim, I cannot and will not lower the bar of my understanding because most people think something incorrectly. Most people tend to educate themselves about as well as an eggplant. I'll rely on what I learn, then if others prove me wrong I will happily admit it.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Not true. Different people think different things depending on what definition they prescribe to. Universal definitions rarely exist; such is the failure of language.

You said that atheism is the belief that there is no god. Self-identified atheists (among others) disagreed. According to your line of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to "bend" to the definition of those who self-identify as the word in question? Because that's the definition most people here prescribe to (which is also, coincidentally, the general dictionary definition).

SgtKevali

No it would make more sense for everyone to bend to the general consensus so that we are all speaking the same language.

It's quite obvious there is no general consensus; that's why you have these arguments.

Looking for universality in language is almost laughable, though. Like I said, the huge lack of universality in meaning is a great failure of language.

The obvious solution is for people to use the definitions that I prefer. Problem solved/prolonged...

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Generally because they try to denounce religion at every turn for one. They seem to want to live but can't let live. Everytime religion is brought up they are the quickest to denounce it and use an excuse or incident to do so.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27353255&tag=topics;title

Like this situation.

Espada12

Did something strike you as funny?

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Not true. Different people think different things depending on what definition they prescribe to. Universal definitions rarely exist; such is the failure of language.

You said that atheism is the belief that there is no god. Self-identified atheists (among others) disagreed. According to your line of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to "bend" to the definition of those who self-identify as the word in question? Because that's the definition most people here prescribe to (which is also, coincidentally, the general dictionary definition).

SgtKevali

No it would make more sense for everyone to bend to the general consensus so that we are all speaking the same language.

It's quite obvious there is no general consensus; that's why you have these arguments.

Looking for universality in language is almost laughable, though. Like I said, the huge lack of universality in meaning is a great failure of language.

Either way the semantics argument is still pointless, because I already posted dictionary definitions that prove my definition, and so did the other pesron. And yes, there are consensus definitions.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Joke?Danm_999

Did something strike you as funny?

I just gave a situation, why would his father say that other than to stir something up? It's like me making racial remarks in public and not expecting others to say something about it.

No, because if you believe everything is in your mind then you are creating all these ideas. There are no others except yourself. There is no "proof" without the belief that there are other minds existing.

magnax1

What of academics you cannot understand? Mathematics and languages far beyond your grasp? You can never learn every language and yet you made them all? Funny how that works. There is no belief that other minds exist, you love to sling that word around when its intent is utterly preposterous and discreetly supports your ridiculous claim. No, it is not a belief that others exist. It is obvious to any sane mind. It is not a personal belief based on faith. It is just the demonstrable reality of this planet and the minds that know more than you, and the eloquent fossils that prove your ancient ancestor was a fish. This planet's reality is obvious and cannot be considered as a (personal) belief. For that is intellectually dishonest and debatably insane.

Because they're hypocritical and illogical. Thats why I hate atheism

magnax1

Thank you on providing such a fine example of the ignorance that some religious people have against not only atheism but many other faiths too.

To answer the OP's post, the truth is that really hardcore Christians will hate you and detest you simply because you don't believe in their God. Unfair? Sure it is, but its just how their intolerant minds work. Most of my Christian friends aren't really that rabid about their faith so I get along with them just fine.

I just gave a situation, why would his father say that other than to stir something up? It's like me making racial remarks in public and not expecting others to say something about it.

Espada12

Firstly, the poster said it, not his father. Comprehension.

Secondly, are you suggesting that the intent of their conversation was honestly to use the Robin Hood movie they had just seen, and the following conversation they had made about its historical accuracy, was a backhanded way of criticising Christianity in an attempt to gain a reaction from any potential eavesdropping Christians that would feel strongly enough to comment? Occam's Razor.

Thirdly, it is not like you making racial remarks in public for two reasons (yes, I apologise for putting lists within lists):

1) It was a private conversation between son and father (hence the use of the word 'eavesdropping'), in what was presumably, either a booth or a table (at a Chinese restaurant). You do not eavesdrop on other people's conversations at restaraunts and claim it was public.

2) Criticising the authenticity of the Bible, or even comparing it to the authenticity of the Robin Hood myth, is nowhere near as despicable as racial remarks.

It seems to me you view atheists (if they indeed were atheists) having private conversations about their views is them not doing their part to "live and let live" which honestly I find staggering.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

No it would make more sense for everyone to bend to the general consensus so that we are all speaking the same language.

dhyce

Language can and should vary. For instance, English is my second language. I'm actually French. I do like to study language and unfortunately reach textbook conclusions. Slang versions of words have no meaning to me, especially those referring to specific matters. When nearly all dictionaries provide my claim, I cannot and will not lower the bar of my understanding because most people think something incorrectly. Most people tend to educate themselves about as well as an eggplant. I'll rely on what I learn, then if others prove me wrong I will happily admit it.

Wow, you speak english very well.

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

No it would make more sense for everyone to bend to the general consensus so that we are all speaking the same language.

magnax1

Language can and should vary. For instance, English is my second language. I'm actually French. I do like to study language and unfortunately reach textbook conclusions. Slang versions of words have no meaning to me, especially those referring to specific matters. When nearly all dictionaries provide my claim, I cannot and will not lower the bar of my understanding because most people think something incorrectly. Most people tend to educate themselves about as well as an eggplant. I'll rely on what I learn, then if others prove me wrong I will happily admit it.

Wow, you speak english very well.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

No, because if you believe everything is in your mind then you are creating all these ideas. There are no others except yourself. There is no "proof" without the belief that there are other minds existing.

dhyce

What of academics you cannot understand? Mathematics and languages far beyond your grasp? You can never learn every language and yet you made them all? Funny how that works. There is no belief that other minds exist, you love to sling that word around when its intent is utterly preposterous and discreetly supports your ridiculous claim. No, it is not a belief that others exist. It is obvious to any sane mind. It is not a personal belief based on faith. It is just the demonstrable reality of this planet and the minds that know more than you, and the eloquent fossils that prove your ancient ancestor was a fish. This planet's reality is obvious and cannot be considered as a (personal) belief. For that is intellectually dishonest and debatably insane.

Whether you want to say it makes you insane or not, there is no logical way to dispute the fact that EVERYTHING requires some sort of faith.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

Language can and should vary. For instance, English is my second language. I'm actually French. I do like to study language and unfortunately reach textbook conclusions. Slang versions of words have no meaning to me, especially those referring to specific matters. When nearly all dictionaries provide my claim, I cannot and will not lower the bar of my understanding because most people think something incorrectly. Most people tend to educate themselves about as well as an eggplant. I'll rely on what I learn, then if others prove me wrong I will happily admit it.

Danm_999

Wow, you speak english very well.

Hola Mademoiselle. Wait...

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Because they're hypocritical and illogical. Thats why I hate atheism

Vesica_Prime

Thank you on providing such a fine example of the ignorance that some religious people have against not only atheism but many other faiths too.

To answer the OP's post, the truth is that really hardcore Christians will hate you and detest you simply because you don't believe in their God. Unfair? Sure it is, but its just how their intolerant minds work. Most of my Christian friends aren't really that rabid about their faith so I get along with them just fine.

I'm not religious, but thank you.