It makes them less annoying. I feel you loose your legitimacy when you start to shove things unwantedly down my throat. atheism has nothing to do with that. I would also say that there are also convert by the sword atheists out there now and in the past. On personal level I am highly apathetic. Since such questions that religions try to answer to answer can't be empirically proven i don't care about them. If the big 3 are right and there is a mono deity at the end you will meet i will find out eventually. if there is life after death i will find out eventually. I am a very patient man and i am not so insecure as to fear the eventual abyss. On the idea of worship i am vehemently opposed. in my opinion any being that is a deity should not demand i worship and supplicate myself to it. A higher power should be above petty narcissism. As for dismissing cultural relativism? well than i guess it bogs down to ignorance. I do not dislike the eastern faiths as much as judaism family tree because i am more ignorant of their content and and very limited knowledge on their history outside the broadest of terms. On a personal level i try to be a better person by not judging that which i am ignorant upon or foreign to me.

I see why you were dancing now. I put it up as trying to not offend people with your line of question and thus to me it became murky as to what you specifically wanted to ask. the finer points of subtlety are usually lost on me unfortunately and i tend toward the clinically blunt on subjects people find sensitive. hmm upon that discourse i stumbled across from my own perspective i can see a couple reasons: If i was the only being in the universe i would enjoy the company of some others even if they can not fully comprehend me. or perhaps i would just set things in motion and see how they played out. Personal example here is my enjoyment of Dwarf Fortress and love of Procedurally generated worlds. If there was an occupation besides game developer that i would love to fulfill it would be that of a world builder. I love drawing topographic maps of fictional land masses down to the most intricate fjord. Although i would probably fall a little flat on designing life forms And no problem. Despite being a nonbeliever and cynic about organized religion in general i enjoy discussing it as long as the discourse remains rational and tempers stay out the door.

Short answer: Evangelism, Crusades, Imperialism. Christianity is one of the religions with strong beliefs about evangelism. One of the big tenants (As far as I am aware) is that if you are not a christian, you will wind up in hell or purgatory. So a lot of christians feel they have a moral duty to make more christians and save souls. The abrahamic faiths are really the only theistic religions that have been heavily involved in politics, too. They're a lot more present and inescapable (In western European culture, at least) than other faiths, and they're a lot more willing to interfere in the lives of non-believers than, say, Buddhism. (Here in the US we get religious arguments about banning same-sex marriage or abortions because of some people's Christian beliefs. I have yet to hear of any movement trying to ban the consumption of meat because it violates the Buddhist belief that animals have person souls.) Imperialism: White Christians like to take over things. So Christianity is pretty widespread. So not only is it more per-capita in-your-face, it has more people to do the evangelizing. And of course the Crusades. Those were pretty bad. And there is a great deal more visible present-day religious intolerance coming from Abrahamic faiths. Conservative white American christians being islamaphobic, unrest in the middle east being painted as islamic extremism, Israel and Palestine being, ah, Israel and Palestine. When atheists in the west want to talk about how religion is violent, Abrahamic religions give them [i]so much more to talk about[/i] than other faiths.

The issues I have, as an atheist, with religion are not their existence. Rather, the issue I have is when someone else's beliefs are being pressed upon me. Which, in my experience and was mentioned above, tends to be done mostly by those of the Abrahamic faiths. You can see it currently with lots of politics in the US, the far right conservatives have quite a few members that appear to me to be basing their policies solely on their religious beliefs, which in turn becomes policy that affects me as a citizen and resident. Not that I'm saying there are none among the far left, though I don't see that as often. As well, to me it seems that that is something everyone should worry about regardless of religious belief, any steps taken towards theocracy are a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. Religious freedom should be applied across the board, to include lack therein and other religions that don't happen to be the same of those currently in government. As a note as well, you could technically be a Bhuddist and an atheist since there are sects of Bhuddism that don't believe in any sort of god. As ORCACommander pointed out, a lot of Eastern Faiths are more philosophical in nature than dogmatic like their Western counterparts. Edit: Fixed the first couple sentences, poorly worded and ended.

The problem lies with the abrahamic, good word by the way stealing it :P, is that it does not really encourage philosophical thought on the material. many a time in history where we have groups saying there is only 1 correct interpretation and all others are false. they called those false ones heresy and wars were waged because of it. strictly speaking they shouldn't but people fall back into an old psychological rut called the locus of control. In summery it is how much a person feels that it is their own free will that controls their actions and how much it is done by entities or events beyond that control. karma is one of the really popular scapegoats right now to justify scheudenfraude (sp) and "cursing the heavens" when your plans go array because it could never be [i]your[/i] fault. Free will is something i often ponder if we truly have because if entropy is true than what happens now is merely the result of a certain sequence of collisions between particles eons ago. hello causality :P

People complain about what they interact with, be it due to lack of education on the topic or emotional reactions to previous interactions. No one in the US complains about Jainists blocking the street, Buddhist preachers, stifling Confuscian laws (I know, not a 'religion' per se), Taoist slave classes, etc. because those things really don't exist in the US, except within very small cultural enclaves. Also part of it is that we consider it okay to criticize ourselves and 'our people'. Usually these complaints are leveled at Christians/Jews from within our own culture, so that's okay. But complaining about an immigrant religion? Well now you're just being rude and ignorant.

Short answer: Rome, The British Empire, television, and the internet. To expand, Christianity went from being a marginalized cult, to being a state religion, due to the choice of a Roman Emperor. This led to it being spread everywhere the Roman Empire was spread. This led to it being the big dog in the kennel. Later, the British Empire ended up founding the US, Canada, Australia, and many other colonies. This spread Christianity to those places. Later still, the US ended up in a cultural leadership position just after WW2, around the time television was being introduced. This meant that the US became the primary world provider of movies and television programs. Shortly after that, the US military unleashed the internet on the world, bringing it very close to a, Civ 5, cultural victory. I.e. the US culture is infecting almost every other culture in the world. Online, english is the default language, and US spelling the default spelling. The majority of net users come from the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. This means the British born cultures dominate the place. Of those cultures, the US is on top. This means we consume American movies, American dramas, American comedies, and the most relevant, American journalism. American journalism likes to concentrate on the biggest fish. Because of the British birth form, Christianity is the biggest fish, religion wise, in the US. So it is the one the news media will focus on. As a comparison, consider the kind of press newly democratic Iraq can expect over, for example, legalizing child brides... versus how much flack each pedophile priest gets. One will get a minor news story and a few disapproving net discussions over pandering to religious voting blocs, the other will get weeks to months of coverage and outrage. Why? Because one is distant, and the other is right here. And right here, the big fish, the obvious target, is Christianity.

I think the cultural consciousness lumps native american shamanism in the mythology category. which makes the majority not take it seriously. and the fact we conquered their lands makes any antagonisement against them a social faux pas. I really though we addressed the nature of your question. it is pretty much a shouting match. he who is loudest in the room we yell over. i wish i could be more articulate tonight but am rather exhausted from work.

I don't know about everyone else that claims to be an atheist, but I don't necessarily see why one can't deny the existence of a divine and not still have some belief in more than the physical world we see every day. The definition of atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, though I know many people will also deny the belief in anything spiritual. I thought it had already been pointed out that there are religions that don't have a god, but have a belief in spirituality. For me, like I said, I have no issue with others practicing their religion, or believing in it, I simply do not like it being forced upon me. And no, someone choosing to say a prayer or anything else isn't forcing it upon me as long as they aren't making me participate, but someone trying to pass laws based in any way shape or form on religious beliefs as well as adding "Under God/In God We Trust" to various things that I will have to deal with on a regular basis, are all forcing it upon me. Perhaps I'm being Americentric here but I am from the US, so forgive me as that's the only culture I have a strong experience with. Here in the US, it's predominately Christianity that does have strong factions forcing it upon others, but if any religion did that I would have an issue with that religion.

Steel Accord wrote:

No you're right. Although I would say the dismissal of a still practiced religion as "mere myth" is still pretty insulting. The point I'm trying to make is that according to what I've observed, modern atheistic thought appears to be highly reactionary in nature, to the dominant religious powers. If one makes the claim they do not believe in the divine, should that not be applied equally across all thought systems that acknowledge any form of divinity or spirituality? Just food for thought at this point. Thank you all for your responses. Your opinions and views are appreciated.

Most human behaviour is reactionary. The point of my earlier reply is we react to, and interact with, that which we see most often. Since Christianity is the big dog in the anglo world, it is the one that athiests encounter most often, and thus target.

Steel Accord wrote:

Why do atheists leave other faiths completely alone?

There are multiple reasons why other religions are left alone by atheists. Buddhism, Jainism and threads of Hinduism are nonthesitic. Baha'i Faith is actively anti-evangelism, and both Baha'i and Sikhism have tenants of human equality and rights regardless of belief. Indigenous cultural religions, such as shaminism and animism, are equally nontoxic.

Steel Accord wrote:

If someone told an atheist they practiced the Native American shamanism of their ancestors, a have a strong suspicion that the atheist would be fine with him even visibly practicing his faith, which to my understanding, would otherwise make some uncomfortable. (Completely understandable. "Keep it in Church" and all that.)

I would be fine with anyone visiably practising rituals of their faith in a communal public space (park, town square, public square). If visiably practising means wearing religious clothing or regalia, then that's fine (no exposing genetalia—chests are not genetalia). For my electives in University, to broaden my ideological horizons, I took First Nations and Inuit languages and understand the world through a different lense. Many of the First Nations and Inuit I spoke to are shamanists or animists, but also athetists. Even I took part in cultural rituals and festivals.

Steel Accord wrote:

In all honesty, is it really the practice of religion or spiritual thought itself, or just the negative policies of certain religious groups that inspires such negative feelings toward faith. And is it truly ALL faiths, or just certain faiths?

For me at least, it is not all religious groups. Through my mother I participated in Christianity when I was younger. I met and have kept relationships with people in that community. Most of the Christians I have met are kind and decent human beings. This is equally true for Jewish and Muslim people I have encountered personally. On the other hand, there are atheists who are wastes of O2. Spirituality and faith are not inheriently toxic. When religion is used as an excuse or the basis of oppression, intolerance and violence it becomes a problem.

Depends on what you mean by against. If they just want to believe what they like, then I've got no problem with them. If they try and deny others information to force them into believing something, or coerce others into believing it directly, yeah I've got a problem with them. As to some of your earlier questions; Steel, of course we're against Christianity. Many of us were raised christian, the rest know a bunch of christians. It's the religion that our politicians reference when they do crazy things. It's there, all the time. What the religion is doesn't matter, just its position.

Eh, it's not all that impressive. Time travel's been around forever, or at least it will have been.

Well, my religious stance is that either the Bible (esp. the Old Testament, as I was raised Jewish and never fully read through the new bits) is untrue, or G-d is undeserving of our worship and obedience. So I'll suffer all the witches I damn well please, especially if they'll share with me their secrets and CTCs.

Steel Accord wrote:

But, humor me for a moment here. Let's say Christianity was present, but not as pronounced as it is. Would atheism still target it, switch to another target, or would it spread it's message a little more generally?

Atheism does not denote any sort of militant anti-thesitic stance where targets must be chosen. Most athesits and non-theists (even theists) I have met are anti-evangelists. As bibliphile, MAD Crab and others mentioned, the hang up that most atheists seem to have is the notion that certain religions (Christianity, Islam, Scientology, certain sects of Judaism) mandate to recruit and aggressively shape the world to fit their ideology. The dogma of Buddhism doesn't force rallies to illegalize omnivore diets and the morality of Wiccans doesn't encourage a campaign for our legal system to be the 161 Ardanes. Individuals can certainly hold their own values and those who follow religions may definitely vote or express ideological views that align with their faith, but plotting to convert nations to Shaira law or become 'Christian' are quite rambunctious enough to piss off more than a few people.

Because cookies are sometimes a good thing to give out: All of you in this thread handled yourselves exactly the right way on a topic that is - without a doubt - very sensitive no matter which way you go about it. Some of you edged a little close to the line but none of you stepped over it or took anything in a personal direction against others in the thread. So, for future debates / as an example to others: This. Do this.

To the OP: The answer, somewhat paradoxically, is because they're culturally-Christian. Most of the folks talking about atheism online are Westerners of one description or another, and that culture area has been more directly influenced by Christianity than anything else, in terms of its relationship to other cultures and religions. The underlying ethos is basically similar -- other religions are either outright immoral and incorrect, long extinct and irrelevant, or just embarrassingly-recent history that would be better played down and marginalized. Christianity as it's developed in Europe and its Settler offspring cultures is very fixated on the idea of saving the world by spreading its message actively, and conceives of an ideal future in which everyone now more or less subscribes to its tenets. Even the less-aggressively proselytic sects still basically hold to this idea of salvation; maybe they disavow the idea that it's okay to force belief or even be obnoxious about it, but they still tend to look toward an eschatological future in which more or less everyone is a believer. This has gotten yoked to ideas about progress that link that spread to both moral and technological values (which owes a lot to some figures in the early Renaissance, and the origins of the modern nation-state paradigm and subsequent colonial era -- here's a little about that: http://thefrailestthing.com/2012/04/28/revisiting-the-religion-of-techno...). Organized atheism within Western culture is just the latest re-skin of the same basic outlook, a secular-flavored variation that plays well in certain places. It's rooted in disavowing the previous incarnations and styles itself as a more-valid successor to the cultural mantle (ie, the way Christians tend to view Judaism)...but it papers over the belief contents without really changing the structure. So, to sum up: they're being parochial and dismissive of outside or bygone religions because they're continuing the family tradition. On a pragmatic level, and to be slightly more charitable to the individual people involved: most of them are also only really familiar with Christianity in any depth -- they might have a personal interest in something like Buddhism or Taoism, but even that's not a given (Hinduism isn't nearly as sexy in these circles, I've noticed; probably because the main Western demographic to be interested in that is the hippies and New Agers, who are pretty much widely-despised in atheist circles for fairly obvious reasons), and they usually know it more in a remote, bookish, translated sense rather than experientially. It's somewhat common for folks to think they know more about Judaism than they really do, too (both atheist and Christian theist); I often notice that the dismissive "it sounds nice but it's unwieldy and impossible and stifling and insufficient" attitude that believing Christians take towards Judaism is more or less echoed by their secular counterparts. It would be fascinating cultural cognitive dissonance, if it were coming from any group other than the one that conquered 3/4 of the planet, but instead it's just sort of scary. (Also note: I am not making a case for Christianity or indeed, any other religion here -- my own beliefs re: ontology and metaphysics accord more with those of the atheists on this thread than they do with the OP.)

Finally! Someone else who understands the issues with western, specifically american, atheism. It's merely Christianity without YHWH. Almost all atheists in the current generations in the US are ex-christians. Or, they were raised in a heavily predominate christian environment. Christianity beats into its followers heads that there are no other gods, no other religions, only different understandings of the same message, and anything else is automatically [i]false[/i]. They lack exposure to alternative ways of thinking. So, when they fall out of the faith because of disagreements with various parts of its dogma or whatever their reasons, they still subconsciously cling to the ignorant belief that [i]there is nothing else[/i]. And, I've found, they tend to still carry that evangelical fervor that once filled them when they were christians. However, instead of being all about Jesus and YHWH, they are all about how everything about religion (specifically their former), is false. [i]And, because of their lack of exposure, automatically assume all religions are the same[/i]. __________________________ Now, my own issues with Abrahamic religions is simple: they take issue with me as a person. They tell me I am wrong, broken, and they tell others that I need to be stoned to death. I cannot abide by a faith that says my friends and I are abhorrent. That, and, in my opinion, most Christians do not seem to truly understand their faith. They always grow confused when I bring up scripture and Jewish mythology to those trying to preach to me, or explain some of the odder portions of the bible and the mythology behind it before the Roman Catholic Church censored it and changed the canon to further their goals (you can see this in the Tora a lot). In my honest opinion, the "crazy" fundamentalists of the Abrahamic faiths are not incorrect. They are the only ones who truly understand their religions. And I do not like what they have to say.

I think you're both misrepresenting the typical atheistic stance. The atheistic understanding that religion is false does not automatically make any atheist a better person than any believer. There are plenty of believers who are good people, and there plenty of atheists who are bad people. I doubt you could find anyone who would say that a psychopathic atheist was better for the world than a altruistic, sympathic believer, and in any case that would be a very small minority. The psychopath would have a more rational and correct ontological understanding, but that's not really any comfort to anyone. Even Neil Degrasse Tyson doesn't understand the world well enough to get off the hook for hurting people. The reason that many atheists have much deeper problems with religion than with other irrational beliefs like tarot reading is that religion often skews believers' moral compasses. If you're a good person but you actually believe that people will burn in hell for eternity if they are homosexual, if girls don't have their clitorises cut off, if they have a blood transfusion, if they use a condom, then you're of course going to want to protect people from that horrible fate. This leads to horrible social oppression, child mutilation, needless death and disease and unnecessary spread of HIV. In this way, religious people who are merely looking to do good will end up doing a lot of harm because of their religion. That doesn't mean every religious person is a bad person. Some religions might be free of such ideas or even make their followers strong forces of good, and the major religions have many, many followers who adhere to a modern interpretation where they don't hold that sort of medieval beliefs. Confronting your average modern, moderate Christian with the darker passages from the bible is just silly because they don't believe in those. I've followed the atheistic movement a lot over the past years, and I have seen no indication that religious belief in itself is the main target. It is not. There is very little energy spent railing against that. It is the harmful effects of religion, not religion itself, that is the target. If you take someone like Sam Harris, probably one of the most direct in his critique and outrage, has on numerous occasitions mentioned that he would have no problem* if everyone was Jainist, a religion that has non-violence and equality between lifeforms as the highest goal. Ironically, because he evaluates individual religions on the amount of harm they cause, he's been called things like islamophobe because he doesn't "treat all religions equally". * I can't remember if he says he has no problem, almost no problem or even think it would be a good thing.

One thing I find funny is that it's always the christians who get on people's cases. All those weird laws are the old testament, jewish stuff (and it's been a while since I read leviticus, but isn't that more the laws of the church at the time if anything?) The message of Christ, where the religion gets its name and symbols, tells us we should not judge others, thay the church is not infallible, that we all sin but it's ok because God loves us and forgives us and will not punish us. I think if more christians took that to heart, the world would be a better place.