Why do atheists only seem to go after the Judeao-Christian religion?

[nuttynutskin]

Easy target maybe? I've never heard of atheists going after Buddhism for instance. A lot if not most atheists to me at least actually just seem anti-christian. Thoughts?

 

[swilow]

You are probably correct, though it does seem that celebrity-atheists like Richard Dawkins do turn the blowtorch on other theistic world religions. But given the fact that christianity, at least, has been the predominant source of morality, legality and repression in the (global) western world, it is not surprising that people are now opposing it. For me, I've only had positive experiences with Buddhism and mainly negative experiences with christianity so I know why I hold my own views.

 

[Psyduck]

Because Christianity has the most socio-political power/influence... eventually atheists attack with a two edged-sword: it's not only about being right, but also about gaining power (e.g. deciding the curriculum in schools)

 

[-=SS=-]

Richard Dawkins kills my intellectual boner like no other person.. what a douche. Anyway..

I don't mind people who hold an atheist stance, but I definitely feel strongly against those who try to enforce it as some kind of scientific-philosophic super truth, going around belittling anyone of a religious faith for daring to hold such an absurd perspective on existence. And yet these same people tend to believe the Universe sprung from nothing in an almighty explosion for absolutely no reason.. which is equally absurd as any creation myth, because it is a creation myth.

They go after the Judeo-Christian religion because it's an easy target. The religion has lost so much of its original weight and has become just a puppet show basically, the majority of its followers behaving in a very much like cult fashion. This is easy to attack. Occasionally the atheists may sympathize with followers who "do good" through following a system of faith, but it's always belittled in a condescending fashion anyway.

It's easy to attack cult like behavior and claim intellectual superiority. Much more difficult to try and actually engage the big questions of existence. They know they will never win those debates either, so they just attack the easy prey and then claim victory with their own particular brand of 'philosophical' answers. Which is quite childish really.

 

[rickolasnice]

We don't?

Atheists don't go after any religion.

But I know what you're getting at.. It's probably because (western) atheists know more about Christianity than others.

Personally? I believe all of the Abrahamic religions cause more harm than good.

And yet these same people tend to believe the Universe sprung from nothing in an almighty explosion for absolutely no reason.. which is equally absurd as any creation myth, because it is a creation myth.

Hmmm.. believe in something which has evidence to support it or believe in something that reads like it was written by a 10 year old with no understanding of what they're writing about.. Tough one.

 

[Ninae]

Because it's the religion that was forced upon them and bored them at school. Hence, any alternative is better. Plus, they are simple-minded.

 

[paranoid android]

Easy target maybe? I've never heard of atheists going after Buddhism for instance. A lot if not most atheists to me at least actually just seem anti-christian. Thoughts?

No your wrong on that as usual. All the Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the same anyway as they are based off Judaism more or less. As for Buddhism, Hinduism, etc none of them encourage critical thinking and they actively discourage it. Well a few branches of Hinduism encourage it i think (don't quote me on that one) but that's about it. I look at all of them all as the last refugee of the oppressed much like a spiritual version of Heroin or Vodka.

I could care less if someone is religious or not just as long as they don't try to impose their views on others so i don't "go after" any religion. Some Atheist sadly feel the need to attack anything that reeks of religion but nobody takes them seriously.

 

[Ninae]

By "simple-minded" I meant they think a religion that is more exotic and interesting to them must also be more true. This is very common in the Western world. More or less the standard.

 

[Psyduck]

By "simple-minded" I meant they think a religion that is more exotic and interesting to them must also be more true. This is very common in the Western world. More or less the standard.

plz don't make a joke out of yourself; the more exotic something is, the more YOU think it is true; you are psychologically unable to settle for the normal and ordinary (i.e. that which is widely accepted) because of some narcissistic personality disorder and your desire of being different than the 'average' person.

 

[Ninae]

But what about my finally being able to embrace Christ and have some respect for Christianity? And maybe I'm not like "the average person". I've never been treated like one.

Not that I'm the only one. There are so many extra-ordinary people in my family and in this world. I just appreciate them and don't hate on them.

Besides, what is "widely accepted", or brainwashed into your mind isn't really that great.

 

[Shimmerchasm]

Richard Dawkins kills my intellectual boner like no other person.. what a douche. Anyway..

I don't mind people who hold an atheist stance, but I definitely feel strongly against those who try to enforce it as some kind of scientific-philosophic super truth, going around belittling anyone of a religious faith for daring to hold such an absurd perspective on existence. And yet these same people tend to believe the Universe sprung from nothing in an almighty explosion for absolutely no reason.. which is equally absurd as any creation myth, because it is a creation myth.

They go after the Judeo-Christian religion because it's an easy target. The religion has lost so much of its original weight and has become just a puppet show basically, the majority of its followers behaving in a very much like cult fashion. This is easy to attack. Occasionally the atheists may sympathize with followers who "do good" through following a system of faith, but it's always belittled in a condescending fashion anyway.

It's easy to attack cult like behavior and claim intellectual superiority. Much more difficult to try and actually engage the big questions of existence. They know they will never win those debates either, so they just attack the easy prey and then claim victory with their own particular brand of 'philosophical' answers. Which is quite childish really.

YES! This! Couldn't have said it better myself. And I used to be one, so I know... If Dawkins said it, it was law. Looking back I can see how ridiculous I was. This hardcore neo atheist isolates people just as much as Christianity.

 

[RichardMooner]

We don't?

It's probably because (western) atheists know more about Christianity than others.

I would disagree entirely. Most western Atheists seem stuck on reading the NIV and then trying to disprove the Abrahamic God based on the same poor interpretations and translations made by the pseudo-christian churches that have broken off from the legalist, fundamentalist churches. Or pseudo-fundamentalist churches like the Church of the Nazarene. If some middle class, seemingly "knowledgeable" atheist went up against someone like William Lane Craig they would walk away in tears crying for Jesus to help them win the next argument.

Not that I like the fundamentalist church, at all, but their arguments are very strong and defensible at this point in time. My Grandfather was a legalist, and a world class scientist, and as he put it, "You can choose to believe in logic, which we know is flawed, or you can believe in God.". The man was an asshole in many ways, but he knew his Bible, having translated the entire thing from Greek and Hebrew to English on his own, and he understood his sciences. He was an atheist up until the age of 35 and eventually decided that there must be a God, and from then on, he studied his Bible using a vast array of sources and concordances, for 6 or so hours a day, on average, up until his death last year. I wouldn't dare try to argue with him on the subject of religion. It's not all that uncommon to find people like himself in The Church of Christ.

 

[What 23]

Hey, that's the church I was brought up in. Not saying there is a connection... I don't know, but it was called Liberty (city name) Church of Christ. I was almost born there. Or that's where my mom went into labor. Then my first girlfriend was named Kristin, and she shared my birthday, and the only girl I dated from that church was named Crystal.

Anyways... I think most simply, it (the reason its so criticized) has to do with its position of power and influence.

SS made a great post, as most always, IMO.

 

[rickolasnice]

I would disagree entirely. Most western Atheists seem stuck on reading the NIV and then trying to disprove the Abrahamic God based on the same poor interpretations and translations made by the pseudo-christian churches that have broken off from the legalist, fundamentalist churches. Or pseudo-fundamentalist churches like the Church of the Nazarene. If some middle class, seemingly "knowledgeable" atheist went up against someone like William Lane Craig they would walk away in tears crying for Jesus to help them win the next argument.

Debatable.

And when I said "we don't".. I meant that being an atheist does not mean you are against religion / enjoy debating religion / attack religion.. An atheist is simply "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

I've not based anything I believe about the bible on a third party interpretation.. I've read it, and many papers etc on it, and come to my own conclusions. Besides, there are some things that can only be interpreted as what it literally says.. To find a hidden meaning, a lot of the time, is projecting a self want / needed message over the actual one.

As for mistranslations.. Even Mattew / Luke fucked that one up when they decided to add in that Jesus was born from a virgin, mistranslating Isa. 17:4 (Or 14:7.. can't be arsed to look it up right now).. But there now exists a direct translation bible (forget the name of that one too).

 

[Bardeaux]

Outspoken academic and culturally relevant atheists seem to resent and target the idea of religious faith rather than any particular religion. Christopher Hitchens, for example strongly criticized the three Abrahamic religions as well as others like Buddhism and Hinduism. However, as psyduck points out, the Abrahamic religions are more widely targeted by some atheists because they're simply more relevant to their lives. There's a much stronger christian influence in America than there is a hindu influence, for example.

Personally, I find Hinduism especially troublesome as the caste system in an integeral part of the more traditional practice. It's not just extremely relevant to my region or daily life. The main point atheists/secularists/agnostics etc tend to argue is that any religious belief that hinders or distorts rational social, political and cultural behavior is an impediment on human development in the 21st century. And that analysis and factual evidence should shape personal belief, rather than personal belief dictating the truth.

 

[paranoid android]

^ I don't like Hinduism at all for the same reasons. The caste system is one of the worst things ever to come out of any religion. Plus it was a part of their political system and religion has absolutely no place in politics.

 

[swilow]

I guess Hinduism is a prime example of the way many world religions should be seen as indigenous and culturally-bound. The tenets behind many religions seem senseless when removed (by time or space) from their cultural origin. Its also a possible reason why more theistically-neutral religions such as Buddhism don't attract as much opposition, because they can be removed from the culture that birthed them and still make a fair degree of sense.

Richard Dawkins kills my intellectual boner like no other person.. what a douche. Anyway..

I don't mind people who hold an atheist stance, but I definitely feel strongly against those who try to enforce it as some kind of scientific-philosophic super truth, going around belittling anyone of a religious faith for daring to hold such an absurd perspective on existence. And yet these same people tend to believe the Universe sprung from nothing in an almighty explosion for absolutely no reason.. which is equally absurd as any creation myth, because it is a creation myth.

I agree regarding Dawkins. I have found some of his writings on biology (The Selfish Gene for example) to be really interesting and informative, and did enjoy some of the way he presented his arguments in The God Delusion, but I do find his actual person to be just smug, aggressive and closed off. I watched a debate with him and a catholic archbishop and, at times, he almost attacked the crowd at large for their opposition to him. Such a turn off for me. He should stick to science.

Regarding your last statement, I tend to think many atheists and scientists are actually just saying "I don't know" how the universe began. That's not a claim of any form; its the absence of a claim. There is an important difference I think. A hallmark of religion is making positive statements about things that can't really be known, such as the events of the origin of our universe.

There is something very strange about those that identify as atheists. Its a non-descriptor, or should be, but atheism (in part) seems to have fallen into a rut quite similar to dogmatic theistic world-religions and seems to be grasping for its own identity. Its a negative descriptor, it describes a quality one does not have and is way too amorphous to be a meaningful term.

 

[nuttynutskin]

There is something very strange about those that identify as atheists. Its a non-descriptor, or should be, but atheism (in part) seems to have fallen into a rut quite similar to dogmatic theistic world-religions and seems to be grasping for its own identity.

I agree and I would even go as far as saying atheism is a religion itself. To me it's like a spectrum... On one side you have hardcore atheists saying that without a doubt there is no god, and on the other you have the religious fundamentalists saying that without a doubt there is. The thing is neither side can prove their stance, and that's why at least personally agnosticism makes the most sense to me. To me there's so much we don't know that I think it's silly to deny that any sort of higher power exists.

Regarding your last statement, I tend to think many atheists and scientists are actually just saying "I don't know" how the universe began. That's not a claim of any form; its the absence of a claim.

Wouldn't that be a type of agnosticism tho?

 

[Ninae]

If some middle class, seemingly "knowledgeable" atheist went up against someone like William Lane Craig they would walk away in tears crying for Jesus to help them win the next argument.

I think I like you.

Though I've never been keen on the Bible for many reasons. I sense there is so much that is corrupt there and always knew the Bible wasn't created for pure purposes and doesn't do much to bring us closer to God. And this quote from one of the links in my Lucifer thread made me even more pissed than I already was.


"The Jesus Project was a great success, in that it taught so many to connect with God once again, and it gave hope and joy where there had been only despair.

The legend of the Radiant One lived on and continued to grow for 300 years, carrying the Truth that God is Love. Although there were detractors, and Paul, who had appointed himself as an Apostle took it upon himself to redefine the mission to create what he decided was a new religion, his teachings did not take hold in a far-reaching way until Constantine decided for his own reasons to create the Bible.

I was on that committee, as a dark advisor to the Emperor. I watched as they sliced and mangled the writings of those who had truly loved Jesus, and who had written accurately of his life and work. Large tracts, like the writings of Mary Magdalene and Thomas, were declared false, illegitimate, while many of the copious writings of Paul were adopted wholesale.

It was all I could do to convince the committee that the beautiful passages describing tenderness, healing and joy among the community of followers were harmless, meaningless in the long run, and helpful in the context of the story they had constructed to try to create a picture of a weak and ineffectual leader.

It was an effective effort on their part, given that they wished to provide a worldly contrast between their powerful, aspiring Emperor and the spiritual leader who was disconnected from worldly pursuits. Jesus was intended to be used as a palliative for the people, in mild contrast to the growing power of the throne."

 

[421]

Because they have a lot of knowledge about it but a fundamental lack of understanding.