Why are atheists considered the strident and uncompromising ones?

[Phier]

I agree with your assessment, except that there is indeed a cult of reason and humanism in atheist circle. A example of that is the attempt's to substitute religions symbols and holidays with humanist ones.

I think there is a desire on the part of some atheists to take on the pomp and trappings of religious social life. Have the festivals, the meetings, the charity, the whatever, which are one of the positive things religion can do by binding people together. I sympathize with this desire but I reject it myself, being I am not one who needs such community activities to feel happy. Likewise Christmas in my house is still called Christmas, and our tree has an angel on top. Its about as religious as Halloween is though, and thats fine with me, its an excuse to have a party and family over.

Also while you are right that the debate between the two groups are not on the plane, atheists do display a willingness to talk about religious issues that is as intense as a religious person. If this is all nonsense, then why is it so important for atheists ?

Because theists vote (or run the government directly) or at least men use religion as an excuse for power and suppression. If someone tries to get a gay bar shut down because its a den of sin then religion becomes the issue, not homosexuality.

I, as a near life long atheist, do not enjoy such debates with a true believer, because their minds are completely closed. What I do enjoy are such debates with believers who do not simply dogmatically believe on faith alone.

[Menelik_I]

I think there is a desire on the part of some atheists to take on the pomp and trappings of religious social life. Have the festivals, the meetings, the charity, the whatever, which are one of the positive things religion can do by binding people together. I sympathize with this desire but I reject it myself, being I am not one who needs such community activities to feel happy. Likewise Christmas in my house is still called Christmas, and our tree has an angel on top. Its about as religious as Halloween is though, and thats fine with me, its an excuse to have a party and family over.

ok.

Because theists vote (or run the government directly) or at least men use religion as an excuse for power and suppression. If someone tries to get a gay bar shut down because its a den of sin then religion becomes the issue, not homosexuality.

I have not been to America so I can't talk with certainty, but the impression I have is that there is a form of American Anti-religious hysteria which seems to stem from the anti-Bush hatred of the 2000's and the general R vs D feud.

While I understand the sentiment, It seems to me that the hysterical reaction given to Rick Santorum would be more appropriate if given to the Taliban.

I, as a near life long atheist, do not enjoy such debates with a true believer, because their minds are completely closed. What I do enjoy are such debates with believers who do not simply dogmatically believe on faith alone.

You can't really have a debate if your two interests are diametrically opposed, a believer would debate with virulence mostly if He believes that He can either convert you or part of the audience, not because He wants to be in rhetorical duel with you. I myself go into closed mode when it becomes evident that no progress can be done, because otherwise it would be an objective-free discussion.

[fkizz]

I always wonder why it's so important for atheists to assert their disbelief.. not even particularly mentioning TWC forum in this, overall I keep seeing this.. I understand that they feel proud of their atheism, but they push it too much on others, in my opinion.. they end up doing the same error that they accuse religious people of doing.. pushing too much their belief/disbelief on others.. Creating more strife around the belief issue, ironically.

Agnostics on the other hand are the most mild and diplomatic group. Behaving in a truly secularist way.

[Himster]

I always wonder why it's so important for atheists to assert their disbelief.. not even particularly mentioning TWC forum in this, overall I keep seeing this.. I understand that they feel proud of their atheism, but they push it too much on others, in my opinion.. they end up doing the same error that they accuse religious people of doing.. pushing too much their belief/disbelief on others.. Creating more strife around the belief issue, ironically.

There's two reasons:
1. To validate our worldview by poor theistic counter-argument. (we're pretty vain people )
2. The hope that a counter-argument is strong enough to make us re-think our worldview and get closer to truth.

Agnostics on the other hand are the most mild and diplomatic group. Behaving in a truly secularist way.

Agnostic doesn't mean that.

[Phier]

I always wonder why it's so important for atheists to assert their disbelief.. not even particularly mentioning TWC forum in this, overall I keep seeing this.. I understand that they feel proud of their atheism, but they push it too much on others, in my opinion.. they end up doing the same error that they accuse religious people of doing.. pushing too much their belief/disbelief on others.. Creating more strife around the belief issue, ironically.

Being how atheists have been treated in the past for their lack of belief, and still often are, I think much of it is reactionary asserting. I think its the religious over reacting to the scary atheists which makes this an issue at all.

[Calypze]

This is only a problem, again, to atheists who are braindead as to the actual extent of philosophy and gnoseology - a matter which has been debated by "religious" theorists since practically the beginning of time.

And the truth of the matter is that Scientism is 100% propaganda and hot air and 0% effectiveness. Any basic 1st year theology major in Thomism can smash the whole neo-atheist crowd and practically anyone who can claim that "science 'disproves' religion" with a straight face.

Science cannot even begin making statements about the ultimate nature of reality. Science indeed cannot even postulate a single certain judgment about things: it is the nature of all inductive knowledge that it is approximate only. What Scientific fields such as Physics do is to measure certain aspects of that reality, namely those that are most passible of such an undertaking, which are the quantitative properties of solid matter and energy.

How does a "neo-atheist" differ from a plain old atheist? Atheism is just a lack of belief in deities. DOes it come in different editions?

What does it take to "disprove" religion? Science has shown certain religiou claims to be false. Science has shown, for instance, that there was no global flood, no exodus from Egypt.

What undestanding of the world can religion give that science cannot? Religions are just based on the muddlings of semi-nomads anyways. It's upheld by faith, not evidence.

The field of modern "Physics" is so narrow that a) it was rightfully denounced by a French thinker of the period that Newton does not even do "Physics", at least in the Classical conception of the thing, b) it is impressive that atheists, materialists and other such ilk try to take these simple measurements and relations and somehow give a 360 degree leap claiming they prove concretely and in an apodictic fashion several aspects of reality, including essentialism, the scandalous reductionism of modern philosophy, and the existence of God. It is an indication, after all, of the severe degeneration that "knowledge" has undergone ever since the 17th century.

Uhhm yeah?

[Calypze]

Egypt was also the country that made a whole races into slaves, and run all its major projects using slaves. Sure the pyramids might be grandiose, but they are more a monument to Egyptian slavery than marvels of architecture ... lets bring slavery back

This religiously based ignorance drives me insane. Slaves did not build the pyramids, Egyptian peasants did that during the winter when the Nile was flooded. Ancient Egypt did have slaves, but they weren't used for much else than household shores in the wealthier households.

The Israelites never were in Egypt. The exodus is not a historical event.

If you take the sexual differentiation out of marriage, then you take out the one thing that defines it collapses.

Ridiculous. Marriage is a human invention. Your sentence is like saying that expanding the voting franchise destroys democracy.

[Himster]

Well we can't say the Israelites were never in Egypt, their contemporary knowledge of Egypt would suggest that perhaps they were. But you're right that Egypt didn't use slaves as the OT suggests, they used skilled laborers and conscripts. What I think happened is when the Hyksos were expelled (they were semetic) the Israelites stayed for whatever reason and were conscripted to move Pi-Ramses when a Nile estuary dried up, the 40 year exodus almost certainly never happened though.

[Iopoppy]

Egypt was also the country that made a whole races into slaves, and run all its major projects using slaves. Sure the pyramids might be grandiose, but they are more a monument to Egyptian slavery than marvels of architecture ... lets bring slavery back

I do have to call you out on this here. Modern archaeology clearly demonstrates that the pyramids were not primarily, if hardly at all built by slaves of any kind. The camps uncovered have told a very different story. The theory being that the egyptian tribes each had a quota to build and competed amongst each other to build it faster. You have to keep in mind that they beleived the Pharoh was God on earth so their motivation was not only strong but positive. The camps also suggest that they were very well fed and housed (in ancient standards).

[Himster]

The camps also suggest that they were very well fed and housed (in ancient standards).

They also had higher quality provisions than even the army, including medical supplies and skilled surgeons and higher quantity of protein. They also had many rights, including the right to strike, one instance records workers going on strike over an issue of a make-up shortage (a worker had to look his best).

[Menelik_I]

Well we can't say the Israelites were never in Egypt, their contemporary knowledge of Egypt would suggest that perhaps they were. But you're right that Egypt didn't use slaves as the OT suggests, they used skilled laborers and conscripts. What I think happened is when the Hyksos were expelled (they were semetic) the Israelites stayed for whatever reason and were conscripted to move Pi-Ramses when a Nile estuary dried up, the 40 year exodus almost certainly never happened though.

Why didn't the exodus happen?

Surely a entire tribe can't just cross the desert and conquer the land of Cannan especially since their archnemesis the Egyptian Pharao was surely going to be a thorn on their side.

This religiously based ignorance drives me insane. Slaves did not build the pyramids, Egyptian peasants did that during the winter when the Nile was flooded. Ancient Egypt did have slaves, but they weren't used for much else than household shores in the wealthier households.

1- Slaves did build the pyramids.
2- Specialized slaves trained since infancy in a trade wasn't uncommon.
3- Conscripted peasants are still slaves.
4- Extensive use of slave labor was common in the ancient world, as the Helot and Cartago slave population illustrates.

The Israelites never were in Egypt. The exodus is not a historical event.

It is an historical event.

Ridiculous. Marriage is a human invention. Your sentence is like saying that expanding the voting franchise destroys democracy.

of course, we invented female pregnancy, affection to children and marital bonds for life.

[Himster]

Why didn't the exodus happen?

The overwhelming lack of evidence.

Surely a entire tribe can't just cross the desert and conquer the land of Cannan especially since their archnemesis the Egyptian Pharao was surely going to be a thorn on their side.

Hence the fabrication. Some form of migration certainly happened, but forty years of 603,550 men plus their women, children, elderly and livestock wandering in the desert without any evidence of it is extremely improbable as claimed in Numbers 1:46.

1- Slaves did build the pyramids.
2- Specialized slaves trained since infancy in a trade wasn't uncommon.
3- Conscripted peasants are still slaves.
4- Extensive use of slave labor was common in the ancient world, as the Helot and Cartago slave population illustrates.

Slaves don't have rights to strike, nor do they usually get better treatment than the military. They weren't even peasants, judging by their special treatment in the massive town built for them it's safe to say they were at least treated as if they were middle class and there is some evidence that they worked year round, they didn't have to provide their own food, food was shipped in for them and they had their own public laundry service just for them......... peasants wished they were these guys.

It is an historical event

.

In the same way the great flood is historical, or the siege of Troy is historical. Some semblance of these things probably happened, they have simply been exaggerated. The world was never covered in water, Helen's face didn't launch a thousand ships and 2 million Israelistes didn't wander in the desert for 40 years.

[Visna]

In the same way the great flood is historical, or the siege of Troy is historical. Some semblance of these things probably happened, they have simply been exaggerated. The world was never covered in water, Helen's face didn't launch a thousand ships and 2 million Israelistes didn't wander in the desert for 40 years.

Not to mention the Egyptians were pretty anal about recording things, I'm pretty sure there would be some sort of record of the plagues, the Exodus, the Pharaoh and his entire army vanishing, some 600,000 or slaves packing their bags and leaving etc.

[Himster]

Not so much, they would rarely record defeats and when there were stalemates they would claim victory, but yes they did record everything else to an extreme degree especially their building projects, so mass enslavement for building projects is highly imporbable and impractical. Some kind of exodus is possible, but certainly not the one described in the book of exodus and numbers.

[Lazarus]

1- Is there a particular reason why the magic man should always leave a shred of evidence with the people He talk to ?

Yes. Because if spreading his knowledge is so important he wants people to devote their entire lives to it, don't you think he should equip them with some kind of... you know, evidence so they can spread his knowledge?

2- People don't know g-d, they know an aspect of him and at varied intensities. such that there is a difference between someone having a dream about something that would happen to him and Moses cutting the dead Sea in two.

Proof that Moses parted the Dead Sea? (Don't go reaching for that Bible now)

3- the lack of evidence in itself doesn't tell you whether g-d is real or not.

This is true. A lack in evidence doesn't tell me that. But it does tell me when someone says "You can't be homosexual, God told me so!" that really, they're probably full of BS up to the neck.

Also while you are right that the debate between the two groups are not on the plane, atheists do display a willingness to talk about religious issues that is as intense as a religious person. If this is all nonsense, then why is it so important for atheists ?

Because as people, we're allowed to have opinions.

I always wonder why it's so important for atheists to assert their disbelief.. not even particularly mentioning TWC forum in this, overall I keep seeing this..

There are some Atheists who go around saying there is no God, it's true. They're wrong (because they don't know). However you'll find most Atheists just don't believe, and will assert their disbelief when a Theist says "There is a God!" (The assertion of disbelief usually comes in the form of "Prove it")

but they push it too much on others, in my opinion

Would it be better if we built special buildings everywhere, knocked on your door occasionally and threw pamphlets at you, then we all took a plane to Africa and told them they couldn't us condoms? Don't open the "pushing belief" can of worms. It goes to an ugly place.

[Calypze]

1- Slaves did build the pyramids.

No.

2- Specialized slaves trained since infancy in a trade wasn't uncommon.
3- Conscripted peasants are still slaves.
4- Extensive use of slave labor was common in the ancient world, as the Helot and Cartago slave population illustrates.

Completely irrelevant.

It is an historical event.

No.

of course, we invented female pregnancy, affection to children and marital bonds for life.

[Menelik_I]

No.

Apparently only Jews can be slaves ... what have you against Black people ?

[Calypze]

Apparently only Jews can be slaves ... what have you against Black people ?

Read the text in the link. It goes into who built the pyramids.

[Menelik_I]

Read the text in the link. It goes into who built the pyramids.

1- The link is full of BS.
2- Slaves did build the pyramids.
3- Part of those slaves where Jews.
4- Slaves could be specialized tradesmen.
5- Saying that the Jews didn't build all the pyramids is kind of like stating the obvious ? Especially since the Bible never say that there was no buildings in Egypt prior the arrival of the Jews, ie there was some slave labor before them working on stuff.

[King Calas]

Slaves did not build the pyramids. The pyramids were built by thousands of drafted workers during the flood season, when they could not do farm work.