95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

[Visna]

I would like some atheists to respond. In very few occasions i ve heard atheists attacking Islam and in no occasion Jewish religion. I dont even mention other religions because they are out of the radar. So why atheists prefer to attack Christians?

Religions are at best childish, at worst they're dangerous nonsense.
Done.

[Colossus]

I construct a parallel with religion for the very reason that you seem to treat not believing in a deity (I'll say that to avoid whatever your 'technical definition' is) as as much as a stance on faith as religion itself, when many simply see it as the default position in the absence of belief. Unless you label not believing in something as a belief in itself, which is just unhelpful.

What I take objection to, call it getting defensive if you want, is you seem to fault those who don't have your supposed level of 'understanding'. For example, you say 'instead I'd call them anti-Christians or something of the like', implying that they don't have the 'metaphysical' qualifications to do something as fundamentally logical as not hold a belief that there is no reason to hold, having not been exposed to, or convinced by that belief.

What I said, and what you didn't reply to, is that while you only see atheism as philosophical and an absolute rejection of the existence of a god, this is not the position that most people you are arguing against hold. It makes no difference to my life whether or not I make any 'truth claim', therefore, don't assume that everyone who calls themselves an atheist is doing so. I could equally well say 'I'm not religious' or 'I don't believe in a god'. No doubt you get tired of hearing it, but I can equally well say 'I don't believe in unicorns'. Quite simply, I have no reason to believe in the first place; if there is no evidence for either, someone may not believe in either. What exactly is the issue with such a justification, other than it isn't philosophical enough for your liking?

Rather than assume such a narrow, academic and absolute definition of atheism, have you considered that if all the people you are debating with turn out to have a completely different definition of what their stance is, then surely it is you who should reassess what you are arguing against.

For what it is worth, the first two sentences of wiki concerning atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Just to check, you consider the narrow meaning to be atheism in your sense of the meaning, while you brand others 'anti-Christians' (or any other religion if you want). Surely making your truth claim is the most anti of any stance that can be taken?

Surely trying to construct a logical/philosophical/metaphysical (too many terms being thrown around here, not really helping your desire for clarity is it...) argument against something that isn't your own perspective is more of an 'anti' stance than simply having an emotional issue. I would say someone having an emotional problem with being told they will go to hell, or something similar, because of the way they conduct their life, is a very rational reason to object to something, regardless of their level of 'atheism' by your measure in the first place. Instead you call such objections a 'tirade of thinly veiled abuse', when it is in response to abuse that was anything but veiled.

The problem is this discussion is about atheists not Christians, so your point is basically irrelevant

Erm, the thread says 'Christians' in its title. You felt the need to provide a philosophical overview of your objections to those who call themselves atheists. If the thread was about issues concerning atheists, you would have just given your answer.

Essentially, you are saying some atheists aren't, in your view, atheists. However, because it is a much broader term than you tend to deal with in your posts, this isn't a fair statement to make. If someone says there is no god, they could call themselves an atheist. If someone says they don't believe in a god, they can call also call themselves an atheist. Does it bother you that much? Furthermore, does the distinction you are so keen to make explain why discussions are often centred around Christianity, as is being asked? No. Because either could centre a discussion around Christianity.

[Lazarus]

All bases seem to have been covered. Christianity is the majority, and therefore the most common as well as most Atheists live in previously Christian dominated countries but I'll go one step further. I assume that you are some random denomination of Christianity Papay, from what I've read of your posting, and I'll say you think the majority of attacks are against Christianity because you're a Christian so you have to listen to them.

Also, what you call attacks, we just call questioning and you have nothing to fear from it unless your answers are found to be wanting.

that atheistic demon Stephen Hawking

I'm going to have to insist you stop this slander - firstly because there are no such things as demons and secondly because Stephen Hawking is probably the least evil man associated with the Vatican. Unless you have some kind of evidence he is a demon aside from you don't like what he says I'm calling you out on this ridiculous point.

[Valden]

I construct a parallel with religion for the very reason that you seem to treat not believing in a deity (I'll say that to avoid whatever your 'technical definition' is) as as much as a stance on faith as religion itself, when many simply see it as the default position in the absence of belief. Unless you label not believing in something as a belief in itself, which is just unhelpful.

To begin with let us establish that faith means trust. I trust the chain of abstract reasoning that leads me to conclude it is safe to leave my house without an anvil falling on my head, therefore I have faith an anvil will not fall on my head. I do not know it won’t, but I trust my reasons for thinking so. Religious faith is something of a different kind, rather than trust in a specific causal or physical chain to produce an outcome, it is trust in a worldview. For whatever rational reason (perhaps the perception of a Moral Law) an individual may place trust in the worldview that there exists a God. They can’t prove it either way, but based on their curiosity and reasoning, that is what makes the most sense of reality to them, and so they place trust in it. Do I accuse the atheist of having faith? Of course I do! It would be a negligible excuse for a free thinker who didn’t have faith, who did not trust any statement, fact or claim. Imagine trying to function without having any faith that what you are seeing is real, or that the sun will rise tomorrow? You would become a solipsistic doom mongerer. Faith is not intrinsically irrational, in every instance of faith a probability judgement must be made on the facts and reasoning to determine which interpretation is the most probable, and therefore which should be trusted; which is worthy of faith. Given this, ‘not believing’ in a deity is either a conscious choice to deny the reasoning that leads to trust in the existence of that deity, or it is an ignorance of the entire issue, an unawareness of the metaphysical claims. Of these two, the former is what I would call a thoroughgoing atheist; someone who has evaluated the issue, paid it intellectual attention and made a probability judgement on their perception of theistic justifications, choosing to place their trust in what they see as being the more plausible alternative (which could be a denial of God’s existence, or a claim there is no justification to believe he does exist, for instance). The latter, however, I would not call an atheist, these two fish are different. The former is an active thinker who has considered and rejected a claim; the latter is someone yet to encounter that claim. I said it in my last post and I reaffirm it in this, it is disingenuous to deny this distinction and claim that everyone who isn’t a theist is an atheist, indeed it belittles the thoroughgoing atheists who have seen and rejected the claim.

What I take objection to, call it getting defensive if you want, is you seem to fault those who don't have your supposed level of 'understanding'. For example, you say 'instead I'd call them anti-Christians or something of the like', implying that they don't have the 'metaphysical' qualifications to do something as fundamentally logical as not hold a belief that there is no reason to hold, having not been exposed to, or convinced by that belief.

I would certainly call people who launch attacks on Christian doctrine (whilst calling themselves atheists) without having much intellectual understanding of what atheism is, or even having thought about it, anti-Christians rather than atheists. As I said in my original post, we really don’t seem to have a disagreement, I appreciate that you dislike me, but please look beyond that and see I am simply making the claim that people should be more cautious before they nail their colours to a post they haven’t seen before. Being an anti-Christian is not the same thing as being an atheist, you could be a Hindu and an anti-Christian, for example. You earlier constructed the parallel argument that a lot of people call themselves Christians whilst not practising Christian doctrine, and supposed that this somehow rendered my argument a double-standard. This of course demonstrates exactly what I am talking about; I make a statement you perceive to be an attack on atheism (it is nothing of the sort, I am simply making a point about the linguistics of the issue) and instead replying to my actual points, you whack out the guns and start firing at the flying frocks and dog collars you imagine to be swooping down on you. In other words, your reaction has not been a response to my argument -it has not even been fundamentally atheist- but anti-Christian.

What I said, and what you didn't reply to, is that while you only see atheism as philosophical and an absolute rejection of the existence of a god, this is not the position that most people you are arguing against hold. It makes no difference to my life whether or not I make any 'truth claim', therefore, don't assume that everyone who calls themselves an atheist is doing so. I could equally well say 'I'm not religious' or 'I don't believe in a god'. No doubt you get tired of hearing it, but I can equally well say 'I don't believe in unicorns'. Quite simply, I have no reason to believe in the first place; if there is no evidence for either, someone may not believe in either. What exactly is the issue with such a justification, other than it isn't philosophical enough for your liking?

I don’t only see atheism as an ‘absolute rejection’ or God, it can manifest itself in many ways on a personal level, but when proper, rigorous argumentation begins, opinions and perspectives are no more relevant what your favrouite food is; whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant, whether or not I believe in God is irrelevant. What is relevant is the arguments given in defence of the claims, and the evidence for them. In short, argumentation is a practise engaged in to establish truth, and this is done through impartial discussions of facts, not through presenting a personal lack of belief in God as the foundation of an argument, this is literally logically fallacious. Whether or not God exists is irrelevant to this claim, for it makes a claim about what you personally don’t believe in, not what does or does not exist. Again, if you comprehended my argument instead of your dislike of me, I don’t think we would really disagree. Imagine a scientist who went to a lecture, and instead of presenting a theory on radioactivity, presented his personal, arbitrary opinions on radioactivity, “I have a lack of belief X physical mechanism happens”. Well so what? Whether or not someone has a lack of or abundance of belief in something is simply irrelevant as to whether or not that something exists.

Rather than assume such a narrow, academic and absolute definition of atheism, have you considered that if all the people you are debating with turn out to have a completely different definition of what their stance is, then surely it is you who should reassess what you are arguing against.

If they all had the same definition, then of course! But that isn’t the case at all, as I have been saying, the problem is pervasive ignorance rather than a true definitional dispute. This isn’t an issue about the existence of God, it is simply about an apparently poor level of education and a resultant improper use of terminology. There are several members on this forum who see this and as such have clarified their positions, which I have respect for, I believe Himster is one of those in terming himself an agnostic atheist. It is all very well calling yourself an atheist in casual conversation, but in argumentation you have to clarify exactly what your claim is, otherwise you don’t have an argument, and even in more relaxed debating forums like EMM it is highly important to clarify exactly what claims you are making. I can’t argue against your lack of belief in God anymore than I can argue against Bill’s favourite food being beef. It’s a personal psychological state, not a truth claim.

Just to check, you consider the narrow meaning to be atheism in your sense of the meaning, while you brand others 'anti-Christians' (or any other religion if you want). Surely making your truth claim is the most anti of any stance that can be taken?

No I don’t arbitrarily brand people anti-Christians, I deduce that someone who presents aggressive and emotionally charged arguments against Christianity whilst having little to no real interest in whether or not God exists does not warrant the term ‘atheist’ in the same way an intellectually rigorous person who has rationally rejected God does. This latter person is more accurately an anti-Christian than an atheist. It is a description of the said person’s position, not a ‘branding’. Again, your siege mentality is really showing, and I urge you to look more dispassionately upon this issue, and see that my posts are merely addressing semantics rather than atheism vs theism.

Surely trying to construct a logical/philosophical/metaphysical (too many terms being thrown around here, not really helping your desire for clarity is it...)

If there is anything you don’t understand then PM me and I’ll gladly explain further, this is a forum, and a forum is a place where ideas are tested and grow. It would be completely against this ethos if I were to avoid explaining something to you, so please ask if you have any doubts.

argument against something that isn't your own perspective is more of an 'anti' stance than simply having an emotional issue. I would say someone having an emotional problem with being told they will go to hell, or something similar, because of the way they conduct their life, is a very rational reason to object to something, regardless of their level of 'atheism' by your measure in the first place. Instead you call such objections a 'tirade of thinly veiled abuse', when it is in response to abuse that was anything but veiled.

We have a disagreement then, because an emotional response to an argument is not a counter argument or rebuttal, it is a logical fallacy. I do not consider denying the truth of an argument because of a personal distaste of that argument’s consequences a valid reason for denying that argument at all, and I am sure other users –both atheist and theist alike- will agree with me. This isn’t a point about religion or atheism, but of simple logic. It is invalid to dismiss an argument based on your personal feelings towards it. Such responses really are abusive, despite your mockery of my term; to take someone else’s argument and dismiss it with your own ‘moral’ outrage rather than a proper logical rebuttal is damned rude besides being logically fallacious. This position embodies just the kind of attitude I am trying to fight against. I have respect for well-thought atheists, and even for well thought anti-Christians, but not for people who think that kind of fallacious reasoning is acceptable argumentation. No sir.

[Colossus]

I can trust based on reason, the sun rising tomorrow being the prime example of that. No point getting into that though, partly because it's nothing to do with the topic, and partly because I have no intention of arguing against what I know your view on that is.

Given this, ‘not believing’ in a deity is either a conscious choice to deny the reasoning that leads to trust in the existence of that deity

I trust the reasoning that there is no reason to believe in the existence of a deity in the first place.. Apologies if I am mistaken, but when you say 'deny the reasoning', this implies that believing is the logical answer. Now obviously this is what you feel, but I can only disagree entirely.

I am simply making a point about the linguistics of the issue) and instead replying to my actual points, you whack out the guns and start firing at the flying frocks and dog collars you imagine to be swooping down on you

And I'm simply making a point that there is little to be gained for critiquing the use of over-arching groups, as it is equally applicable in both situations, which you acknowledged, which is again linguistics. Rather we could discuss the issues themselves, rather than precisely whom you deem to be raising them.

but in argumentation you have to clarify exactly what your claim is, otherwise you don’t have an argument, and even in more relaxed debating forums like EMM it is highly important to clarify exactly what claims you are making. I can’t argue against your lack of belief in God anymore than I can argue against Bill’s favourite food being beef. It’s a personal psychological state, not a truth claim.

It's entirely possible to debate a position irrespective of what your own position on the matter is. I don't have to state my belief/claim/whatever to discuss something the op or yourself has put forward. I don't definitely state my view for that very reason, note how I said 'I could equally well say' and 'if there is no evidence'.

It is invalid to dismiss an argument based on your personal feelings towards it. Such responses really are abusive, despite your mockery of my term; to take someone else’s argument and dismiss it with your own ‘moral’ outrage rather than a proper logical rebuttal is damned rude besides being logically fallacious. This position embodies just the kind of attitude I am trying to fight against.

Haha, and I'm the one who is apparently getting defensive? You think it is perfectly acceptable to tell someone they are going to hell, on the basis that they have done something that a book which is thousands of years old says they are going to go to hell for, yet when they take objection to such judgement being passed upon them, that is 'abusive'? That really is ludicrous. If someone walked up to you are told you that you were going to hell because of their differing beliefs, would you not be offended, or at the very least affronted? This could equally well be a problem of another religion whose beliefs differ to your own. Whose is the ''moral' outrage' now?

I have respect for anyone whose views are well thought out, even though I may disagree. I don't have respect for views that judge and condemn on the basis of their assumed moral superiority, hence why I gave that example to justify why your so called 'anti-Christians' may exist.

[Muizer]

This. (Sort of)

Pretty good answer.

[AqD]

I would like some atheists to respond. In very few occasions i ve heard atheists attacking Islam and in no occasion Jewish religion. I dont even mention other religions because they are out of the radar. So why atheists prefer to attack Christians?

Because attacking Islam is dangerous. I thought everyone knows that?

[athanaric]

I'm going to have to insist you stop this slander - firstly because there are no such things as demons and secondly because Stephen Hawking is probably the least evil man associated with the Vatican. Unless you have some kind of evidence he is a demon aside from you don't like what he says I'm calling you out on this ridiculous point.

You should call him out on the other ridiculous points he made, as well...

[Sir Winston Churchill]

I would like some atheists to respond. In very few occasions i ve heard atheists attacking Islam and in no occasion Jewish religion. I dont even mention other religions because they are out of the radar. So why atheists prefer to attack Christians?

Attack is a horrible word to use.

Anyways moving on from that, it's because Christians tend to be the most prominent and dominate religion that does the most against non-denominational thought. For instance, you don't see tons of flack being brought up over "In Allah We Trust" or "Under Vishnu" in the pledge of Allegiance.

It really has to do with Christians being the most combative in religious debates. Debates on Islam aren't as often occurring and sometimes result in just pure violence. Jews tend to to just keep to themselves, so it's a "don't hurt me, I don't hurt you" sort of thing.

In short, it's just as you said. Other religions are out of the radar, Christianity tends to plop itself dead in the middle.

Some part of atheists are Jewish nationality, so not everyone of them want to attack so much Jewish religion of their parents. But that's not always a rule. F.e.: I know some newspaper holded by secular Jews, who attacked religious cutting of animals by kosher Jews. On the other hand, that atheist Oralia Fellatio... pardon - Oriana Fallaci wanted to be some sort of ally of Papal State. Or other example: that atheistic demon Stephen Hawking is member for life of vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

I like how you disdain non-religious people but then make a joke about a sex act that in most religions is seen as unclean and even a sin.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Where do these numbers come from exactly ?

[Dr Zoidberg]

I would like some atheists to respond. In very few occasions i ve heard atheists attacking Islam and in no occasion Jewish religion. I dont even mention other religions because they are out of the radar. So why atheists prefer to attack Christians?

"Boo Hoo, people are making fun of me and my imaginary sky wizard, but not that guy and his imaginary sky wizard!"

[Psychonaut]

Christians tend not to kill people when you make fun of them.

[Garbarsardar]

Atheist attacks? Seriously? Offering an opinion is now an attack? I have a hard time to decide what is most irritating here: the paranoid phobia or the invented "95%" statistic.

[PikeStance]

I agree with Garb this thread is meaningless without a "real" number to discuss. The side discussion of a non atheist insisting on what atheism is despite atheists argument to the contrary got mundane as well. In all this thread was a huge disappointment. Too bad you cannot rate threads on this forum...... LOL

---

[LWT]

I would like some atheists to respond. In very few occasions i ve heard atheists attacking Islam and in no occasion Jewish religion. I dont even mention other religions because they are out of the radar. So why atheists prefer to attack Christians?

I think it's because most atheists used to be christian themselves, or were raised in a family that used to be christian. I think the atheists who like to debate on fora like this, will also attack other religions if you make a topic about them. After all, all an atheist is is someone who doens't believe in gods (no matter which ones).

[SLN445]

The reason when i have to debate or disagree with Religion that its usualy with Christians is as everyone else has stated, that they make up the vast majority of Religious people in my Country and tend to be the ones that can have an effect on the way i/others live.
Muslims are starting to make up a sizable population were some of their issues clash but they aint at the point that Christianity is were they have large Political groups that can sway Laws or Political decisions..

[Gaidin]

I would like some atheists to respond. In very few occasions i ve heard atheists attacking Islam and in no occasion Jewish religion. I dont even mention other religions because they are out of the radar. So why atheists prefer to attack Christians?

We don't attack any religion. What a pathetic word. We form logical arguments against theism. Guess what's included in theism as a subset by definition default.

....

Wait for it.

....

Islam.

[PikeStance]

I think it's because most atheists used to be christian themselves, or were raised in a family that used to be christian. I think the atheists who like to debate on fora like this, will also attack other religions if you make a topic about them. After all, all an atheist is is someone who doesn't believe in gods (no matter which ones).

This is a good example: This is repeated often here despite the fact it isn't true. Agnostic Atheism believe that it is impossible for humans to perceive "God," therefore, it is impossible to know if a "God" exist.

---

[Ummagumma]

It is true. Atheism is the absence of belief. An atheist is someone that does not believe. So "After all, all an atheist is is someone who doesn't believe in gods" is true enough. There was no [Agnostic/Strong/Liquorice-flavoured] qualifier needed.

(Pedantic I know, but there was no reference to the cause of the atheism, or any firm denial of divinity. Just 'does not believe').

[Admiral Piett]

Some part of atheists are Jewish nationality, so not everyone of them want to attack so much Jewish religion of their parents. But that's not always a rule. F.e.: I know some newspaper holded by secular Jews, who attacked religious cutting of animals by kosher Jews. On the other hand, that atheist Oralia Fellatio... pardon - Oriana Fallaci wanted to be some sort of ally of Papal State. Or other example: that atheistic demon Stephen Hawking is member for life of vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

There's a damn good reason even the Vatican is forced to recognize Stephen Hawking. His groundwork and level of experience and understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics has advanced our knowledge of the physical universe decades further than perhaps any other. His work is equaled only by a few in our lifetime. It's not impossible to state that we will one day have advanced space travel technology based in no small part on his work.

You don't see any atheist groups flying planes into buildings, launching crusades/jihads, detonating themselves in public squares, gunning down politicians and religious figures, or repressing women. I challenge you to find any example of an atheist group that would ever actually 'attack' anyone.