Why Do atheists Attack Christianity?

[doubting_tommy]

Well most atheists that i have met know the bible better than the christians i know.

I always find it weird that they would take the time to learn the Bible.

They cannot believe how widespread and influential religion is and try their best to bring down the walls of it.

OK, but why?

While I cannot speak for all atheists, I think there's an important distinction between being anti-religion and being pro-secular. While some atheists may simply despise the idea of religion and religious people (there are jerks and rude people in every group), many are perfectly happy for people to be religious, so long as it doesn't interfere with their lives.

This is really fairly reasonable, from the atheist perspective. If you don't believe in God, then you wouldn't want to be forced to behave in a certain way, if the only reason for behaving that way requires the assumption that God exists. I'm sure this isn't such an odd concept for Christians to imagine either- you wouldn't like it if members of a different Christian denomination or members of another religion got into government and started telling you how to behave based on their religious beliefs.

The ideal solution, at least from the atheist perspective, is to have a system whereby the government remains neutral in matters of religion, does not pass laws whose only justification is religious, and allows people the freedom to worship (or not worship) as they see fit.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

The true atheist is NOT out there attacking Christianity; they don't believe in God, so they DON'T CARE about it. The subject is boring and nonsensical to a true atheist. It is only the pretended atheist--a true God hater--who bothers to attack Christianity.

I agree with this.

Before I was a Christian I thought the Bible was fairy tails and Christians were naive dupes.

I had no time for self deluded dupes.

As a Christian I have a charge from God to spread the gospel and contend for the faith, so that's what I try to do.

If you're promoting a message, it's because you're on a campaign.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

[The ideal solution, at least from the atheist perspective, is to have a system whereby the government remains neutral in matters of religion, does not pass laws whose only justification is religious, and allows people the freedom to worship (or not worship) as they see fit.

While I find this suggestion very comfortable in the immediate, there is an inherent fundamental challenge, namely that the freedom would rely only on opinions of those who currently hold the democratic acceptance of the principle of freedom of worship.

That democratic principle is grounded in the Christian belief that it is God who judges the world, and therefore the world must be free to make its own choices. Divorce it from this root, freedom of religion has no solid foundation.

Many atheists would outlaw religious fundamentalism if given the chance, as would many who do not hold to western values. As a democracy, if the majority switches to a group that does not hold to the same value of freedom of religion, (i.e. if you have a purely secular safeguard on any value) the drifting of the opinion of the majority could paradoxically veto the underlying democratic value, and democracy collapses in on itself. Democracy fundamentally needs an unchanging philosophical anchor, which cannot be found apart from religion, and in particular the religion of the Bible.

In other words, if any freedom is based on nothing more than the value of the masses, the value could chance and the freedom will be revoked. It must be grounded on something solid, not on the shifting winds of immediate cultural preference.

Edited February 8, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog

[808state]

While I find this suggestion very comfortable in the immediate, there is an inherent fundamental challenge, namely that the freedom would rely only on opinions of those who currently hold the democratic acceptance of the principle of freedom of worship.

Right, but we are also a constitutional republic, so we still have to adhere to our constitution.

That democratic principle is grounded in the Christian belief that it is God who judges the world, and therefore the world must be free to make its own choices. Divorce it from this root, freedom of religion has no solid foundation.

I believe democracy has it's root in Ancient Greece...

Many atheists would outlaw religious fundamentalism if given the chance, as would many who do not hold to western values. As a democracy, if the majority switches to a group that does not hold to the same value of freedom of religion, (i.e. if you have a purely secular safeguard on any value) the drifting of the opinion of the majority could paradoxically veto the underlying democratic value, and democracy collapses in on itself. Democracy fundamentally needs an unchanging philosophical anchor, which cannot be found apart from religion, and in particular the religion of the Bible.

In other words, if any freedom is based on nothing more than the value of the masses, the value could chance and the freedom will be revoked. It must be grounded on something solid, not on the shifting winds of immediate cultural preference.

Freedom isn't and shouldn't be based purely on the masses. It has to be constitutional. Look at the days back when interracial marriage was legalized, if it had been up to the majority at the time it would have remained illegal, but it was the supreme court that decided it was unconstitutional.

I understand why Christians feel insecure about their religious freedoms, but I do think the Christian media tends over-exaggerate what the non-Christian "agenda" actually is. In-fact, if the media has a biased slant of any kind, chances are, they are probably over-exaggerating the claims of the opposing side..

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I believe democracy has it's root in Ancient Greece...

Of course it did, and back then it stood for the values of Ancient Greece, which included being able to purchase children for sex slaves on street corners.

Freedom isn't and shouldn't be based purely on the masses. It has to be constitutional. Look at the days back when interracial marriage was legalized, if it had been up to the majority at the time it would have remained illegal, but it was the supreme court that decided it was unconstitutional.

But it's more complicated than that, since things that are unconstitutional are passed all the time based on pressure from the public, and then precedent is set.

I understand why Christians feel insecure about their religious freedoms, but I do think the Christian media tends over-exaggerate what the non-Christian "agenda" actually is. In-fact, if the media has a biased slant of any kind, chances are, they are probably over-exaggerating the claims of the opposing side..

It's not a matter of insecurity of what the media may or may not be reporting.

It's just the reality of the situation.

Rise of the middle class, increased secularization, abondonment of fundamental values, social unrest, return to values, reset.

And so the pendulum swings.

[808state]

It's not a matter of insecurity of what the media may or may not be reporting.

It's just the reality of the situation.

Rise of the middle class, increased secularization, abondonment of fundamental values, social unrest, return to values, reset.

And so the pendulum swings.

So, ideally, how do you think everything should be handled? What would be your solution?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

It's not a matter of insecurity of what the media may or may not be reporting.

It's just the reality of the situation.

Rise of the middle class, increased secularization, abondonment of fundamental values, social unrest, return to values, reset.

And so the pendulum swings.

So, ideally, how do you think everything should be handled? What would be your solution?

Kind of like it is, but with the acknowledgement of the dangers to enable as much damage control as possible.

[doubting_tommy]

While I find this suggestion very comfortable in the immediate, there is an inherent fundamental challenge, namely that the freedom would rely only on opinions of those who currently hold the democratic acceptance of the principle of freedom of worship.

I

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I’m not sure what you mean here. Could you clarify?

The rest of the post was the clarification.

I disagree. Democracy was invented in Ancient Greece, a non-Christian society.

I already addressed this.

Yes, that's the background for the concept, but it didn't actually reflect what we would consider truly democratic values, as seen in the example I provided that they sold children for sex slaves. All people were not equal.

The origin of the concept and what we currently identify as democracy are two very different things.

Today, democratic governments abound in societies which are predominantly non-Christian as well as Christian. The most influential political philosophers of the 20th century have grounded their justifications for religious freedom in non-religious terms. This is not to deny the claim that principles which justify freedom of religion are to be found in the Christian tradition, but to suggest that only explicitly Christian principles are capable of justifying freedom of religion is simply false.

This is true only in light of societies that have recently branched out from Christian societies (those that functioned at least in theory under the supposedly Biblical values).

The secular state is in its infancy and still carries the baggage of its religious parent state.

Everything that atheists are championing as atheistic values are adopted from the system they claim to reject, but don't actually disown the western values they under which they brought up.

Necessarily, in time, if the values reflected more and more developing secular mindset, they would necessarily differ more and more from 'Christian' values.

Since there is no anchor for secular values, apart from the will of the masses, you can get things like the French Revolution, and under a purely secular value system, if the majority support it, its simply throwing off tyranny, until the masses change their minds, sympathize with those who were hurt instead of the masses, and look back with contempt and disgust.

Your argument is predicated on the short-sightedness of the recent past, extrapolated into the future in such a way as to defy the concept of history repeating itself.

I can only repeat what I have said above. It’s not the case that only Christianity and Christian principles are capable of ‘anchoring’ democracy. This is evidenced by the existence of non-Christian democracies, as well as the existence of secular philosophies which are capable of sustaining principles such as freedom of religion without resorting to religious reasons for support.

There is no support that they are capable of sustaining anything for any period of time.

I would argue that what's happening with euthanasia in the Netherlands with people being killed against their will by doctors, and with abortion in the western world, and with the state-enforcement of prostitution of unemployed women in Germany, etc. that we're witnessing the predictable outcome of the secular version of democracy, which is the deterioration of the rights of the individual in the face of the will of the masses (because there is no transcendent anchoring which decrees the integrity of the individual).

Oft paid lip service that secularism can and does maintain morality is simply in the eye of the beholder. Any state with differing morals could make the same claim, simply by defining its approach as the moral approach.

What we will find, however, is the deterioration of the rights of the individual.

I don’t see how Christianity is somehow immune from this scenario. If you have a society of Christians who believe in freedom of religion, and, let’s say Theocratic Muslims, who do not, and the Theocrats come to outnumber the Christians, then the freedom to worship will be revoked. I’m not sure what your point is here.

Actually, that is an exact example of what I had in mind.

I don't quite understand is how you see Theocratic Muslims as a problem with Christianity, though.

Edited February 8, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Indeed there were many unpleasant things back then but in time Greek philosophy arrived at more and more civilized and humane conclusions.

That's simply misinformed. Ancient Greece was selling sex slaves to the end. Socrates was executed by the state for his philosophical conclusions.

Indeed the Stoics had arrived at an anti-slavery idea and the idea of the equality of all human beings by the time Christianity hit Rome.

The stoics were one completing branch of philosphy among many.

While those ideas may have been present, child sex slaves were still being sold in Rome, and people were still being executed for what they believed.

That philosophical life of the educated classes feel before the might of Christianity and the some of the ideas were absorbed or independently arrived at, and some were lost, such as the slavery one. Christianity didn't get around to getting rid of slavery for many, many centuries later.

True, but Christianity eventually did, and it was only Christianity that did.

Everyone else jumped on the band wagon afterwards.

The practice you name above though was not that widespread and the pederasty of the Greeks is much misunderstood, while still being absolutely condemnable.

That also is simply misinformed. It was an acceptable practice in the Polis'.

Also, the actual morals and the ethics of the Greeks were not uniform. There were large differences between the city states and within (some of) them.

I know, but neither was democracy characteristic of every Polis, so that's a moot point. We could concentrate on Athens, where child sex slavery was acceptable, and was also the heart of the democratic movement, but it would be chasing after the specifics when a generalization applies.

Anyways, I don't really have time to go too far into this right now. I'll try to get back to this later.