Why are people afraid of atheism?

[ELENATION 0]

I agree that hostility comes from both sides, I've seen it from both sides in forums, in my personal life I have only encountered it once, I used to work with a guy who was an atheist, he was rude most of the times, not liked by almost anyone, including the bosses, gee, he ended up getting fired, I'm sure that had nothing to do with his personal lack of belief at all, it was just his personality, he used to start political and religious conversations all the time at work, which is not the greatest idea, and he always proclaimed he was an atheist and lashed at Christians, never once I heard him say anything against any other religion, I once asked him why the hostility against Christians specifically? and he said "religions are evil, they have been responsible for much of human misery" and I said, but you always bring up just Christians, I suppose you feel the same about every religion, his answer was "I hate all religions, but CHristianity is on the top of my list" I left it there, he was a very angry person and it wasn't worth it to get into a fight with him, even though I admit that the comment did bother me.... I am sure that not all atheists feel that way, so the atheism vs religion discussion ending up most of the times about atheism/christianity could be because it's one of the most common religion here and therefore that is the one that atheists hear about all the time? and also because since there are many Christians, those are the ones who enter into such discussions with atheists, so maybe as Christians we perceive it as hostility..? I don't know.... just saying...

Edited May 7, 2008 by ELENATION

[Gone4Now 4]

I have had the same type of conversations with athiests before. It's almost like the ex-smoker syndrome that I've seen. If you're a smoker you know you get the most flack from the ex-smokers.

I don't appreciate my thoughts and beliefs being labeled as crackpot or silly. That just doesn't flow into a rational debate - no matter what you're talking about.

[ELENATION 0]

I have had the same type of conversations with athiests before. It's almost like the ex-smoker syndrome that I've seen. If you're a smoker you know you get the most flack from the ex-smokers.

I don't appreciate my thoughts and beliefs being labeled as crackpot or silly. That just doesn't flow into a rational debate - no matter what you're talking about.

There! I think you nailed it! it's like the ex-smoker symdrome....

[gadgetlady 4]

it is felt by many that that passage indicates that the earth existed inside the circle not outside, so oddly Isaiah does not refer to the earth as round but as a circle a one dimensional object.

As I said, there are a lot of competing theories about this verse. Since no one had posited a theory about the earth's being round until roughly 200 years later, I find it quite interesting that any shape resembling a sphere was recorded here. I imagine Isaiah couldn't even fathom a spherical earth.

Have you ever read (or heard of) the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott? It's a fascinating study in dimensions, detailing a society of shapes that lives in two dimensions (hence "Flatland"). The main character is taken out of his two-dimensional space and views his old world from a third dimension. When he goes back into his two-dimensional world and tries to describe the third dimension (trying and failing to explain "UP" to a society that has absolutely no comprehension), he is seen as insane. It's a brilliant book which I first read in high school (when I was working at a local university tutoring college students in math); I read it again with my dh when we were young marrieds, because I found it in my bookshelf and couldn't contain my enthusiasm :cursing: I highly recommend it.

[ELENATION 0]

As I said, there are a lot of competing theories about this verse. Since no one had posited a theory about the earth's being round until roughly 200 years later, I find it quite interesting that any shape resembling a sphere was recorded here. I imagine Isaiah couldn't even fathom a spherical earth.

Have you ever read (or heard of) the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott? It's a fascinating study in dimensions, detailing a society of shapes that lives in two dimensions (hence "Flatland"). The main character is taken out of his two-dimensional space and views his old world from a third dimension. When he goes back into his two-dimensional world and tries to describe the third dimension (trying and failing to explain "UP" to a society that has absolutely no comprehension), he is seen as insane. It's a brilliant book which I first read in high school (when I was working at a local university tutoring college students in math); I read it again with my dh when we were young marrieds, because I found it in my bookshelf and couldn't contain my enthusiasm :cursing: I highly recommend it.

Read that book! actually recently when my oldest girl was reading it! extremely interesting to say the least!

[gadgetlady 4]

P.S. You said " When the whole earth said the world was flat" When was that? You may have a sense of what the prevailing thought of western civilization may have been but I don't think you can surmise what the whole earth thought at any given time. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it the Christians who were adamant that the world was flat.

You are wrong.

I strongly recommend reading this webpage on the subject: Myth of the Flat Earth, excepts from which include:

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.

Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few--at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.

Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman), without making notable headway against the error.

Schoolchildren in the US, Europe, and Japan are for the most part being taught the same old nonsense. How and why did this nonsense emerge?

In my research, I looked to see how old the idea was that medieval Christians believed the earth was flat. I obviously did not find it among medieval Christians. Nor among anti-Catholic Protestant reformers. Nor in Copernicus or Galileo or their followers, who had to demonstrate the superiority of a heliocentric system, but not of a spherical earth. I was sure I would find it among the eighteenth-century philosophes, among all their vitriolic sneers at Christianity, but not a word. I am still amazed at where it first appears.

No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a "simple mariner," appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was "pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene," created a fictitious account of this "nonexistent university council" and "let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense."

But now, why did the false accounts of Letronne and Irving become melded and then, as early as the 1860s, begin to be served up in schools and in schoolbooks as the solemn truth?

The answer is that the falsehood about the spherical earth became a colorful and unforgettable part of a larger falsehood: the falsehood of the eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history. This vast web of falsehood was invented and propagated by the influential historian John Draper (1811-1882) and many prestigious followers, such as Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the president of Cornell University, who made sure that the false account was perpetrated in texts, encyclopedias, and even allegedly serious scholarship, down to the present day. A lively current version of the lie can be found in Daniel Boorstin's The Discoverers, found in any bookshop or library.

The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: "Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?"

It's also interesting that in Luke 17:34-36, there is a depiction of Christ returning while some are asleep and some are working in the fields -- which I read as indication of a rotating earth.

[gadgetlady 4]

But unlike you, if my child (being a child) wanted to be exposed to something that I didn't agree with...I wouldn't let them. I don't agree with MTV so it doesn't come thru our house. I don't agree with smut magazines so it doesn't come to our house. I pitched a fit when a Victoria Secrets catalog came. Parents should monitor what their children are exposed to. I guess if my daughter came home and asked me to see something like SAW or some other horrible flick, I'd say no. There is no benefit. Now, if she said she wanted to learn more about the holocaust and wanted to watch Schindlers List or something....I've have to seriously consider it as it would add to and enrich her life.

What I'm getting at is personal preference. Just because I don't want my children exposed to certain things as a child doesn't mean I'm keeping them from things that would make them a better person, on the contrary, it's about responsible parenting.

:cursing:

As to my daughters, if they came home and asked to see SAW, I don't GUESS I'd say no. I'd say a flat-out no and we'd be having some serious discussions about why they would want to. And if they wanted to watch Schindler's List I would as well say no at this point in their lives. It's too much for them to handle right now. Later, yes. But now, not on your life. They know about the holocaust but a dramatic presentation of it would be devastating to them. Both of those examples are more than I, as an adult, can handle.

[gadgetlady 4]

I just have one question: Why is there so much hostility towards Christians?

I get the need for separation of church and state. I want that, too. But, after reading all these posts, it seems the sarcasm and anger issues are coming from the athiest side of the table. That's not to say that it hasn't been flung from both sides, but the majority of the name calling is coming from athiests.

Why is that necessary to get your point across?

Not only is there hostility, but there is also misinformation (and disinformation). I believe it is deliberate (not made up by the people posting here, but made up by others who are anti-Christian), not researched, and then repeated over and over so many times that "everyone" believes it to be true. See my post above about Christianity and the "flat earth" theory -- which is a blatant falsehood made up by those attempting to discredit Christianity. And yet if you ask the "average Joe" whether the Christian church adamantly opposed the idea of a spherical earth, he will likely say yes because he's heard the lie so often.

[green 6]

I have been following this thread with interest. I believe that it is normal to wish one's children to hold the same values and beliefs as oneself. This is only human nature. I know that as an atheist I would be inclined to shield my children from religious influences until they were old enough to sort through the information with what I would consider to be reasonably well developed critical faculties. It is understandable that believers feel the same way.

[ELENATION 0]

Yes, another good point Gadget, some people may say they are atheists, but they really are anti-christians... and of course, I'm not referring to anyone here either, but it does make sense.. same way some people hide behind religions to hate and do evil, some people hide behind atheism to hate Christians as well..

[ELENATION 0]

I have been following this thread with interest. I believe that it is normal to wish one's children to hold the same values and beliefs as oneself. This is only human nature. I know that as an atheist I would be inclined to shield my children from religious influences until they were old enough to sort through the information with what I would consider to be reasonably well developed critical faculties. It is understandable that believers feel the same way.

Hey Green! girl I'm happy to see you always! I've been thinking about you!

and yes, I agree with your post, i makes sense to me too.:cursing:

[luluc 6]

:cursing: And if they wanted to watch Schindler's List I would as well say no at this point in their lives. It's too much for them to handle right now. Later, yes. But now, not on your life. They know about the holocaust but a dramatic presentation of it would be devastating to them. Both of those examples are more than I, as an adult, can handle.

gadget - since i dont' know the ages of your girls, i'm curious why would you not want them to see schindlers list ? did they see the passion of christ?

a dramatic presentation of the holocaust is as real as the crucifiction of christ in both movies - all gore; all too real.

if they are not the age to see that - totally understand; if they're not i'd like to know what's bothersome in showing the truth that is the holocaust.

not to go down a different path - but they're are "some" that want ignore this part of history & not teach it in schools. though i'm not a practicing jew, i am half (catholic raised) & it drives me insane to hear people talk about the holocaust like it did not happen (I SO don't assume you feel this way). Curious to your thoughts,

[gadgetlady 4]

gadget - since i dont' know the ages of your girls, i'm curious why would you not want them to see schindlers list ? did they see the passion of christ?

a dramatic presentation of the holocaust is as real as the crucifiction of christ in both movies - all gore; all too real.

if they are not the age to see that - totally understand; if they're not i'd like to know what's bothersome in showing the truth that is the holocaust.

not to go down a different path - but they're are "some" that want ignore this part of history & not teach it in schools. though i'm not a practicing jew, i am half (catholic raised) & it drives me insane to hear people talk about the holocaust like it did not happen (I SO don't assume you feel this way). Curious to your thoughts,

My girls are 7 and 10 and very sensitive (like their mother). They did NOT see Passion of Christ, nor did I. I was brought to sobbing and shaking just from the promos. My dh would not allow me to see it even if I had wanted to (knowing what it would do to me). At Easter, our church has us write our sins on a piece of paper and symbolically nail them to one of the crosses set around the room. The sound of the hammering, imagining them nailing my Jesus to a cross, brings me to my knees in grief. I am tearing up now just remembering it.

I do know the holocaust happened and think it ridiculous that people claim it didn't. I've been to Germany many times (I was born there) and have visited the memorials. The photos also drive me to my knees in grief. How the human race can get to the point where human beings are wantonly killed and discarded like garbage is incomprehensible to me. It is also why I am so vehemently pro-life.

[luluc 6]

My girls are 7 and 10 and very sensitive (like their mother). They did NOT see Passion of Christ, nor did I. I was brought to sobbing and shaking just from the promos. My dh would not allow me to see it even if I had wanted to (knowing what it would do to me). At Easter, our church has us write our sins on a piece of paper and symbolically nail them to one of the crosses set around the room. The sound of the hammering, imagining them nailing my Jesus to a cross, brings me to my knees in grief. I am tearing up now just remembering it.

I do know the holocaust happened and think it ridiculous that people claim it didn't. I've been to Germany many times (I was born there) and have visited the memorials. The photos also drive me to my knees in grief. How the human race can get to the point where human beings are wantonly killed and discarded like garbage is incomprehensible to me. It is also why I am so vehemently pro-life.

completely understandable. they are WAY too young for both; your mom & knows what's best for them to handle.

i think your a good lady, though i don't agree with you on some issues.

[ELENATION 0]

My girls are now 14 and 16 and they didn't see the Passion either when it came out, they were too young, it would've been very hard on them, I did see it, and as a Christian it was hard on me too, but I could handle it, now my daughters have asked me to watch it and I think it's ok now, Schindler's list as well, they were small back then, but I think they are now ready, they are pretty mature for their age, so I think they can watch both movies now, with me there though...

Gadget, being as sensitive as you are, I can tell you that The Passion is extremely hard to watch, I cried the entire time, so I think you are better of not watching it.