The stereotypical atheist

Everyone has been stereotyped at one point or another and atheists are no exception. The term "atheist" comes with prejudices against them, some of them valid, while others not so much. Stereotypes are often generally true, but that still doesn't stop it from being exaggerated. Below are a list of stereotypes that atheists are often placed into and my opinion as to the validity of the stereotype.

Atheists are generally naturalists
True. Many people are not limited to their belief in God. The people who do make the leap over the pond to atheism only have done so as a result of accepting naturalism as the only proven belief system that exists. Yes, not all atheists are naturalist. There are religious atheists, such as Buddhists, and spiritual atheists. However, these are a miniority.

Atheists generally accept the scientific consensus of the origin of the universe, life, and climate change
True. Even the spiritual atheists don't confuse spirituality with science. The current scientific consensus is built on decades of evidence. The theories themselves have been modified over time, but they ultimately seem to present an origin that doesn't involve a god. Granted, there's more than one interpretation of these theories, but even among scientists, atheism remains a deep seated belief. There are a few atheists that haven't accepted some of these theories, but again, they remain a miniority.

Atheists are generally politically liberal
True. Most atheists are for social freedom even if a lifestyIe is unhealthy or socially unacceptable. Atheists advocate the separation of church and state and believe that this separation justifies the gay rights movement, feminism, and reproductive rights. On an economic standpoint, atheists believe that government should be used to prevent companies from growing too big and that health care is a right. However, it's not too uncommon for atheists to believe in the free market and proclaim themselves to be libertarians. Conservative atheists that want a regulated society on the other hand are far less common.

Atheists are generally moral relativists
True. Atheists recognize that morality has changed throughout time and use this to show that there is no objective standard for morality.

Atheists generally believe in determinism and not free will
Somewhat false. There are definitely atheists that believe in determinism and not free will, but you'll find some that believe in both, or free will and not determinism, or neither.

Atheists generally believe there is no purpose in life
Somewhat true. Although it's not unheard of that an atheist is an absurdist, there are many atheists that believe that there is a purpose in this life. Many common concerns with atheists are the quality of life, freedom, and equality.

Atheists are nihilists
False. Most atheists do believe in nature at least and do not believe this life is an illusion.

Atheists believe there is no god
Somewhat false. Most atheists are weak atheists who simply do not believe in a god. Strong atheists believe there is no god and are less common and even then, most atheists, both strong and weak, can still also be cIassified as agnostics, in that they don't know that there is or isn't a god, but simply don't believe or believe there is none. Atheists who claim to know there is no god are very rare.

Atheists are religioiusas atheism is a religion
False. Not only is the stereotype false, but the assertion with it is also false. There is little objectivity to atheism, other than the nonexistence of gods. Every other objective notion of atheism is defined by the atheist himself. Yes, atheists can be stereotyped into a group, but so can conservatives and blacks.

Atheists secretly believe in God especially if they're in trouble
Undetermined. This belief comes from the expression, "There are no atheists in foxholes." It is impossible to know the mind of an atheist when they're in trouble.

Atheists hate God
It depends. Most atheists upon reading the Bible would say that God described in the Bible is an evil being. However, most atheists maintain that if God exists, there would be no evil since he is good. So, when it comes to the Abrahamic God, it's true. When it comes to any monotheistic God, it's false.

Atheists hate America
Mostly true. Atheists tend to not be American and generally foreigners tend to be more likely to hate America.

Atheists are mainly young
Mostly true. Atheism exists in many young people, particularly in the Western world. Generally as people get closer to death, atheism disappears.

Atheists are mostly men
Mostly true. Women are more religious than men, which means that men are probably more likely to be atheists.

Atheists are mostly European
Mostly true. Atheists consist of only roughly 9% of the population in the United States where as in some European countries like France, they consist of almost a third of the population.

Atheists are militant fundamentalists
Mostly false. Atheists do not have a set of fundamental issues that they have to agree on to be qualified as an atheist.

Atheists are aggressive
Mostly true. Atheists do not like being preached to and will show intolerance to people who do. They will call evangelicals names and yell at them.

Atheists are more superstitious
It depends. Christians rely on a lot of superstitutions such as prayer and communion. However, atheists are more likely to believe in other pseudosciences and superstitions according to Baylor University.

Atheists are less intelligent than Christians
Mostly false. This stereotype, like many others already mentioned it, is advanced by evangelical Christians. If IQ is taken as a standard of intelligence, then that would mean atheists, by country, are more intelligent than theists. Obviously, there are exceptions.

Atheists are more rebellious and more likely to engage in sin
Mostly true. Atheists do not accept tradition generally and as a result, go against the accepted way of behaving. Generally, this is considered a sin by many Christians. However, even from a strictly moral standpoint that has nothing to do with religion, atheists are more likely to believe that abortion, homosexuality, and extramarital sex is acceptable. Atheists are also more likely to have long hair for men and short hair for women, have tattoos and body piercings, and be unshaven.

Atheists are less likely to volunteer and give to charity
True. Studies have shown this.

Ultimately, your stereotypical atheist looks like this:

Meanwhile, your stereotypical theist looks like this "do-gooder":

Hidely ho neighborino!

I realize that I made a lot of assertions without much statistical evidence backing up some claims. If you have any evidence that supports or contradicts one of my claims, please post them.

Well, do you fit the mold of a stereotypical atheist? Do you disagree with my opinion? What to you is a stereotypical atheist?

I'm about a little less than 50%. I'm a naturalist, but I'm also conservative.

Great thread G_C let me see how many stereotypes I fit.

Atheists are generally naturalists

Yup, you've got me on that one

Atheists generally accept the scientific consensus of the origin of the universe, life, and climate change

For the most part yes. I don't really know anything (or care) about climate change though so I can't say whether I agree with the scientific consensus.

Atheists are generally politically liberal

Eh, yeah I suppose so. Like climate change politics is an issue that I don't pay much heed to but I'm probably more liberal than I am conservative.

Atheists are generally moral relativists

Yessir.

Atheists generally believe in determinism and not free will

Nope, I'm a compatibilist when it comes to that, I believe in both.

Atheists generally believe there is no purpose in life

Yep, I'm an absurdist.

Atheists are nihilists

It depends on what kind of nihilism you're talking about but on the whole I would say no.

Atheists believe there is no god

Yes I fit this stereotype very snugly indeed.

Atheists are religioiusas atheism is a religion

Okay this one is right out a fundamentalist's mouth. No.

Atheists secretly believe in God especially if they're in trouble

Again this is something that fundamentalists believe about atheists, not what is generally typical of atheists. Once more, no.

Atheists hate God

Nah, don't have anything personally against him, I just don't reckon he exists.

Atheists hate America

To the contrary, I've always wanted to go to America because it seems like a cool, albeit different, place.

Atheists are mainly young

Yeah I'm 21 and just out of uni so I think I'm of the stereotypical age.

Atheists are mostly men

Y'know I never really noticed that but you're right. Most of the atheists I know are men and a fair few of my lady friends are theists. This is another stereotype I fit into snugly.

Atheists are mostly European

Nope, New Zealander here.

Atheists are militant fundamentalists

I've told you once, I've told you twice and now I shall tell you thrice, no.

Atheists are aggressive

Nah I don't think this holds true for me. I'm generally quite chillaxed and I like it when the evangelists come to my door. Any anger I have is generally directed towards extreme stupidity, not any particular atheism/religion related issue.

Atheists are more superstitious

Nein, nada, niet.

Atheists are less intelligent than Christians

Well speaking for myself I'm quite a dunce so yes I suppose I would agree on this point.

Atheists are more rebellious and more likely to engage in sin

Yeah I have no qualms about premarital sex, lusting after women in my heart or working on the sabbath so I willingly and frequently engage in sinfulness.

Atheists are less likely to volunteer and give to charity

Yeah, given that I don't go to a church or tithe or anything I would definitely be less charitable then most theists.

Righto so that leaves me with 11 stereotypes that I do fit into and 10 that I don't so I suppose that makes me approximately 52% stereotypical.

Atheists are less intelligent than Christians

Well speaking for myself I'm quite a dunce so yes I suppose I would agree on this point.

domatron23

Oh, you're too humble. You're very intelligent. In fact, I didn't nominate you in the OTcars, which I should have.

Righto so that leaves me with 11 stereotypes that I do fit into and 10 that I don't so I suppose that makes me approximately 52% stereotypical.

domatron23

Well, some of those stereotypes are blatantly false ones presented by Christians. I didn't measure myself on that standard though. I just gave a rough estimate rather than tally which ones I felt described me since I felt that some of them are not accurate stereotypes of atheists. I notice that this thread is awfully similar to the sticked "dogma" thread. I hope you don't mind.

Somewhat true. Although it's not unheard of that an atheist is an absurdist, there are many atheists that believe that there is a purpose in this life. Many common concerns with atheists are the quality of life, freedom, and equality.

I will contend that most atheists claim and believe that there is a purpose in life, just not an ultimate or absolute one.The "purpose" being that which they make for themselves.

Atheists are nihilists
False. Most atheists do believe in nature at least and do not believe this life is an illusion.

Believing that life is an "illusion" is not nihilism. Many Eastern traditions, especially those related to Buddhism/Hinduism, express that existence, ultimately (not conventionally), is in fact an "illusion," or the result of our consciousness applying features to the "mundane"world... and are most definitely not nihilistic. I find there is a strong tendency to corelate nihilism with many ideas about reality that aren't "scientifically objective."

Atheists are mainly young
Mostly true. Atheism exists in many young people, particularly in the Western world. Generally as people get closer to death, atheism disappears.

Atheists can come from all walks of life and any age bracket. I had a very staunch atheist professor (he didn't claim to be atheist, but his antagonism towards religion definitely suggested he was) and he was in his late '60's.

Atheists are aggressive
Mostly true. Atheists do not like being preached to and will show intolerance to people who do. They will call evangelicals names and yell at them.

Most young atheists (read: adolescent) tend to be aggressive. Once those adolescents reach adulthood, they tend to settle down. I was an aggressive atheist when I was a teenager... but now I'm very much neutral and very non-aggressive.

Points I very much like and wish to expand on:

Atheists are religioiusas atheism is a religion
False. Not only is the stereotype false, but the assertion with it is also false. There is little objectivity to atheism, other than the nonexistence of gods. Every other objective notion of atheism is defined by the atheist himself. Yes, atheists can be stereotyped into a group, but so can conservatives and blacks.

Atheism most definitely is not a religion. Many religious fundamentalists want this to be true, and try so hard to assert it to be true... but in the end it is completely and utterly false. Atheism is a position on the belief/non-belief in God, gods and/or the supernatural. The atheist "way of life" varies between individuals and in no way accounts for even a fraction of the total population that is atheist. Not to mention the atheist religions like Buddhism and Jainism that are separate "religions" themselves and profess atheistic values.

atheists are more likely to believe that extramaritalsex is acceptable. Genetic_Code

Atheists are generally naturalists

Yep 

Atheists generally accept the scientific consensus of the origin of the universe, life, and climate change

Yep 

Atheists are generally politically liberal

Well, I try to avoid labelling myself politically, but I'd say that I definitely have more allies on the left than I do on the right. 

Atheists are generally moral relativists

That does not apply to me 

Atheists generally believe in determinism and not free will

I'm really apathetic to the debate over free will and determinism, and compatibalism and incompatibalism. I think it's all irrelevant. 

Atheists believe there is no god

Well, I've begun to adopt a strong atheistic position, especially when debating whether or not the Christian God exists, or the Jewish God exists, ect. because these deities are so incoherent in their ontology that they can't possibly exist in any meaningful sense. 

Atheists are religioiusas atheism is a religion

Nope

Atheists secretly believe in God especially if they're in trouble

Nope 

Atheists hate God

"Hate" is a strong word. All I will say is that I would not be comfortable if God existed - I kind of like my privacy and the idea ofsome sort of supernatural dictator bothers me. 

Atheists hate America

So not true. I love America. 

Atheists are mainly young

I'm pretty young, but that's changing (a little too quickly if I say so myself). 

Atheists are mostly men

I think there is some truth behind that.  

Atheists are mostly European

Well, I'm descended from Europeans, but I am not really European myself.  

Atheists are militant fundamentalists

Nope 

Atheists are aggressive

I always try not to get hostile. In fact I enjoy the occasional chat with believers, they can be interesting. 

Atheists are more superstitious

I am not supersitious at all. 

Atheists are less intelligent than Christians

I'm sure there are some Christians that are brighter than me, and I'm sure there are some Christians that are not as bright as I am.  

Atheists are more rebellious and more likely to engage in sin

I'm pretty clean cut. But I have no problems with sex outside of marriage and other "sinful" behavior. 

Atheists are less likely to volunteer and give to charity

I don't give that much to charity but I do try to volunteer as much as possible.

Those sterotypes seem particularly USA focused, rather than international. I would implore you Genetic to try some international travel (unlike the vast majority (~90%) of Americans that don't have passports).

Those sterotypes seem particularly USA focused, rather than international. I would implore you Genetic to try some international travel (unlike the vast majority (~90%) of Americans that don't have passports).

RationalAtheist

Interesting points foxhound.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]atheists are more likely to believe that extramaritalsex is acceptable. Gambler_3

Atheists generally believe that sex between consenting adult is morally acceptable, regardless of the marital status of the individuals partaking in it. There are some atheists that are against adultery but less atheists than theists that are opposed to it.

Those sterotypes seem particularly USA focused, rather than international. I would implore you Genetic to try some international travel (unlike the vast majority (~90%) of Americans that don't have passports).

RationalAtheist

Yeah, I'm rather naive about everything outside of my country for the most part.

Atheists generally believe that sex between consenting adult is morally acceptable, regardless of the marital status of the individuals partaking in it.Genetic_Code

Now on that point I must disagree.

Well I dont know what I am, and I dont know if I fit into any of these stereotypical features. For instance I dont know and cant decide if I am a naturalist. And so on for most of the rest.

So there.

Atheists generally believe that sex between consenting adult is morally acceptable, regardless of the marital status of the individuals partaking in it. There are some atheists that are against adultery but less atheists than theists that are opposed to it.

Genetic_Code

If anything followers of religions which allow polygamy(spelling) are more likely to cheat like Islam.

Atheists are generally naturalists
I suppose yes

Atheists generally accept the scientific consensus of the origin of the universe, life, and climate change
Yes

Atheists are generally politically liberal
I am fairly Liberal on most things.

Atheists are generally moral relativists
True. Atheists recognize that morality has changed throughout time and use this to show that there is no objective standard for morality.

Atheists generally believe in determinism and not free will
Neither

Atheists generally believe there is no purpose in life
True

Atheists are nihilists
False.

Atheists believe there is no god
There is no God, surely you aren't an Atheist otherwise?

Atheists are religioiusas atheism is a religion
False.

Atheists secretly believe in God especially if they're in trouble
From personal experience no, I stopped believing in fairies and unicorns when I was 8 or 9

Atheists hate God
Hating something that doesn't exist isn't logical, hating what is done in the name of gods, thats a different matter.

Atheists hate America
lol ridiculous, but a common lie used to smear both atheists and the left wing

Atheists are mainly young
I would argue that as people become better educated they realise that the idea of a god becomes more likely to be preposterous, as later generations are better educated atheism is more widespread.

Atheists are mostly men
couldn't say

Atheists are mostly European
Certainly alot more people prepared to take a real look at religion when I lived there and debate it rationally

Atheists are militant fundamentalists
No

Atheists are aggressive
I won't yell at people in the street and try to avoid confrontation over the issue, but if you preach at me be prepared for some uncomfortable truths

Atheists are more superstitious
Not at all.

Atheists are less intelligent than Christians
I don't want to anser this! :P

Atheists are more rebellious and more likely to engage in sin
There is no such thing as sin

Atheists are less likely to volunteer and give to charity
I don't volunteer but I give generously to charity

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Atheists generally believe that sex between consenting adult is morally acceptable, regardless of the marital status of the individuals partaking in it. There are some atheists that are against adultery but less atheists than theists that are opposed to it.

Gambler_3

If anything followers of religions which allow polygamy(spelling) are more likely to cheat like Islam.

It's logical. Of course there are exceptions, but it's religion that usually bans adultery, not secular people. How many atheists, agnostics, etc. can think of who are against adultery?

EDIT: I meant pre-marital sex, not adultery.

About the religions that permit polygamy: polygamy isn't really encouraged in any religion. If anything it's discouraged. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't count as adultery because your're married to those people. And as far as I know, such religions make a clear distinction between cheating on someone and polygamy.

It's logical. Of course there are exceptions, but it's religion that usually bans adultery, not secular people. How many atheists, agnostics, etc. can think of who are against adultery?

About the religions that permit polygamy: polygamy isn't really encouraged in any religion. If anything it's discouraged. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't count as adultery because your're married to those people. And as far as I know, such religions make a clear distinction between cheating on someone and polygamy.

ghoklebutter

As for religions maybe you should read up on it first? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Religions tend to be as often pro as anti ... :P

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]It's logical. Of course there are exceptions, but it's religion that usually bans adultery, not secular people. How many atheists, agnostics, etc. can think of who are against adultery?

About the religions that permit polygamy: polygamy isn't really encouraged in any religion. If anything it's discouraged. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't count as adultery because your're married to those people. And as far as I know, such religions make a clear distinction between cheating on someone and polygamy.

blue_hazy_basic

As for religions maybe you should read up on it first? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Religions tend to be as often pro as anti ... :P

Really? :P That's interesting to know. Are they against cheating or just pre-marital sex (both count as "adultery" in many religions)?

Even if it's encouraged in many religions, it doesn't mean religious people are more likely to cheat. And having multiple spouses isn't cheating because they're married.

It's logical. Of course there are exceptions, but it's religion that usually bans adultery, not secular people. How many atheists, agnostics, etc. can think of who are against adultery?

ghoklebutter

I think the only people who would consider adultery as ethical are those who dont mind there partners doing that on them. Trying to relate religious belief to this just doesnt make any sense.

About the religions that permit polygamy: polygamy isn't really encouraged in any religion. If anything it's discouraged. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't count as adultery because your're married to those people. And as far as I know, such religions make a clear distinction between cheating on someone and polygamy.

ghoklebutter

I will say this once and that's it, I have said it before but you dont seem to get it. POLYGOMY ISNT DISCOURAGED IN ISLAM BECAUSE THE FOUNDERS THEMSELVES DID IT!

If your wife loves you too much for her to ever accept your second wife then yes polygomy is basically "open" cheating lol.

It's logical. Of course there are exceptions, but it's religion that usually bans adultery, not secular people. How many atheists, agnostics, etc. can think of who are against adultery?ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]It's logical. Of course there are exceptions, but it's religion that usually bans adultery, not secular people. How many atheists, agnostics, etc. can think of who are against adultery?foxhound_fox

It was simply a mix-up. I was talking about pre-marital sex, which is obviously not a problem with secular people.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]It's logical. Of course there are exceptions, but it's religion that usually bans adultery, not secular people. How many atheists, agnostics, etc. can think of who are against adultery?ghoklebutter

It was simply a mix-up. I was talking about pre-marital sex, which is obviously not a problem with secular people.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]It's logical. Of course there are exceptions, but it's religion that usually bans adultery, not secular people. How many atheists, agnostics, etc. can think of who are against adultery?Gambler_3

It was simply a mix-up. I was talking about pre-marital sex, which is obviously not a problem with secular people.

I know that. I mixed the two terms.

RAWR! :evil: I actually do hate the christian god. I find his ethic and moral standards to be deplorable, but that is not why I don't think he exists. I'm more or less indifferent to all the other gods.

Frattracide

Which ethic and moral standards are those?

It kind of all depends on which books in the Bible you're reading, or which sections of those books you're reading, which is one of the reasons why I really can't take terribly seriously the idea that it is from cover to cover a divine revelation from the same entity (although there is always the tried and true explanation that "different segments simply reveal different parts of his character").  I liked one part of Lewis Black's standup routine: "The New Testament God is really a great guy.  He is.  Especially when you compare him to the Old Testament God, who is a prick."

 

Which ethic and moral standards are those?

It kind of all depends on which books in the Bible you're reading, or which sections of those books you're reading, which is one of the reasons why I really can't take terribly seriously the idea that it is from cover to cover a divine revelation from the same entity (although there is always the tried and true explanation that "different segments simply reveal different parts of his character").  I liked one part of Lewis Black's standup routine: "The New Testament God is really a great guy.  He is.  Especially when you compare him to the Old Testament God, who is a prick."

GabuEx

 I should make it clear that I am not only referring to scripture when I talk about a religion, but also the ideas espoused by its leaders and teachers because, while scripture is nice, religions are comprised by people and it is their actions which largely define the religion. That being said, here are a few things that make me "mad at god" all of which are fairly universal in christianity. 

The moral premise of original sin and guilt by existence.   

I don't like the idea that somebody thinks it is reasonable to hold me responsible for something I did not do. Especially if the entire incident was the result of the direct action of that individual. That standard is absurd. If a moral christian god exists, he would not allow this kind of thinking to be expressed in his name. Especially considering the fact that it forms the base of so much needless shame and guilt. You can never be good enough because the standard is impossible.

The christian solution? Give your life over to the guy that set the standard in the first place. Why? Because if you don't, the guy that created the impossible standard will lovingly punish you for all eternity. So say the christian teachers. (or a lot of them anyway.)      

 If a human judge placed a person on trial for a crime their father committed, declared their guilt before the trial started, made the criteria for vindication so ridiculous that the outcome was guaranteed to sustain the guilty verdict and then used that verdict as a rationalization for heinous torture, would that judge be considered moral? I think not. So why does god get a pass? 

The ethic of sacrifice.  

The idea that pure altruism, *as described by Rand, is a goal that all humans should work towards. This idea is exemplified in the story of the "passion of the christ"      

 The morality of worship. 

The idea that we are indebted to the guy that saved us from an impossible standard he created by sacrificing himself, to himself, for the purpose of indebting us to him. And that that debt is expressed in the form of eternal slavery. (worship) What a horrible thing to demand after doing such a horrible thing.

A common christian cliche is: "The greatest thing the devil ever did was convince the world he didn't exist."

I submit to you that: The worst thing god ever did was convince the world he does exist.

* Rand described altruism as the destruction of what you value for the sake of what you do not value. In other words an altruistic action is something that does not benefit you in any way (and often times harms you) while greatly benefiting someone else. 

Rand greatly influenced my thinking on this subject, mostly because my religious leaders sounded almost exactly like the villains from her books.  

If you want to learn more about Rand's thinking on sacrifice, you should read the "John Gault speech" from Atlas Shrugged or you can watch it here.

Ok, I'll stop proselytizing personal philosophies now. 

It was simply a mix-up. I was talking about pre-marital sex, which is obviously not a problem with secular people.

ghoklebutter

It seems to me that your knowledge of secular beliefs is "obviously" almost as good as your knowledge of Islam.

The moral premise of original sin and guilt by existence.   

I don't like the idea that somebody thinks it is reasonable to hold me responsible for something I did not do. Especially if the entire incident was the result of the direct action of that individual. That standard is absurd. If a moral christian god exists, he would not allow this kind of thinking to be expressed in his name. Especially considering the fact that it forms the base of so much needless shame and guilt. You can never be good enough because the standard is impossible.

The christian solution? Give your life over to the guy that set the standard in the first place. Why? Because if you don't, the guy that created the impossible standard will lovingly punish you for all eternity. So say the christian teachers. (or a lot of them anyway.)      

 If a human judge placed a person on trial for a crime their father committed, declared their guilt before the trial started, made the criteria for vindication so ridiculous that the outcome was guaranteed to sustain the guilty verdict and then used that verdict as a rationalization for heinous torture, would that judge be considered moral? I think not. So why does god get a pass? 

Frattracide

OK, yeah, I agree with this one.  But, I don't believe that this is a belief held by all Christians.  In fact, it has led to any number of unsavory ideas in the past, such as the idea that babies who die in their infancy go straight to hell due to having not been saved of their original sin (which was the position of the Catholic Church a long time ago).  People have tried to come up with certain ways of getting around this, such as coming up with the "age of accountability" idea, where after a certain point a person becomes accountable for sin and it's only after that point that an unrepentant human who dies will go to hell... but then this comes up with an even more unsavory conclusion, which is that the most humane thing we can possibly do is to kill every single human before they reach this "age of accountability" in order to ensure that they are guaranteed a trip straight to heaven.

Other people, however, have come up with a better resolution: "Original sin is BS." :P

The ethic of sacrifice.  

The idea that pure altruism, *as described by Rand, is a goal that all humans should work towards. This idea is exemplified in the story of the "passion of the christ"

* Rand described altruism as the destruction of what you value for the sake of what you do not value. In other words an altruistic action is something that does not benefit you in any way (and often times harms you) while greatly benefiting someone else. 

Rand greatly influenced my thinking on this subject, mostly because my religious leaders sounded almost exactly like the villains from her books.  

If you want to learn more about Rand's thinking on sacrifice, you should read the "John Gault speech" from Atlas Shrugged or you can watch it here.

Frattracide

I certainly agree with Rand on the notion that the destruction of what you value to create that which you do not value is irrational to the core.

On the other hand, though, I tend to believe that not all things valued are created equal.  I have done a lot of thinking on this subject, and although I haven't formalized it yet, I think that there is something that can be said about a morality derived from making others happy.  If that which you value is what would be described by economists as a rival good - that is, something where having it disallows others from also having it - then if someone comes along who is better at acquiring whatever it is you value, your happiness would consequently be negatively impacted.  On the other hand, however, if that which you value is a non-rival good, then it is impossible for others to deprive you of it, and therefore those who desire the same thing do not have the possibility of making you unhappy in their own pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, I believe that the most rational course in life is not simply to pursue that which we value, but also to value that which others who also value it do not need to deprive us of it in their pursuit of it.  Hence, greed, here defined as a larger amount of happiness derived from a proportionately larger amount of material gain, is ultimately irrational.

And in fact, I do not believe that Jesus wanted us to be unhappy in our pursuit of sacrifice.  I don't believe he wanted us to sacrifice our happiness for others' happiness.  Rather, I believe he wanted us to fundamentally change that which we most value from material goods that others can deprive us of to the happiness of others which no one can deprive us of.  It's not that we should be unhappy so others can be happy, but rather that we should be happy because others are happy.  This is the only way that happiness can truly be a limitless resource in the world, uncontingent on the amount of material wealth one has accumulated and thereby deprived others of.

The morality of worship. 

The idea that we are indebted to the guy that saved us from an impossible standard he created by sacrificing himself, to himself, for the purpose of indebting us to him. And that that debt is expressed in the form of eternal slavery. (worship) What a horrible thing to demand after doing such a horrible thing.

A common christian cliche is: "The greatest thing the devil ever did was convince the world he didn't exist."

I submit to you that: The worst thing god ever did was convince the world he does exist.

Frattracide

Similar to the above, I don't believe that worship means quite what some think it means, at least in the original sense it was encouraged.  I do not believe that, when we are told to worship God, we are intended (again, at least originally) to be mindless slaves who sacrifice everything we desire out of fear.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

It was simply a mix-up. I was talking about pre-marital sex, which is obviously not a problem with secular people.

RationalAtheist

It seems to me that your knowledge of secular beliefs is "obviously" almost as good as your knowledge of Islam.

The term for illegal sexual conduct in Arabic is "zina'". It can be translated as "fornication" or "adultery" in English depending on the context. But since "zina'" is translated as both often in the Qur'an for example, it's easy to mix meaning of the terms "adultery" and "fornication". :P

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

It was simply a mix-up. I was talking about pre-marital sex, which is obviously not a problem with secular people.

ghoklebutter

It seems to me that your knowledge of secular beliefs is "obviously" almost as good as your knowledge of Islam.

The term for illegal sexual conduct in Arabic is "zina'". It can be translated as "fornication" or "adultery" in English depending on the context. But since "zina'" is translated as both often in the Qur'an for example, it's easy to mix meaning of the terms "adultery" and "fornication". :P

I was referring to your notion that pre-marital sex was "obviously" not a problem for secular people.

I was referring to your notion that pre-marital sex was "obviously" not a problem for secular people.

RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I was referring to your notion that pre-marital sex was "obviously" not a problem for secular people.

ChiliDragon

And it's basically all income groups from the very poor to the very rich that indulge in pre-marital sex. However most people wont admit "openly" that it's ok to have pre-marital sex for fear of offending the established doctrines of islam.

FYI pakistan has a 99% muslim population and no variant of islam allows pre-marital sex.

The new generation finds nothing wrong in having premarital sex especially with a GF, they would also start living together if the elders and the society would accept such a thing which they wont ever. 

Most people who marry being a virgin simply never had a GF that was willing to have sex with them or either got married at a very young age.

I am in no way being an apologetic to atheists doing pre-marital sex cuz I find nothing wrong with it but I just wanted to point out that religious people arent exactly as opposed to pre-marital sex as you may think. It requires an extreme level of strong belief in the hereafter to sacrifice life's biggest pleasure which not many people have...

The new generation finds nothing wrong in having premarital sexGambler_3

The new generation has pretty much abandoned that "no premarital-sex" moral.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

The new generation finds nothing wrong in having premarital sexTeenaged

The new generation has pretty much abandoned that "no premarital-sex" moral.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

The new generation finds nothing wrong in having premarital sexChiliDragon

The new generation has pretty much abandoned that "no premarital-sex" moral.

I... dont understand. =/Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I... dont understand. =/ChiliDragon

Generally speaking yeah.

Pakistan has a 99% muslim population and no variant of islam allows pre-marital sex.

Gambler_3

I believe Sufism allows pre-marital sex, though I could be wrong.

Adultery is not pre-marital sex...Gambler_3

In Christianity, simply lust is considered adultery.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Adultery is not pre-marital sex...Genetic_Code

In Christianity, simply lust is considered adultery.

That's like saying stealing is considered murder. I mean the words have different meaning, one cant be "considered" the other but you can say that lust is considered as bad as adultery which I highly doubt, got any evidence for that?

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Adultery is not pre-marital sex...Genetic_Code

In Christianity, simply lust is considered adultery.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Adultery is not pre-marital sex...Gambler_3

In Christianity, simply lust is considered adultery.

That's like saying stealing is considered murder. I mean the words have different meaning, one cant be "considered" the other but you can say that lust is considered as bad as adultery which I highly doubt, got any evidence for that?

Personally I side with the ones who believe that resisting temptation is a good thing. After all, if wanting to commit a sin is enough to condemn me, what reasons do I have to resist the temptation? Might as well hang for a sheep as for a lamb, right? ;)ChiliDragon

You are of the Christians that believe that if you lust you are in effect commiting adultery?

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"] Personally I side with the ones who believe that resisting temptation is a good thing. After all, if wanting to commit a sin is enough to condemn me, what reasons do I have to resist the temptation? Might as well hang for a sheep as for a lamb, right? ;)Teenaged

You are of the Christians that believe that if you lust you are in effect commiting adultery?

Huh?

That's like saying stealing is considered murder. I mean the words have different meaning, one cant be "considered" the other but you can say that lust is considered as bad as adultery which I highly doubt, got any evidence for that?Gambler_3

It's funny you mention murder, because the Bible says that hatred is the same as murder. John writes in 1 John 3:15 says, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Although, strangely, Jesus says this in Luke 14:26, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren,and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple," which is encouraging Christians to hate their brother in order to be Jesus's disciple.

As for lust, here is the verse from Matthew 5:28, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Adultery is not pre-marital sex...Teenaged

In Christianity, simply lust is considered adultery.

I don't base my views on Christianity based on what the majority of Christian say, but what the Bible says. I personally think that what is currently considered Christianity has evolved from what it was in the Bible in a mostly positive light. Most Christians, and yes even the fundamentalists, are good due to their contributions to society and their charity, but not many of them, including the fundamentalists, truly believe in the Bible in its entirety.

I don't base my views on Christianity based on what the majority of Christian say, but what the Bible says. I personally think that what is currently considered Christianity has evolved from what it was in the Bible in a mostly positive light. Most Christians, and yes even the fundamentalists, are good due to their contributions to society and their charity, but not many of them, including the fundamentalists, truly believe in the Bible in its entirety.

Genetic_Code

And why is the literal interpretation the default one to use in order to judge in case a religion MUST adhere to its scripture in everything it says?

Simply and crudely put, why should we equate religion to scripture?

How and why should a religion be defined strictly by what its scripture says, word for word?

And why is the literal interpretation the default one to use in order to judge in case a religion MUST adhere to its scripture in everything it says?

Simply and crudely put, why should we equate religion to scripture?Teenaged

It really depends on how the religion was founded. Christianity was founded on Jesus Christ who affirmed the Jewish faith. Technically, Jesus didn't affirm the New Testament as the early church did some decades later when canonizing the Bible. So, really, it's dependent on the early church. Honestly, I'm not really sure what a true Christian is, but I was always taught that it was someone who believed in the Bible. Now, a literal interpretation is not always preferred, such as when Jesus tells a parable, but it is prefered when the section of the Bible being read is being written as a historical account, such as the book of Genesis or Exodus. Although Chili might disagree with me on Genesis considering that it was transcribed by Moses and Moses arguably wasn't there to actually witness the creation of Earth and the succeeding events.

I don't know much about the history of the early church though, so someone could answer this better than I can.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what a true Christian is, but I was always taught that it was someone who believed in the Bible.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]How and why should a religion be defined strictly by what its scripture says, word for word?

And why is the literal interpretation the default one to use in order to judge in case a religion MUST adhere to its scripture in everything it says?

Simply and crudely put, why should we equate religion to scripture?Genetic_Code

It really depends on how the religion was founded. Christianity was founded on Jesus Christ who affirmed the Jewish faith. Technically, Jesus didn't affirm the New Testament as the early church did some decades later when canonizing the Bible. So, really, it's dependent on the early church. Honestly, I'm not really sure what a true Christian is, but I was always taught that it was someone who believed in the Bible. Now, a literal interpretation is not always preferred, such as when Jesus tells a parable, but it is prefered when the section of the Bible being read is being written as a historical account, such as the book of Genesis or Exodus. Although Chili might disagree with me on Genesis considering that it was transcribed by Moses and Moses arguably wasn't there to actually witness the creation of Earth and the succeeding events.

I don't know much about the history of the early church though, so someone could answer this better than I can.

Hesiode's Cosmogonia was also written as if it were a historical account and yet we know that it isnt.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]Jesus says this in Luke 14:26, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple," which is encouraging Christians to hate their brother in order to be Jesus's disciple.ChiliDragon

If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison-your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters-yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.NLT

You cannot be my disciple, unless you love me more than you love your father and mother, your wife and children, and your brothers and sisters. You cannot come with me unless you love me more than you love your own life.CEV

Well, I like the KJV Bible to tick off the KJV-Onlyists although I don't technically own one. I own a NRSV and a NLT.

Honestly, I would say the Bible is a very bad place to start if someone is curious and wants to know what Christianity is, or is about.ChiliDragon

Without the Bible, Christianity wouldn't be a religion. It would be excessive spiritual freedom. With the Bible, it's spiritual slavery. It's a dogma that must be believed without evidence and must be protected at all costs.

Well, it was the NLT Bible that made me become a naturalist. There's much to Christianity than what is taught to children in Sunday School.