I have studied Comparative religion and Anthropolgy at University level. My personal time is often spent studying various spiritual paths.
The Logic of Einstein
There have been no conscientious objections by 21st Century online atheism to Peter Singer's express policy of legalizing Infanticide and beastiality. By not objecting to these widely popular atheist trends they are assisting the agenda of Peter Singer.
Singer represents thousands of people and is not just one helpless man.
It seems that many online atheists haven't heard of Peter Singer and his famous graduates.
21st Century online atheism should be vigorously protesting against non scientific DE-evolutionary forms of atheism. It should also be embracing and building upon the rich cultural and historical heritage of religion not disparaging it.
It is De-evolutionary to reject all of the evolutionary roots of ethics which invariably stem from religion.
Rejecting the historical record or trying to rewrite it with fashionable platitudes is not part of the scientific method.
TOTAL Intolerance to Religion.
Reasons why atheism has become rife with contradiction.
I. TOTAL RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
Most Atheists accuse religious people of religious intolerance while they themselves practice total religious intolerance towards all religions.
Many excuse this by saying religious intolerance is a logical step for atheists to take (see 2 below).
There is a resultant refusal to acknowledge that atheism now comes with an enormous amount of social/ethical baggage. Religious and racial intolerance are obviously unethical practices.
This tendency to accuse religious people of intolerance while at the same time practicing it themselves is further exacerbated by the justification of the said practice by acrobatic, convoluted unethical reasoning.
2. A LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD?
In reference to 1 (above) most online Atheists claim that atheism is simply "a lack of belief in God" while at the same time deeply involving themselves in religious intolerance (and other current ethical issues) with a distinctly atheist philosophy. The old one line children's dictionary definition of atheism does not relate at all to the more scientific anthropological dictionary definitions.
It is taken for granted by the majority of atheists that possessing crude atheist beliefs somehow magically allows them to launch into tirades of mockery and insults from a supposed great intellectual height. Many atheists exhibit by such actions a claim to some kind of innate superiority in intelligence that is plainly not supported by scientific analysis.
3. LACK OF EMPATHY
Most online atheists claim that empathy is close to their hearts but they exhibit no empathy at all for religion or religious races. This includes harmless races such as Tibetans, fragile indigenous cultures, tolerant religions and ancient cultures: this list includes most of humanity past and present. Logically this means they have no empathy for the majority of humanity!
The atheist leaders in particular who espouse "empathy" are leading the charge on behalf of religious intolerance and complete lack of empathy to all religions.
They claim a belief in God is unscientific yet they label as nonsense any scientific proofs which are presented for logical discussion (such as Kurt Godel's "god theorem" ; the Observer Effect; Einstein's comments; the history of science as largely developed by early religion; the evolution of science). String Theory for example is entirely a theoretical philosophy and can't be proven, yet this theory receives serious attention from atheists. String theory is based on the same model of "necessity" that Godel and other scientists have used for hundreds of years. Many atheists will not ridicule the necessity of string theory but will mock its use by the eminent mathematician Godel; furthermore, they will not discuss the matter and try to stifle scientific discussion on this topic.
For the last several thousand years all scientists were deeply religious people. Modern atheism has been trying to change well documented history with fashionable platitudes such as "Da Vinci was an atheist" when the historical record shows he painted religious images, attended church, believed in God, prayed and helped to build religious edifices!
5. THE PRINCIPLE OF EVOLUTION
The majority regard all religions as useless and refuse to distinguish between any religion while at the same time ignoring their own scientific principle of Evolution which is applied to all other scientific, moral and ethical ideas. That is, they do not acknowledge the important role of religious evolution in the development of Law, Philosophy, Ethics , Art, Music, Architecture etc and are only obsessed with the alleged evils of all religions.
Most of the time they misinterpret and rationalize Buddhism as being godless when in fact Buddhism is based on concepts of "super god consciousness", reincarnation, religious practices, temples, chants, priests and all the other characteristics of religion. I find this to be contradictory and unethical as it attempts to try to give them a convenient way out of their hypocrisy by presenting a misinformed idea about Buddhism.
By ignoring their very own highly prized endemic Principle of Evolution they have selectively abandoned allegiance to the scientific method for the sake of moral expediency.
They refuse to acknowledge that atheism is now an extremely organized social tool for change in Law Making.
Such social atheist upheaval has many outspoken leaders and authors such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer. It is clear such persons are leaders : Dawkins' concepts of memes and empathy are preached by most online atheists. I have yet to meet a single online atheist who has yet heard of Peter Singer (!) or have dared to criticize him outright for his views on legalizing beastialtiy and infanticide.
Singer appears regularly in the media to support "softer" animal issues that slowly inch towards his "harder" agenda.
7.LACK OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
They claim to hold freedom of speech as sacrosanct but exhibit zero tolerance to this online. This seems to be true of many forums and the people who run the forums (although I personally find Hub Pages to be about 90% better than most forums at tolerating criticism of atheism). They descend on religious Hubs like locusts and spend inordinate amounts of time stopping any logical criticism of atheism.
Organized packs and cliques of online atheists attack any other opinions using social media or any other tool available to quash scientific or dispassionate discussions which contradict the well organized atheist agendas.
8.FAITH IN SCIENCE
They refuse to acknowledge they have Faith in science while mocking religious people who have Faith in God. Stephen Hawking himself has a free online essay titled "Godel and the the End of Physics" which clearly points out the foolishness of having faith in science and its ability to answer all questions.
This obvious Faith in science has even lead to many atheist Scientology-style and quasi scientific religious phenomena often based on UFO's and interacting with higher UFO angelic-like beings.
The ethical problem again is the hypocritical denial of this growing scientific religiosity by the majority of online atheists.
They often "blame God" for tragic events while forgetting that their claim is a negative proof for God's existence.
Many atheist authors, leaders, essayists and on liners constantly make this classic atheist "Freudian slip" error repeatedly.
Negative world events, human tragedies and even accidents of nature are all immediately indirectly blamed on God. The epitaph "How could there be a God if this has happened?" is a constant theme in their wobbly premises. Pointing this out does no good and seems to only encourage their personal insults and attack.
Harmless Native Religions
Native American Religion always in the firing line
Almost totally Wiped Out
ALL art, culture and science evolved out of religion.
If you have ever marveled at the art and architecture of the Renaissance, the works of Van Gogh, the countless artworks of the Ancient Greeks and nearly all art from the entire history of humanity for its first 10,000 years or more, then you are admiring religion and the great art it has created.
Likewise all law, ethics and science evolved out of religion.
Simple "empathy" ideas of atheism are just dumbed down forms of anarchy that history has proved does NOT work.
I support Ethical Atheism which promotes the highest ethical standards in accordance with Laws tempered by compassion.
Ethical Atheism protects the weak and builds on the long process of cultural and ethical evolution started by religion. It does NOT condone bigotry towards religion, or beasitiality, or infanticide(so called "after birth abortion" of six month old babies) which are all heinous acts.
Infanticide in particular is of the worst category of premeditated homicide which affects the most vulnerable beings imaginable.
Ethical Atheism not only tolerates religion but promotes and celebrates cultural and racial diversity.
The relationship between ethics and religion
Art and Religion VS "McCulture".
By denigrating religion atheists are either intentionally or unintentionally denigrating historical and cultural variety. Recent history has shown what misguided results can occur from atheist inspired "cultural revolutions".
We are already in danger of developing a tasteless tacky atheist "McCulture" by denying humanity's deepest spiritual urges.
It is a moral crime to denigrate thousands of years of sacred religious art as the foolish misguided oddities of lesser beings.
Religious art is the result of truly inspired effort stemming from the best qualities of humanity.
Only by deliberately ignoring ALL historical knowledge and ALL scientific evidence could a person possibly come up with a "philosophy" of total religious intolerance and mockery. This also has the disastrous domino effect of leading others to believe in a soulless bland McCulture instead of appreciating cultural and artistic diversity.
What will the art of the atheist look like in the future? We see glimpses now via tasteless porn, cynical violence in movies and bizarre advertising gimmicks: all geared to make money as the main new atheist ethos.
It is the religious inner striving of humanity to understand the existential meaning of the universe that has been responsible for creating high ethical spiritual standards, art and culture.
Atheism at this point in history is not offering any functional alternatives except old, failed, nihilistic, anarchic, narcissistic, so called individual freedom which turns out not to be freedom at all but simple lazy self indulgence. The paltry artistic efforts of such atheism to date (if any) is a very dismal scene based on money, power, porn, cynicism, religious intolerance, and lack of effort. It seems that so called atheist art mainly parasites itself of its own religious intolerance.
All art evolved out of religion
Law and Ethics
Science and religion
Unless Atheism, the new philosophy, can rid itself of these contradictions and establish a coherent ethical backbone it is bound to fail in its obligation to society.
By relying on weak concepts of empathy (and other vague disjointed ways of providing an ethical framework) it is failing to come up with scientific guidance to its potential followers.
By denying the previous long spiritual evolution of ethics over the millenniums it is divorcing itself from the scientific method in relation to ethics. There are no excuses for a movement which has faith in science to simply jettison the scientific method when fashion dictates.
The prominent leaders are failing completely in their role by teaching total religious intolerance and forgetting the main tenants of the successful parts of religion which are based on compassion and protection of the weak. This opens the way for society to be even more obsessed with money, power, porn, lack of individual responsibility and lazy cynicism. It has been helping to create a tasteless "McCulture" all over the planet by not respecting differences of creeds and cultures. We now have a growth in an odd world wide culture that worships money, worships dysfunctional anarchic individual freedom, sees porn as normal and does not hesitate to insult other cultures: a disastrous side effect of this unscientific decoupling from the true history of ethical evolution is the growing distance between what is acceptable to both religion and atheism. This has directly and indirectly assisted a growth in extremism.
Once Atheism embraces scientifically formulated ethics and religious tolerance it could well turn into a beneficial force. However at the moment is it wreaking havoc on individual standards and commonsense basic human values.
Mamerto Adan from Cabuyao on September 13, 2020:
The total failure of New Atheism is actually lacked of philosophy. They hold on to science as the ultimate source, which is in fact a self refuting belief.
And now that we speak of lack of tolerance, that's exactly the problem of most online atheist today. In fact lately I was accused of name calling in one of my hubs, though I have a feeling that the that one never read my hub properly.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on March 28, 2020:
Your comments are well written and iinteresting.
Melanie from Wisconsin on March 27, 2020:
I have to say I found this article quite refreshing and certainly thought provoking. I am a Messianic believer so many of the things mentioned here, I was unaware of - particularly Peter Singer (yikes!). I really value your perspective on this. I feel that "blind faith" isn't just for the believer, I think this happens in most any religion, or lack thereof I suppose. I find this to be very troubling and have always heard the phrase "don't talk about religion or politics" but never quite understood why.
For simplicity sake I can tell you I grew up atheist but later converted to Christianity, and it wasn't for lack of thought or knowledge on the subject. I have always found it entirely necessary to question everything, which I think is a quality people are desperately lacking these days - critical thought. But this leads me then to the ultimate dilemma. Christians (from my experience) find it difficult to discuss their faith and address hard issues, especially with non-believers. This grates my nerves because if I can't talk to a Christian about Christian ideals for fear of "challenging" them, whom may I address? Contrariwise, atheists (again, from my experience) tend to be dismissive of my ideas even when I've presented them with well thought out evidence for my beliefs. Much of the time my evidence is tossed aside and replaced with cheap invective, stereotypes, and assumptions about my faith.
My interest in discussion is not for converting the world. I would simply appreciate the effort of conversation. But I do think it is key for us to be able to discuss hard issues whether or not we agree with them. That is the main problem that I am witnessing with our current culture. We are taught to avoid hard discussions instead of nurturing the ability to debate. This only leads to misinformation and a serious misunderstanding of cultures and beliefs that is only worsened by media propagation (think 9/11). Regardless of whether or not a person is religious, I think it's important to give credit where it is due. Why should we try to erase beautiful pieces of culture, tradition, and history just because we don't necessarily agree with the origins? This is very close-minded and it is this same apathy that caused the eugenics movement and other holocausts. At the end of the day, we are all human, and we all have the same basic needs. We all want to feel loved, accepted, and understood. If we cannot challenge our own beliefs then why do we hold them to be true? If we are standing on solid ground we should have nothing to fear.
I do not have any reason to shut out someone who is curious about my faith, nor do I have any reason to not be curious about someone else's. I have done my due diligence in researching and establishing what I believe. If I don't have an answer, what is the harm in admitting I don't know? This I think is another issue - people get caught up in trying to prove they're correct instead of displaying some humility and addressing their own uncertainty. There's something to be said about being tactfully candid verses attempting to conceal and push away the unknown.
Forgive my long-windedness, I just couldn't resist. This article stirred my emotions in a wonderful way. I greatly appreciate this article and look forward to reading more from you. Kind regards.
Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on March 03, 2020:
very interesting take. The problem with atheists is that they cannot reconcile or explain our physical world with science alone. There are numerous examples of events and happenings that defy any scientific explanation. The reason is they are supernatural events and by definition, they live outside of nature/science - the study of nature...
That is the quandary of an atheist.
colleen south on March 02, 2020:
Some valid point here regarding the fact that everybody draws their belief system from creeds of new or old - there is no escape from being influenced by creeds and some religious people can be very open to ideas and tolerant compared to some fervently fanatic atheists following a less flexible creed and without the self-awareness or honesty to track their influences honestly.
Tony on February 11, 2020:
The Gutter Monkey gets a mention on the "new? atheism".
In reference to the aspersion that it is common knowledge that creation evolved from nothing, and that therefore a creator, or "GOD" is unnecessary, because we all agree with Darwin's version of how it all "just" evolved, and now we know, from Brian Cox's "first spark of life".
It is common ignorance, that the Theory of Evolution, The Origins of Species (by natural selection), has anything at all to do, with the origin of anything.
Brian Cox Astrophysicist, dismisses, in his own words, "the first Spark of life", as not a "mystical" event, but rather something created by the physics that he has no knowledge of, but won't admit to.
The "first spark of life" ?
What does that mean?
A spark from dead dirt spawned evolution to create a dunce?
The Gutter Monkey, at the peak of the evolutionary pyramid, having survived countless lifetimes of evolutionary challenges, is now ready to proclaim his intellectual affinity with the greatest thinkers the world has ever know.
It's not a horny devil that we have to watch out for.
Satan is much more subtle than that.
Clever little serpent!.
In folklore, this self enthronement had something to do with pride.
Tony on February 10, 2020:
"Atheists" tend to dismiss, or simply are ignorant of the
meaning, of the word "origin".
I've even been informed that the dirt, from which the
"first spark of life" spawned evolution, came from rocks!
How remiss of me.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on May 09, 2016:
I like to check with you about correct approaches to see if I'm making sense. That particular lady "moved" me so I wanted to use all my skills to make her feel something and to ponder on it.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on May 08, 2016:
Yes it's a wonder how such allegedly scientific thinkers can overlook science.
Btw: I am waiting for her to contact me! I've done enough chasing. I meet a lot of ladies at piano gigs all the time.
Yves on May 07, 2016:
Exactly. However, this important fact is either denied or overlooked. My point is that atheists who claim "superior" intelligence should at least know that much. But hey, I'm only repeating what you just said.
BTW, did you ever have that dinner with your Asian friend? ;)
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on May 07, 2016:
objective historians even atheist historians all understand that modern Western ethics and law evolved from the Bible. Only uneducated atheists or those trying to make a buck deny the importance of this social evolution.
Yves on May 07, 2016:
A very fine hub. The Bible, in particular, has provided Western Civilization with the ethics and morality we take for granted today. New atheism is attempting to erode that morality in favor of self-indulgence and the tenets of Sophism. Here is a brief clip about this positive significance of the Bible and theism in America.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on December 02, 2015:
I agree that most atheists are "closet agnostics".
Lucid Psyche on July 20, 2015:
Having had an atheistic YouTube channel for a number of years and having responded to arguments from theists I finally came to the conclusion that theists have the stronger rational position.
To say that I don't believe in God because of lack of evidence that God exists is a foolish and vulnerable position. Since I've actually allowed myself to make an honest evaluation of the scientific and philosophical evidence I'm compelled to say that the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming. Perpetual denial of something that in fact does exist can't make it non-existent.
To say that atheism is not a philosophy is tantamount to saying that it has no foundational rational system of thought by which it may assess the truth of it's claims. The truth here is that established scientific discovery has made Naturalism / Physicalism obsolete and atheists must distance themselves from it's inherent vulnerability.
For me claiming to be an atheist became a meaningless proposition. Most of the atheists that I associate with are really agnostics claiming to be atheists. Unfortunately the sense in which they do conform to to the standards of atheism was ably and well documented in your article.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 30, 2015:
Thanks for your input jpontiato.
It's hard to understand the vicious mockery considering tolerance of religion is one of the hallmarks of civilization. Even the Ancient barbaric Romans respected the beliefs of others.
Joe Poniatowskis from Mid-Michigan on June 28, 2015:
I like this hub. As a "believer" I respect the fact that everyone is entitled to believe - or disbelieve - anything. I enjoy discussing religion with people of all faiths, including atheists. Sometimes it's a debate, sometimes just an exchange of ideas. Too often though, especially in online forums, the atheists resort to ridicule and mockery. Someone who is willing to trash someone else's most sacred, profoundly held beliefs... someone who cares so little for the thoughts and feelings of fellow human beings - well I tend to think these people undermine their own cause. Of course, they're also impossible to carry on meaningful, relevant conversations with.
Jon Peloquin on April 14, 2015:
I can see the political movement aspect, and while I do think we need to keep church and state separate I don't really care what someone believes or doesn't believe as long as it doesn't cause a negative effect in my life I'm fine with it. When you look at that debate its kind of one of those things where both sides just fire each other up. One thing I do find annoying however, is how at times if someone finds out you're a non-believer they try to convert you, civil debate is fine and should be encouraged but condemning people to hell just because of a different path just acts as a divider
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on April 13, 2015:
There are many responsible HP atheists who consider new atheism to be a fully fledged philosophy. The idea of "new atheism" means the leaving behind of the old one line definition of simply just a disbelief in God. It is now a politically pro active movement.
I promote ethical scientific atheism which logically builds on the Evolution of ethics which comes from religion or the "wisdom of the ancients. To reject evolutionary principles is hypocrisy regarding those who hold the principle sacrosanct.
Jon Peloquin on April 13, 2015:
I think your just running into trolls or apostates lashing out. Religion itself is a broad term. Atheism is simply a lack of belief and nothing more. Many people who fall into this group tend to have some kind of religious background which is why there tends to be so much debate. Even communism which is widely consider to be secular actually has its own unique religions that tend to be evolved form of the monarchies or ancestral worship of the region. Some people are good with religion other people are good with out religion. If someone isn't hurting any one let them be, but if their actions can be dangerous to the well being of a person you have to speak out, regardless of what they may or may not believe
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on February 09, 2015:
I tend to agree. Even Dawkins admits people are hardwired for religious behaviour. That's why I call him Pope Richard Dawkins the 1st! :)
Jane Smith on February 09, 2015:
Atheism seems to have acquired all the hallmarks of an organized religion. It seems to have become what it has been fighting .
Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 25, 2015:
You make some great points. Thanks for the information.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on January 11, 2015:
Thanks amaz. I have tried to point out inconsistencies that go overlooked far too much
amazmerizing from PACIFIC NORTHWEST, USA on January 11, 2015:
Interesting article here. Thanks for that in depth discussion on Atheism in the new age. Many don't realize just how pervasive it is!
Jean Bakula from New Jersey on July 01, 2014:
Thanks. It's hard to find them on political or religious forums, stay away, it can get nasty. Best Wishes.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on July 01, 2014:
Funnily enough many religions AND many atheists need to understand this same point!
Very refreshing to talk to an openminded hubber for a change!
Jean Bakula from New Jersey on June 30, 2014:
Good idea. It would solve so many problems if people realized the truths present in all faiths.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 29, 2014:
Buddhism is definitely classed as a religion.
I do not believe religion breeds bad people but I do know that politics does. Politics and religion are separate phenomena and should not be confused with each other. I have observed many religions and seen the best and worst people there; but this can be said about many social groups.
Divine Love does not permit an eternal hell. Many religions need to evolve further to embrace all faiths.
I often encourage people to have a look at Classical Hinduism as it teaches the truth present in all faiths.
Jean Bakula from New Jersey on June 29, 2014:
Interesting piece. I have read a lot about Buddhism in the last few years, and believe it is not really considered a religion, it is considered a code of behavior. I agree that religions based on fear of going to Hell are a ridiculous way of trying to control people. Yet the Universe has such beauty and order, it is hard for me to believe there is no Creator or Deity at all. I just can't figure it out. So I just consider myself a Pagan, since I love the Earth, and despise organized religion and the hypocrites it breeds.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 27, 2014:
as I said the problem is that no atheists are protesting about Singer while his very numerous and educated graduates are doing their best to make these things law. Hence the quote in my introduction by Einstein regarding good people standing by and doing nothing.
As for the Holocaust and using it to justify atheism/agnosticism: the plain fact is that if we introduce the concept of God into a reason for atheism/agnosticism we are making an error in logic.ie. "the blaming god" paradox. The atheist leaders such as Dawkins realized this problem and have tried to explain it by saying humans are genetically "hardwired" to believe in God thus making it impossible for humans to escape this illogical paradox.
The oddest thing about this "blaming god paradox" is that it can be used as another proof of God's existence. ie. we need to assume God exists before we can either prove or disprove His/Its existence bu maths logic.
Yoleen Lucas from Big Island of Hawaii on June 27, 2014:
Oztinado - If Pete Singer were a powerful politician, then there would be cause for worry. As it is, he is a professor spouting his beliefs. Unless you're a student at his university, it's not likely to affect you - and even if you were, as long as you don't enter any fiery debates with him, it shouldn't affect you.
Regarding blaming God - I was simply stating a fact. Here are some links supporting my statement:
Ok, nothing is said about the Holocaust causing this, but Elie Wiesel is a Holocaust survivor who originally wanted to become a rabbi, but turned into an agnostic. It's like, if God exists, why did He allow the Holocaust? Perhaps God doesn't exist, after all. No doubt many Jews feel the same.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 26, 2014:
your comments reveal that same tendency to "blame God" which contradicts an alleged disbelief in God. That is, how can you or Peter Singer blame God for the Holocaust if you don't believe in God in the first instance?
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 25, 2014:
you have to do more research. Peter Singer is a highly influential atheist ethics professor. His ideas have spawned a multitude of atheist followers who are bent on introducing legal infanticide and beastiality. He and his followers are heavily involved in trying to make legal changes to laws currently banning these hideous things.
My main point here is that online atheists are not condemning this unethical atheist trend. By not protesting they are indirectly supporting the same bizarre ideas.
Yoleen Lucas from Big Island of Hawaii on June 25, 2014:
Link10103 - LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This article is the first I've heard of Pete Singer. I read about him in Wikipedia. He is the son of Viennese Jews who were lucky enough to escape the Nazis in 1938. His Atheistic tendencies are not the least bit surprising; 52% of Jews today are either Atheist or Agnostic, because of the Holocaust.
I typed "Is Pete Singer trying to destroy belief in God" in a search engine, and briefly scanned the list of articles about him. I noticed all of them were written in religious literature, and so didn't read them. Since I haven't heard of him before, I don't believe he's much of a threat to Christianity or anything else. He's a philosopher who is promoting his beliefs; you can choose to follow him, or accept some of his teachings and reject the ones you don't like. I wouldn't worry about him.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 20, 2014:
I often wonder why the new type of atheist can't see the bigotry in this fashion of total religious intolerance. I feel it may be due to "deadening down" of the conscience due to the lack of an alternative ethical process.
Miguelangelus on June 20, 2014:
Don't worry Ostinato like i said in my first comment: "Congratulation for a great/first hub! great point of view"
I totally agree and thank you for giving a tool to debate about the hypocrisy about religious intolerance and that's the point! to make the people see that you don't have to be in according with another person way of thinking of feeling for you to respect it even more if each of us are supposed to be unique beings
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 19, 2014:
my apologies for not replying more often: I was busy with work.
I am hoping that both theist and atheist will reply to my 9 points as outlined in my Hub. I have told Hubbers to refrain from personal insults or attacks.
I am still waiting for any atheist to engage in a conversation about Peter Singer but he seems to cause selective memory loss in many atheists!
This Hub will hopefully shed light on what I see as a deadening down of ethical standards by 21st Century atheist leaders: they can't seem to see all the hypocrisy involved in Total religious intolerance.
Also, I hope to give Theists more tools to debate with online atheists.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 19, 2014:
Sorry you feel that way. I will of course delete insulting comments.
Have a great day.
Miguelangelus on June 19, 2014:
i'm not reading all that! i wont lose more of my time with you! it's pointless! just respect other way of thinking and you will be respected!
Someday you will have to swallow all you have said!
When the time comes i'm sure you will remember my words! God bless you
Miguelangelus on June 19, 2014:
I'm sorry for my grammar problem english is not my native language!
I knew you wouldn't understand anything as you have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about!
"What governor/political leader (in America at least) do you know that is homicidal, forces people to bend to his will and acts like a god?"
- I Live in South America and there is a lot of them!! and what about Bush? and others?
"Did you even read my comment? Do not flaunt your ignorance and expect to be taken seriously."
- Serious? hahaha my example of you thinking of god as a politician... God is not a guy! god doesn't think as we should! he's beyond human understanding! much more beyond a gorilla rainbow farter understanding so sorry! that's the only level of serious i can take you
life, death, existence, reality, science, and deities? yes i know about it! at least the basics. of course i don't have the total and absolute truth nobody does! and i respect that you don't believe in anything. i just don't care! but i wont accept that you talk bad about god just because you don't believe in him!
About the blind faith! the day that you would need help from somebody you will believe blindly in that person's good will for helping you! i'm sure you wont understand this until the day comes but that's faith and the whole world (in spite of all the bad that goes around) will ever have the need of it!
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 19, 2014:
I recall deleting one comment which was short and trite. Then trying out other settings until I realized I wasn't sure about the result etc.
I have deleted Titens very last comment as it contained direct insults!
Miguel seems to have a slight grammar problem so I don't want to discourage him for making just one comment.
Hope that answers your question. I know its not a good feeling being moderated without being given a reason.
Link10103 on June 17, 2014:
I guess you hit the wrong button twice then, considering how my opening comment directed to Lybrah was deleted as well as a follow up comment towards some of her points, neither of which were trite or insulting. Do not act like you mistakenly deleted a comment, I highly doubt its that easy to do...twice. To the same person.
And according to your own logic, you should delete Miguelangelus comment, but you probably won't.
What governor/political leader (in America at least) do you know that is homicidal, forces people to bend to his will and acts like a god? Did you even read my comment? Do not flaunt your ignorance and expect to be taken seriously.
A world without BLIND faith is what Atheists strive to get. Rational minded atheists do not give a damn about people who might believe in purple monkeys that live invisibly on the moon, as long as those same people respect that atheists do not believe in the same thing. When you are in the mindset that your particular belief is the ONLY belief everyone should have and that there is no possible way it could be wrong is when people start to get hurt and overall progress comes to a standstill. If you wish to sit in your home and worship talking gorillas who fart rainbows, be my guest. Just keep it private in your home and to yourself in public unless asked about it.
Also, feel free to explain life, death, existence, reality, science, and deities to me in extreme detail (obviously you know all about it) since I believe Titen will no longer frequent this hub. I am interested however.
Miguelangelus on June 17, 2014:
I'm sorry but it's obvious (and i guess i'm talking for oztinato when i say) that you have not even the closest idea of what you are talking about... talking about god like he is a governor or a political leader! i'm not wasting my time trying to explain god to you! and i guess Ostinato was clever by saving us the time for reading your pointless responses.
You said that Atheists are not looking for "destroy religion" that you are not racist or even haters! but you behave and talk about religion like it was the reason of all our problems, like you are scared of it. Explain to me how isn't a satanic thing to hope that the world "give up their faith gradually"! so i'm seeing you as the common limited minded atheist that has no clue of what life/death is... much less about existence, reality, science and mysteries (deities)
Congratulation for a great/first hub! great point of view of atheism and their bullsh1t of trying to sabotage religion using science's nonexistent wrong side to discredit it and making gods look like idiots with our same thinking and behavior like they were similar to humans
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 16, 2014:
I only delete trite or insulting comments just as a hub moderator would.
If I have hit a wrong button I apologise as this is my first hub and its possible I hit a wrong button.
Although I disagree with Titen at least she is spending time and effort on longer replies.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 16, 2014:
Peter Singer seems to create selective memory loss in just about every online atheist. He is the atheist who has created a world wide push for legalizing infanticide of children up to the age of six months. I have provided links and info on this Hub about him and his influence here so please stop denying you know nothing. O and by the way he and his thousands of atheist followers want to legalise beastialty. I suppose you don't know about that too?
Atheist nerds often run web sites and moderate them so of course they will make it harder for Believers.
I have added a capsule on this hub DEFENDING ethical atheism.
Lybrah on June 14, 2014:
Link, if you want to contact me directly, you can always go to my page and then click on fan mail, and it will send a message to me directly.
Link10103 on June 14, 2014:
I know that Oztinato is the author of this hub, so I didn't mean you lybrah. It apparently is not worth the time to retype the comment unless there is a guarantee it will not be deleted.
Otherwise it just proves that Oztinato is ignorant and not willing to listen to other viewpoints, which is odd considering my comments were tame compared to Titen's.
Lybrah on June 14, 2014:
I never got to read your message, Link
Lybrah on June 14, 2014:
I did not delete your comment. Only the author of this hub has the authority to do that. I would have been interested in what you were trying to say. What was that?
Link10103 on June 14, 2014:
Well, its nice to know nothing you say can be taken seriously now, considering how you deleted my comments for some reason. Fantastic job.
Not that you bothered to ask, since that would probably be too easy of a thing to do, but I'm not an atheist.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 14, 2014:
I totally empathise with your views regarding hub bans. We have to accept that atheists run the show and work within those limits. Try to surf forums silently reporting the obvious atheist attacks; send private emails of support to religious people under attack from atheist feeding frenzies and warn them not to respond in kind.
Notice the atheists never dare go near the subject of Peter Singer as he is just too incriminating. He is like the evil twin locked in the attic whose atheist relatives pretend he just doesn't exist. Sad.
Lybrah on June 13, 2014:
In the bible, it indicates that God is a male. He wants to be known as a man, for whatever reason. I think that when you see Him in all His glory and majesty, you will feel compelled by such to bow your knee to Him. Then again, I guess He could and would make you.
God is judgmental, but He is not a psychopath. It is not God's choice that any go to hell; He wants you to avoid going there. People who go to hell are sending themselves by rejecting God. In hell, people will be faced with God's fury; yet they're connection to Him will be severed. Don't you think ever think about that? For some people, Earth is as close to heaven as they will get.
I'm not trying to make myself feel better by saying it's part of God's plan; I don't understand what God's plan is most of the time, but I have to trust that He is allowing certain things to happen for a reason, and that innocent people who are His will be rewarded in Paradise, which is probably a lot better than here.
Link10103 on June 13, 2014:
1. Why is god a guy? Sure the extreme sexism of the times had nothing to do with that.
2. If said guy wasn't such a judgmental, merciless psychopath, all of your "evidence" would be convincing enough.
3. The only way for my knee to bend to god is if he forces me, which voids my free will. In simpler terms, that means free will does not exist and that god is a liar who is unworthy of worship.
If it turns out that god, as described by the bible, exists, it still does not change anything. It just means that he has in fact sat back and watched innocent people (believers and non believers alike), die horribly for absolutely no reason. Yet people such as yourself will justify that by saying it was part of gods plan to make yourself feel better.
Sounds like a really big cop out of reality to me.
In unrelated news, its was quite surprising to not have you jump straight to insulting me for once. Instead you subtlety implied I will regret not believing in an invisible man in the sky. Baby steps I guess.
Lybrah on June 13, 2014:
If you want evidence God is real, look around you...at the sunset, the night sky...God is everywhere. God is working in ways you cannot imagine. You just choose not to see Him. But He will reveal Himself to all who deny His existence in due time, according to Revelations, and then every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. You'll see.
Lybrah on June 13, 2014:
But it's NOT fiction, no matter what you say; God is real. Get over it.
Titen-Sxull from back in the lab again on June 13, 2014:
"This is a part of modern atheism even if people try to deny it is happening."
I don't think anyone denies its happening, I think what is being denied is that the actions of the Chinese government should be laid at the feet of atheism, instead of it being just a war crime. It would be like laying Hitler's crimes at the feet of Catholicism because he was a Catholic, actually it would be worse since atheism is such a general idea as I explained.
"In the "West" the attempts to stifle forms of religious freedom is affecting all religions, not just Christianity."
Can you name even ONE attempt to stifle religious freedom? Here's a few things that DON'T count as stifling religious freedom, fighting to: Keep creationism out of classrooms, remove In God We Trust from money, remove Under God from the pledge, keep Holiday displays fair to people of all faiths including those with no faith. So I'll repeat the question, name just one attempt, in the West, specifically by atheists, to STIFLE religious freedom.
"Many of these indigenous races/cultures are on the verge of extinction and atheism is now assisting that process with ideas about as deep as a latte."
We're going in circles now Oztinato, you keep making this claim and you've said NOTHING to back it up. In fact it once again bears repeating that there is no connection between online atheists discussing, debating and yes even mocking religion and the destruction of fragile cultures/"races".
And lastly my atheism was born of a deconversion from fundamentalist Christianity and yet here I am, what you might call an "online 21st century atheist". It seems to me that you just like to talk trash on atheists you see as inferior and for no good reason compare their actions with genocide or Chinese war crimes.
"beliefs and their vital importance to the existence of many many different cultures and races"
Please explain to me how if a Tibetan were to give up their beliefs it would in anyway endanger their life? The only situation in which I can imagine losing ones faith would cause death is in a nation where apostasy is actually dangerous (like maybe Saudi Arabia or Iran). Please explain these completely ridiculous connections you are making, of how somehow losing ones beliefs means myth and culture disappear.
All the positives of religion can be kept, minus the believing its real part. There is no reason why religion can't become the comic book superhero convention of the future, and be just as cherished and loved as it is now, but in the proper context - AS FICTION.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 12, 2014:
I am certainly not railing against atheism in general as I have always supported ethical atheism. Ethical forms of atheism do not practice bigotry towards religion. I am promoting atheism that builds scientifically onto the evolution of ethics and law first started by religions; ethical atheism does not simply jettison the principle of evolution when it suits.
We have to admit that a specifically atheist government has decided to persecute the Tibetans. This is a part of modern atheism even if people try to deny it is happening.
In the "West" the attempts to stifle forms of religious freedom is affecting all religions, not just Christianity. This proves my point that modern atheism is a far far cry from "just a disbelief in God" but is a proactive movement with an agenda of total intolerance.
The dictionary definition of bigotry is the inability to tolerate religion or race. There is no point in dressing up bigotry as a benevolent act.
This new 21st Century atheism was spawned in a cafe style urban mentality limited to some Western cities and bookshops totally divorced from the actual reality of Indigenous (and other) beliefs and their vital importance to the existence of many many different cultures and races. Many of these indigenous races/cultures are on the verge of extinction and atheism is now assisting that process with ideas about as deep as a latte.
Titen-Sxull from back in the lab again on June 12, 2014:
"My point is that atheists are forgetting the implications of what they are actually saying and doing"
Right, and what you're saying makes no sense. Native Americans are not going to cease to exist if they decide to WILLINGLY give up their superstitions and treat them as mythology. And thats what atheists are trying to do, get people to think about what they believe and why in hopes that they will become more reasonable rational people.
"An atheist state has tried to destroy the Tibetans"
Well that has nothing to do with the fact that the Chinese government is atheistic. It also has nothing to do with the 21st century online atheism you are railing against in this hub. I certainly do not support the genocide, forced relocation, or forced destruction of culture/religion anywhere or for any group of people.
"mocking religion and trying to destroy it could help to destroy fragile indigenous cultures."
No it couldn't.
"The concept of destroying religion therefore crosses over into themes of cultural genocide."
Except that it doesn't, at all. And besides, no one is destroying religion, people are being talked out of their respective faiths or are deconverting on their own. Again, there is nothing about people giving up their religion WILLINGLY, through a consideration of the evidence, that is akin to genocide.
Militant Muslims blow themselves up... militant Christians kill abortion doctors... militant atheists TALK TO PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET and yet its the atheists you want to compare to genocide. Seriously fucking think here, what you're saying makes NO sense.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 11, 2014:
My point is that atheists are forgetting the implications of what they are actually saying and doing. They often seem to focus on Christianity and forget about the many fragile indigenous religions and oppressed peoples.
An atheist state has tried to destroy the Tibetans; new Western atheist trends mocking religion and trying to destroy it could help to destroy fragile indigenous cultures.
The concept of destroying religion therefore crosses over into themes of cultural genocide.
Titen-Sxull from back in the lab again on June 11, 2014:
"To a racially distinct Tibetan or Indigenous person their religion IS them"
You keep bringing up the Tibetans... why? Last I checked none of the 21st century atheists you're complaining about are vehemently trying to convince Tibetans to give up their religion. Like I said, the best I as an atheist can hope for is that as the world becomes more interconnected religion becomes less popular, or becomes treated as cherished myth rather than treated as truth or reality, and this all of people's own free will, not something forced upon them.
"Their genocide will be finally complete if atheists continue to denigrate and destroy people's faith and religion."
What the hell are you talking about? Since when are atheists destroying religion? Seriously WTF are you even talking about? Second of all if some Native Americans, or Tibetans, decided not to believe in their religions that wouldn't kill them. Their culture wouldn't vanish either. Many people who are ethnically Jewish don't really believe but that doesn't mean they are ignorant of the traditions of their people.
Last I checked the only thing "21st century atheists" are in favor of is discussing why people believe what they believe sometimes with an intent to explain why these superstitions are false or at least appear to be false. And yes, occasionally we make fun of other people's beliefs that we find silly, I'm sorry you find this so offensive it reminds you of genocide, but that's just stupid.
Again the danger you foresee is completely made up nonsense.
"My point is that many atheists try to sanitize the inherent bigotry of their attitude and try to make it seem benevolent or "for their own (indigenous) good" "
Only in the sense that I believe it is GOOD to believe things that I have good reasons to believe and reject the completely unfalisiable, logically broken and blindly superstitious and it is my right, under freedom of speech, to discuss my beliefs, and the things that I don't believe, with other people. The idea that you are equating open discussion of beliefs with bigotry and intolerance makes no sense and as for the handful of troll-atheists who want to just be assholes they're few and far between. And even with trolls the danger is only in someone having their feelings hurt, if you really think Tibetans, Native Americans, and other groups can't handle having their religions challenged without likening it to genocide I think you need a serious reality check.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 10, 2014:
races and cultures are intertwined and often inseparable. To a racially distinct Tibetan or Indigenous person their religion IS them.
The only thing that saved the Native Americans was their Indigenous religion. Their genocide will be finally complete if atheists continue to denigrate and destroy people's faith and religion.
My point is that many atheists try to sanitize the inherent bigotry of their attitude and try to make it seem benevolent or "for their own (indigenous) good".
Titen-Sxull from back in the lab again on June 10, 2014:
"its impossible for many cultures and races to be separated from religion"
Cultures maybe... races though? Race is a concept based upon superficial external features and malformed stereotypes and generalizations about an entire group of people who may or may NOT share a close genetic relationship. In short race, as we know it, is genetically non-existent and highly insignificant.
"therefore destroying religion will finally destroy them too."
How many atheists have the goal of "destroying religion"? Most atheists, even most outspoken ones, know full well that religion is going to exist in some form or another for long into the future. Even those who would entertain some utopian future where religion had been abandoned by mankind it would be abandoned gradually, naturally, as we move from being a species of bickering small-minded nations and cultures, to a global species.
In other words the worst most atheists would hope for is that the Tibetans would give up their faith gradually, willingly, if at all. As for their cultures, all cultures change, if you think the Tibetan culture will not change as the world grows more populous and interconnected you're wrong. Is this a good thing? Maybe, maybe not, but its hardly the racist atheistic destruction you've invented in your own mind.
"Likewise, early settlers in many lands used mockery and genocide to try to eliminate indigenous peoples."
They also used religion as an excuse.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on June 09, 2014:
its impossible for many cultures and races to be separated from religion. It seems the majority of good and bad atheists have totally forgotten this and fallen into an over intellectualized type of bigotry.
What about the precarious Indigenous cultures and Tibetans? To them their religion is the same as their life; therefore destroying religion will finally destroy them too.
Likewise, early settlers in many lands used mockery and genocide to try to eliminate indigenous peoples.
Lybrah on June 07, 2014:
Sorry, but I was surfing the hub pages, read this, and had to respond:
You wrote "Obviously there are SOME atheists who are total assholes or are simply trolls, however it is a small fraction of the atheists I've interacted with."
Obviously, you haven't interacted with too many people (on here at least). The majority of the atheists are obnoxious, but what I like about you is that at least you (try to) respect the person (but mock the beliefs), while others are just rude in general. But I have to say, telling the hub author that his arguments don't make sense, and that he misses the point, is pretty rude. How about, "I respectfully disagree with your views?" That sounds much more polite.
I definitely agree with you on #1, #7, and #8. In fact, all of your hub makes perfect sense. I'd like to share here that I've been banned off the Hubpages forums for "petty bickering" with the atheists. However, I notice that the Hubpages editors will turn the other way when an atheist engages in such petty bickering, I, however, defending my belief, get banned. I tried to report them; nothing happens. It's not fair. I think some atheists claim they are set free by not believing; I believe that they are deceived by Satan and just want justifications for living in their sins. What Titen-Sxull does not realize is that HE is the one who has missed the point. He has completely become saturated with Satan's doctrines and tricks. All we can do is pray for him, and others like him.
Titen-Sxull from back in the lab again on June 07, 2014:
“Religious and racial intolerance are obviously unethical practices.”
Obviously there are SOME atheists who are total assholes or are simply trolls, however it is a small fraction of the atheists I've interacted with. What I will be intolerant of is those who try to force their religious beliefs into schools or government (ie trying to stop gays from having equal rights for religious reasons, creationism in schools).
The other very important thing to point out is the difference between ridiculing a set of beliefs and the actual person themselves. I reserve the right to mock ANY ideas, even if they are ones people hold dear, and this should not be confused with actually mocking the person in question. If I say the story of Jesus is morally bankrupt and stupid it shouldn't be construed with saying that someone who BELIEVES is a stupid person themselves. I used to be a Christian, I was misled, not stupid, and I assume that most other Christians are simply like I was, misled .
I reserve the right to disagree, vehemently if necessary, with religious beliefs, however I also defend your right to believe whatever you want even if I find it silly.
“The one line defintion of atheism does not relate at all to the comprehensive social and anthropological dictionary defintions.”
Replace the word atheism with theism and you'll see the problem with your reasoning here. A theist might well be a Christian specifically, we might even say they were a Baptist Christian, and a Baptist Christian may have a very comprehensive cultural and social definition, but THEISM does not have such a definition, THEISM is just a belief in a God or gods. All of those opinions you associate with the average atheist are ADDITIONAL to atheism, atheism itself is exactly what that one line definition entails. Want to know how I know this? Because there's such a thing as Christian-Atheists, yeah, hurts my brain too.
“at all for religion or religious races”
I have no idea what religious races means. I will show empathy for the religious, however it is impossible within the definition of empathy to show empathy to an idea. So no I cannot, by definition, have empathy for religion, that doesn't even make sense.
“Logically this means they have no empathy for the majority of humanity”
So because atheists don't like the ideas of religion that means we don't care about religious people? That doesn't make any sense and you know it. I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. Most of the people in my family are religious, I may disagree with their beliefs but that hardly means I don't care about them. Show me where these dreaded “online atheists” you've encountered are bashing the Tibetans and being racist and hateful. Why would you judge a group of people based on what a few internet trolls act like?
“yet this theory receives serious attention from atheists.”
So does the idea of God. Did it ever occur to you that many atheists became atheists because they started searching, in earnest, for God? I'm an atheist because I sought to read the Bible in its entirety, and when that was done I was no longer a Christian, so I sought the true God of the Universe and when that was done I was no longer a monotheist, so I sought the truth of the cosmos, and when that was done I was no longer a pantheist... and so I am an atheist not because I wanted to throw out God, but because I wanted to believe in him.
“their own scientific principle of Evolution which is appled to all other scientifc, moral and ethical ideas”
First off, evolution is not a scientific principle, what the hell are you talking about. Second of all evolution is not applied to morals or ethics.
“and are only obsessed with the alleged evils of all religions”
Because the evils outweigh the good. There is no good idea which is dependent upon the religious atmosphere in which it emerged. In other words whether we get the Golden Rule from Jesus or Confucius a Jew or an atheist, makes no difference to its usefulness or truth.
“tool for change in Law Making”
My guess is they don't admit this because its something you just made up. Here in the USA atheists make up between 2% and 6% of the population. Every time I see atheists involved in a court case they are DEFENDING the first amendment and the separation of church and state from theists who are trying to subvert them.
“They descend on religious Hubs like locusts and spend inordinate amounts of time stopping any logical criticism of atheism.”
This would be well within their right of free speech. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word free speech, if you think its okay to talk shit on atheists but get angry when they do the same thing to you, especially here online. Welcome to the WORLD wide web, where the US Constitution and US law don't always apply.
“which clearly points out the foolishness of having faith in science and its abiltiy to answer all questions”
Hey look, it took you to number 8 before you got something right. Yeah the obsession with science does get kinda old doesn't it? Me personally I don't want all the questions answered, I relish the search more than the destination, however science has proved far more reliable than religion in finding answers. Really its no contest. I don't have faith in science, mostly because I know it works, it does what it does and learns what it can.
“They often "blame God" for tragic events while forgetting that their claim is a negative proof for God's existence.”
You missed the point. The point is that if believers are going to claim God, say, saved a kid from being sucked up in a tornado or healed someone of cancer than they also have to give god the blame for letting the tornado strike and allowing the cancer to begin with. All power = all responsibility and there's no getting around that. The point isn't that God actually is real and we should blame him, its that he isn't involved in EITHER event, negative or positive, because he doesn't exist.