HOME | DD
MetalShadowOverlord — A Dare to Atheists Stamp
Published: 2011-06-02 05:06:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 4736; Favourites: 82; Downloads: 19
Redirect to original
Description
Edit: Just saying this due to some confusion: I'm not actually saying Atheists should attack Buddhism. I'm using Buddhism as an example.This is only directed at Atheists who hate all religions
You know, out of all the different religions out there ( [link] ), the only two criticized/ridiculed/used to justify the idea of a world without religion are Christianity and Islam. It almost implies that Christianity and Islam are the only two religions that exist. If someone is going to make the claim that if the world were without ANY form of religion, the world would be better, then they need to take EVERY religion into consideration. NO EXCEPTIONS!
Strange, isn't it? Or maybe it's just not politically correct to criticize anything beyond these two?
(Religion is not exempt from criticism, nor is anything else, but to ridicule it is pathetic)
Related content
Comments: 475
Pretty sure I'm not your mom.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oops. I meant *your mom. Lol my bad
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't hate all Atheists(in fact, one of my best friend is one). just ones that can't see any Religion and Spirituality as something other than mere fiction
worse, when they're treats current science as sacred texts more so than any religious texts(even when this are's mutually exclusive to Atheists)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
buddha is not that nice but slightly nice
i'm not athiest but i did
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i'm somewhat a mix of athiest and buddhist
i really don't believe in any god, but i do believe in many things buddhism has to offer
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Firstly, buddhism is a way of life, not a religion. Look it up.
Second, even if it was, it would be an atheist religion. Atheism is just the lack of belief in deities.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know I'm late for replying to this comment but Buddhism is a philosophy, a way of life AND a religion. I'm sure the creator of this stamp doesn't have to "look this up" because he's a Buddhist himself.
Anyway: there are deities in Buddhism (...look it up). You just don't have to believe in them nowadays to be a Buddhist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Those are some of the most popular religions, I believe that's why there is more criticism of them. Personally though I'm not really a huge fan of political correctness even if I am an atheist, so I will say something if I see something and I don't care what I'm criticising. It isn't that politically correct now to critique Islam though, tbh. I get shit for that, even though a lot of the religious ideology behind extremist Islam is just really shitty. I guess if you want me to humour you, I think the whole trend of breatharianism which comes from Jain and Buddhist style religions is quite stupid, I mean, what it means basically is you don't eat or drink ever again in order to reach a higher spiritual level, problem is a lot of people have died from this practice.
I'm gonna be honest with ya; I'm not a fan of religion at all but I spin off of an old standard of Christianity: hate the religion, just don't hate the religious. I don't hate people, I just hate ideologies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Most Buddhists are actually atheists. There's no deity in Buddhism.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Buddhism's not a religion, so atheists who are against religions can't really, because it won't make sense
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Strange, isn't it? Or maybe it's just not politically correct to criticize anything beyond these two?"
Or maybe those two are the most common in the news? Christianity is more popular in the western world and Islam constantly criticizes atheists more than Christians. Hell Saudi Arabia said that atheists were worse than terrorists, which is ironic since Saudi Arabia is the country which most of the hijackers in 9/11 were from.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
there's a huge difference between buddhism and christianity.
christianity has and always will breed hate, ignorance, and intolerance in the majority of it's followers because it's a religion based on scaring the shit out of people unless they follow a hateful book.
buddhism is a religion that doesn't even focus on a higher power but focuses more on self awareness, inner focus, and doing good things for the world.
not things like
*make sure gays never marry
*bitch and whine at people till they follow your religion
*and/or continue to do everything in their power to make minorities suffer because someone told them to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, Buddhism in Asia doesn't accept homosexuality and it opposes same-sex marriage, but they don't shout it out loud.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But there's nothing in the beliefe system itself that says its a sin or bad unlike christianity at least not in my knowledg.
At least those who practice it here more focus on the "being good to others" to be peaceful and bhuddah like or whatever the heck that religion is even about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm not atheist, nor religous but I do understand why they only focus their attention on two religions, and why religous people would think it's hypocrtical. It's simply because they live in a country where the majority religions are one of those two. It's hard to have beef with more obscure religions like Buddhism when you:
A. Have never personally known members
and
B. It's members do not have a majority voice to institute their opinion via law that would affect an atheist's daily life
I'm sure there's atheists living in other parts of the world who have no beef with Christianity but would passionately hate and criticize Buddhism, Hinduism and such because it's the majority religion in their part. So yes, while atheists can be very obnoxious and over bearing, I don't fault them on this because I know it's not out of hypocrisy. They're just putting their attention towards what is most directly affecting them. Their belief encompasses all, but it's hard to hate or criticize something they know very little about. However at the end of the day they still reject the notion of dietys and magic regardless of the name. I mean this argument could just as easily be turned on itself, which is what makes it a weak one. Why do Christians only focus their attention on atheists? Why not other pagans who worship the "wrong gods"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So true, it's almost always Christianity and Islam, but I do understand why that is, they're the most crazy and want to take over the world
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
There are atheists who hate religion and ones who don't believe but respect. There are also bad Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, etc.
I don't think religion is the bad guy, but the people who believe they are right because of it.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Especially about 'Burma'. They aren't real Buddhists. They may say they are, or they may wear a red robe and pray mantras, but killing/persecuting Muslims or anyone who is a certain religion is against like every religion. Like I said, bad people have good religions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
People are always gonna ridicule something, deal with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The thing is, a lot of Buddhisrs Ive met are actually really nice people. Like the majority of them. Buddhists, for the majority, live their lives to their own means and lead by example. They don't try to dictate their way of life into law or demand everyone live like they do.
I've met so, so many Christians though, predominantly American Christians, who think that their shit don't stink and that they are better people because they are Christian. They constantly tell me I'm going to hell for being atheist/LGBT and then claim that they are so loving and nice. They are ignorant about other religions and the rest of the world (met some Christians who thought that being an atheist meant I worshiped Satan), they are blatantly antagonistic towards anyone who live their lives outside of the American dream and are generally very rude to people who aren't like them. This is of course not all Christians, not even a majority but having been to the U.S, I can testify that there sure are a lot of rude, ignorant Christians there, and I can see how many atheists who live in the states can get pretty sick and tired of all the Bible thumping.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's because they are ignorant of world history and only familiar with, say, the bloody history of Christianity and Islam. I bet those rabid anti-theists haven't even heard of how brutal Buddhist aristocracy in Tibet (which was a feudal theocracy) was prior to the Communist takeover, the corruption of the Falun Gong movement, or "Buddhist" militias in Burma killing Christian and Muslim minority groups.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
All religion, including Buddhism, demands the surrender of the mind in order to achieve some "greater good". No matter the religion, this is an awful precept. The mind is the most useful and necessary tool we have, and being asked to give up your individual mind for the sake of the hive is revolting, regardless of which religion demands it. This mindset is what led to the Buddhist Kamikaze pilots. Moreover, the religion suffers the same discrepant nonsense teachings that all religions suffer, among which can be found, as always, the notion that women are inferior to men (Amida Buddhism vow 35). And lastly, it's trivial to point out that most Buddhist communes have an extreme focus on disregarding the outside world and practically becoming useless hermits. This is not admirable. Ameliorating oneself is fine enough, but ignoring one's responsibility to society for the sake of pishposh "enlightenment" is cowardly.
I am against all religion because the notion that one can follow a single set of guidelines to become "perfect" or "enlightened" or "holy" is both ridiculous and disgusting, and in many cases, actively harmful. We are meant to absorb snippets from many philosophies, not just to zone in on one. There is no divine secret to life and to force yourself to believe such tripe is craven. We should condition ourselves to learn from the entire melting pot of life's philosophies and practices, not just believe in myths and legends to soothe our wishful minds. The working hand gets things done; the clasped, wishing hands achieve nothing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"All religion, including Buddhism, demands the surrender of the mind in order to achieve some 'greater good'."
Care to explain?
"This mindset is what led to the Buddhist Kamikaze pilots."
Actually, Shintoism is what that encouraged the line of thinking that caused pilots to kill themselves, not Buddhism.
"We are meant to absorb snippets from many philosophies, not just to zone in on one."
And what if I say," Gee whiz, these guys who belong to this one group make more sense than all those other groups" and decide to follow the beliefs of one group over all the others after I've reviewed the smorgasbord of other philosophies and found all of them, save one particular philosophy, to be wanting?
"The working hand gets things done; the clasped, wishing hands achieve nothing."
Does using my hands to work limit me from saying a few prayers? Does the opposite hold water (prayer limiting me from working)? It's actually taught (in Catholicism) that one can pray even when one's hands aren't folded. It's amusing, really, that you spent the entire time ranting about how religion closes the mind, then wrap it up with a comment about hands, which, in itself, limits the mind.
Also, I'd like for you to tell me how religious philosophers/scientists, namely Socrates, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Gregor Mendel and Roger Bacon had their minds "limited" as a result of their own religious practices. And, hey, let's throw in Msgr. Fr. Georges Lemaitre for good measure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All religions, as I've said, feature some lines that go something like, "If you follow me [God or gods], you will achieve salvation." or perhaps, "Follow these instructions to achieve enlightenment." It's all bollocks, to be frank. There is no one philosophy with all the answers to anyone's life, regardless of how much we may wish this was true. I'll knock out a couple of your other response points here, too. Your hypothetical is impossible and absurd in the highest degree, as all philosophies, good and evil, come from lines of thinking that many of us share as a species. To dismiss all others in favour of one would imply that you never bothered to actually take others into account. I, for one, believe I have many qualities that relate to the Hellenistic period, but I wouldn't hinge my entire philosophy on Hellenism, since I'm also a fan of many modern schools of thought, including existentialism and the Joseph Campbell "Hero of a Thousand Faces" concept that thinks of religion/myth as purely metaphorical tools that can be used to explain human condition in different periods, with overarching themes.
To say that only one system can be true is to desire living in isolated time and to limit your mind from progression. In short, we are more complicated than that. Also, about the Kamikaze, Shintoism is currently a conglomerated form of Buddhism, not separate in its own right. You may as well have said that Shiites aren't Muslims.
Also, you give away a bit more than you should when you take my praying hands expression so literally. The point of it is that wish-thinking achieves nothing, and working is the method through which achievements are made. Religion does indeed cloud the mind, as it suggests the disgusting notion that following its strict guidelines is the only method to achieve a concept that isn't tangible in any sense (salvation, enlightenment, holiness), and then goes further to say it's the only thing you should desire. How contemptible. Religions/myths are meant to be metaphors, not literal proclamations about how to live one's life, and certainly not historical representations in any fashion.
Lastly, imagine what most of those philosophers could have achieved if they had followed Soacrates' line of thinking. (I don't know why you included Socrates, he was a rather famous religious sceptic, also one of my favourite ancient philosophers.) I don't mean to say that religious people can't achieve greatness; they can. However, that does not make their religious thought any more true, and if they are forefathers of knowledge, as many of them are, they would have done better to question religion as well. It may have dissipated their bigotries or less tenable beliefs. Also, some of those people couldn't be blamed for religious belief of some kind, since not many options were available until the post-Enlightenment era. To say that they're automatically right because they had no choice is just plain silly. With scientific advancement, we have the ability and I dare say duty to question antiquated myths and to render mythology and philosophy to its core: compiled viewpoints for consideration. And no, I don't mean pick one, I mean pick a little from all. That's the point of advancement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For a wall of text, you really didn't say much other than, "If you disagree with this way of thinking (which is that everyone is sort of right), you're dumb", which is funny because one could accuse religious people of doing the same thing when met with opposition. Maybe this one philosophy I've chosen has everything I need to be happy and I don't need to look to other philosophies to be any more happy than I am right now. Actually, speaking of religion, it's funny how you're saying religion is poison for
"Also, about the Kamikaze, Shintoism is currently a conglomerated form of Buddhism, not separate in its own right. You may as well have said that Shiites aren't Muslims."
Not really. By saying, "Buddhists did it", you're saying that all the Buddhist religions were responsible for it regardless of the religious views of the actual perpetrators (which were primarily/possibly exclusively Shinto). It's like saying Catholics were responsible for the Puritan crime of the Salem Witch Trials.
I find it hilarious that your rebuttal to my "praying hands, working hands" argument is pretty much just you raging about religion. Only the first two lines had anything to do with it.
"I don't know why you included Socrates, he was a rather famous religious sceptic, also one of my favourite ancient philosophers."
I did it for 2 reasons:
1. Because I can.
2. Because he actually did believe in a god/gods and even argued in favor of intelligent design. During his trial, he argued against the accusation that he was a atheist by stating that he believed in the gods of the city-state, but not in the stories relating to the gods. He even refers to a singular god a number of times in Plato's books. The only thing he's skeptical of, in the least, is the city-state's vision of the gods. By the way, you can find just about all of this in Plato's Apology.
It's sad that, for someone who claims Socrates is their favorite philosopher, you don't really know jack about him. It's also funny that you completely ignored my argument (which was "I'd like for you to tell me how religious philosophers/scientists, namely Socrates, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon and Msgr. Fr. Georges Lemaitre had their minds "limited" as a result of their own religious practices.") and tried to counter an argument I ever even made (which seems to be that, because these people were Catholic (minus Socrates and Plato, of course)). Also, if you knew anything about Thomas Aquinas (who I mention previously), you would never have made the argument about them questioning religion. Bottom line: Instead of countering my arguments with something, well, better, you just come at me with, "Well, they COULD have done better!". Seriously? That's all you have?
I can clearly see that this is pretty much going to be nothing more than you evading my inquiries, or barely answering them, in favor of shitting on religion (which you really seem to have a nasty phobia of), so I'm done wasting my time. I'll just say that you can make a meal from everything the smorgasbord of philosophies has to offer if you want, but don't do as the religious people you hate do and attack me for choosing to make a meal out of one dish instead of following your idea of fine philosophical dining. Just some food for thought.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Buddhism is more of a lifestyle than a religion. Most athiests don't hate religion. I don't know any that do. I've seen Christians say "why do you hate god?!" But that's just them twisting and putting words in other peoples mouths.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think Buddhism is a religion like most of the people are used to know,
Buddhism is more of life-style than a religion, so I don't find this as a good example for making your point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The idea of consciousness leaving the brain based on the morality of one's actions is quite absurd.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
for fuck sake atheists don't just hate religion, THEY DONT BELIVE IN IT
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
2 Things:
1) Buddhism in it's Truest form is an "Atheistic" Religion.
2) The Dahi Lama HIMSELF stated "If Science discovers something that goes against Buddhist teachings then it's Buddhism That MUST Change!" I don't hear to many Christians or Muslims stating that Their religion must change if science discovers something that goes against what They Teach. In fact, quite the opposite.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1) You still admitted it was a religion.
2) So? Why must other religions change? Must it change to appease you? If the teachings of Christianity aren't appealing to you, don't have anything to do with it. Simple as that. If the Dalai Lama wants to change Buddhism according to some outside factor, that's the problem of the Dalai Lama and the Buddhists who follow him/the religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Change to please Me? No! But when Ken Ham and Kent Hovind close the "Creation Museum" and start embracing Real science instead of that nonsense they peddle - ...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wait, that's it? This "Creation Museum" has you riled up? Look, if you don't like this "Creation Museum", then ignore it. Hell, I've been ignoring it because, guess what, I don't believe what they're showing either (Dinosaurs? In the Garden of Eden? Really? Yes, shocking, I actually disagree on this minute issue). Obviously they created an establishment that presents their beliefs for everyone to see. If they were actually hurting people by doing this, I'd agree that something should be done, but they aren't, so I don't see the issue. I was personally expecting a little bit more of a counter argument than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What boils down to is this: All too often I hear Christians (and Muslims) say that If science contradicts their teachings or beliefs- then it's science that has to "Change".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So? I seriously fail to see the point here. So what if they say that? Big flippin deal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The Dalai Lama was a cruel dictator who ruled Tibet in luxury, while the people lived in poverty. Anyone who questioned his rule could be tortured.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would like to point out that most atheists don't hate all religion. I dislike some religious beliefs and practices, but it doesn't mean I hate the religion overall. And even if I did, I can hate one religion and not another.
Most people only talk about Christianity and Islam because (holy shit) THOSE ARE THE TWO BIGGEST RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD. They carry a lot of influence in a lot of places and some people don't like it. I live in America for example, so I deal with a lot of Christians. When I talk about disliking religion, of course my first thought is Christianity because it's what I'm most exposed to, it's what's shoved down my throat most often, and it's currently trying to legislate away my rights.
People don't criticize Buddhists often because they aren't a huge force trying to do controversial or bad things. If you ask if I agree with it, then obviously I would say no, and I can explain why I disagree with it and find it wrong. But Christianity the biggest religion in the world AND it has a lot of people who want to legislate how people can live so duh, it's going to be discussed more.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
From now on, anyone who makes fun of a religion has to include ALL religions that have ever existed, currently exist, or will exist in the future. It’s only fair.
If some secular-progressive liberal makes fun of Jesus, I will accuse him of double standards unless he also mocks Zurvan, Mani, Behafarid, Thiota, Makana, Philochorus and every other religious figure in existence too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I realize that this stamp is a couple of years old, but I'd like to throw my own two cents in.
I feel that the reason that most atheists who are to debate against Christianity and Islamic faiths, do so because of the roles that geography, the expansiveness of the religion, and media attention play. Being that most widely practiced and accepted religions encompass Christian or Islamic works, this is what brings it the most attention, as these religions bring the most influence upon the areas where atheists are most likely the be located, which would be countries like The United States and various countries around Europe. Geography and the impact of religious dogma are a huge reason as to why these two religions are always in debate among atheists.
As for the matter of the impact or importance of the religion, it also boils down to how it relates to the geography of where people are located. Because Buddhists have little to no impact upon the US and Europe, it isn't really in the hot seat. Though when you have government officials who are deeply influenced by their religious convictions, this applying more so to Christian religions, and try to pass laws that are derived from their scriptures that most atheists (as well as people of the same faith) may not agree with, it then is engaged and debated.
Now, in terms of hatred of religion itself, I agree that the hatred of any religion is ultimately bigoted and not very well researched. Personally, I consider myself an atheist, though I don't despise any religion. In terms of the philosophy of religions like Christianity, I agree with some aspects of it and disagree with other aspects of it. What one should keep in mind whenever trying to interpret a religion is to understand what time period it was written in, and what the circumstances were back then.
The evolution of human psychology and culture has a lot to do with why there might be so many differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Keeping in mind what the situation of the Old Testament was, mainly referring to how the Jews were trying to escape from persecution, it was absolutely essential that everyone worked together and stayed connected as a group, while establishing guidelines that reflect upon property rights, health, and following social norms at the time.
Why I bring this point up is to show some of the reasons as to why many atheists, myself included, don't believe in religion (particularly referring to Christianity at this point), as we feel as if many of the practices are outdated and irrelevant. That's not to say that everything in Christianity is horrible or outdated. Many of our values in our societies are derived from Christian teachings.
I guess to sum things up, I do ultimately agree with your message in the description, that ridiculing religion is pathetic. But I also disagree with your notion that atheists are biased simply because the majority focus on Christianity and/or Islam. Hopefully I didn't offend in any way, and feel free to engage me if you feel I'm off about something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
This comment is needs to be its own reglion.
On a more serious note, I agree with you. I do have some bones to pick with Christianity and Islam, but I tend not to have any problems with reglious people if they don't let their beliefs poison them. There is nothing I hate more than people forcing their beliefs onto other and/or using those beliefs to back up morally "shady" opinions. Its okay to have a opinion, but don't state it as a fact just because "it says it in the bible" or what not. Try to be at least a little open minded, would you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha, thank you!
People need to understand that they are entitled to their own beliefs and will not be persecuted should they not impact other people's lives (at least in the U.S. and other western countries, that is). The only time issues arise is when people feel that their beliefs are the basis of moral good and political law. And more often than not, the people who enforce their religious testimony onto those who reject them and/or use them in a political manner lack any sort of background in other philosophies or religions.
One can never have too much knowledge - it will only help broaden one's understanding of the world. Even if it's something someone might find to be unappealing or disagreeable; one cannot ignore its place in society. And that's where I feel most people lose their intellectual honesty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I got into an "argument" with some Muslim guy (which was pretty much not listening to a word I said and just bashing me on the fact I was an atheist, even though I stated that I had no problems with him being a Muslim) over a "parody" he made over one of my favorite shows. I would have no problems with the story at all if it wasn't a. Pushing reglion down my throat/saying all atheist must die b. Butchering my favorite show and c. Making the very strong woman in that show weak damsels that have to be saved my a man.
So I, quite offended, commented that "this show was not meant to be taken in any reglious context" and "please don't use this show to push your own agenda."
His reply was less than flattering.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>