2007-05-16 10:17:41 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't even know who she is...but I doubt I want to either.
2007-05-16 10:27:23 · answer #1 · answered by stakekawa 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Certainly not. Being an atheist doesn't protect one from being a zealot or a fool. O'Hair was obnoxious because it was the only way in her time to get taken seriously. And her horrifying death suggests that even she had some gullibility. I understand Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens but I don't like them much. I think they overstate their cases, throwing mud on every thing they can possibly identify as religious. It is one thing to seriously challenge the basis for a belief system based on its track record, quite another to point fingers at easy targets, or to lump everything into the same pot and call it stupid. Bullies don't get respect.
Atheists condemn those believers who dehumanize certain groups of people as if they didn't have a right to live. But there are many sincere believers (deluded though they may be) who use their faith to motivate themselves to actually make the world a better place to live. Why should this be condemned? And why should an atheist sink to the same them-or-us mentality that he accuses his "enemy" of?
We all "believe" IN things, even if they don't happen to be supernatural beings or realms. Belief keeps us focused and motivated. The legitimate targets are anti-human beliefs, beliefs that make it impossible to recognize our common humanity. I don't care how people label themselves. I only get concerned when they place greater value in imaginary things than in the people around them.
2007-05-16 18:24:15 · answer #2 · answered by skepsis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sigh, she was such a bad example of an atheist: loud, obnoxious, not attractive at all. Ok, the last example was shallow, but in the public light today, looks count. I have felt for a long time that we need to get some outspoken atheists out there that are not perceived as nut cases. Maybe we need to change the label. I dont know.
2007-05-16 17:31:10 · answer #3 · answered by in a handbasket 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
sure--just the same as being a Christian makes us all responsible for the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church & Adolf Hitler & the KKK & Fred Phelps ad nauseum. Guilt by association, right? I realize that every atheist is different just like every Christian is different. We all have different temperments & differing views but I get a little tired of being reminded on a daily basis of things I was never involved in & have no control over.
2007-05-16 17:32:17 · answer #4 · answered by wanda3s48 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why not? Being a Christian means we automatically have to love [insert name of atheist's villain du jour] and everything he or she stood for.
=OP
(And yes, I realize that not all atheists think like that. I just had to add this for the ones that do)
2007-05-16 17:24:56 · answer #5 · answered by Deof Movestofca 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Being an atheist means you don't "automatically" do anything. Only automatons do that. Independent thinkers pick and choose whom to like and what to believe.
2007-05-16 21:15:32 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Being atheist means that we're able to think for ourselves and not be led around be our noses like those bible thumping Jesus freaks who love quoting passages from that comic book.
2007-05-16 17:34:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know! Wasn't that a lame question? Even as attempted character assassination or some guilt by association deal it was fairly lame.
2007-05-16 17:29:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I've never heard of her, does that mean I'm a bad atheist?
2007-05-16 17:29:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, you also do not have to love Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim, Castro, Robespierre, Markov, Milosevic, either.
2007-05-16 17:21:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋