WTF Is Up With Atheists Lately?

[Pinkie]

Why do SOME religious or spiritual people unwilling to show mutual respect to SOME atheists? You seem to be making a one way road here. The real answer to your question is that every group, including theists and atheists, have jerks. This isn't just some problem with atheists, this is standard human operating procedure.

Uh huh. Let's examine things as I see them, just briefly.

* There hasn't been any major noise from American Atheists (that I have heard) since the 1970's, until lately.

* The 1970's goals of American Atheists was separation of church and state -- a protection I still firmly support.

* OTOH, SOME religious people AKA American fundies have been as obnoxious a bunch as I know of since my birth, and show no signs of ever behaving better.

* Lately (as in, the past year) I have seen SOME atheists behave almost as badly as some fundies....and I can't imagine WTF the pay off would be for that. Also, it severely undercuts the perception I have had that most atheists are rational, free thinkers with great respect for science, etc.

So, am I to conclude there's a new "kind" of atheist who joined up just to whine, bitch, moan and complain....and not because they gave the matter of God's existence great thought?

 

[Ikari]

It's not that there's a new kind of atheist, it's just that it's becoming more and more acceptable for people to make claims to their atheism. There used to (and still is to some degree) a lot of social stigma associated with atheism. For sure, the further back you go, the harder it was for someone to openly admit to atheism. So the numbers of who will claim atheism are rising slowly as well. With the coming of more open terms of atheism, comes larger and perhaps more outspoken groups. When one had to fear social repercussion for publicly admitting atheism, less people were likely to do it Thus the group size of atheism has grown larger than what it was in the 70's and you'll start to realize a fuller set of statistics when this begins to happen. There's going to be rude and outspoken atheists because now they can be outspoken with less repercussion and they're jerks.

I don't see why you wish to impose this extraordinary condition on atheists that our aggregated statistics cannot speak to the same volume of other groups or to well known human nature.

 

[Paschendale]

Why not? Is referring to your POV as a "belief" somehow demeaning to you?

Yes, it is. I find it very insulting. I find it demeaning to my intelligence.

 

[Pinkie]

It's not that there's a new kind of atheist, it's just that it's becoming more and more acceptable for people to make claims to their atheism. There used to (and still is to some degree) a lot of social stigma associated with atheism. For sure, the further back you go, the harder it was for someone to openly admit to atheism. So the numbers of who will claim atheism are rising slowly as well. With the coming of more open terms of atheism, comes larger and perhaps more outspoken groups. When one had to fear social repercussion for publicly admitting atheism, less people were likely to do it Thus the group size of atheism has grown larger than what it was in the 70's and you'll start to realize a fuller set of statistics when this begins to happen. There's going to be rude and outspoken atheists because now they can be outspoken with less repercussion and they're jerks.

I don't see why you wish to impose this extraordinary condition on atheists that our aggregated statistics cannot speak to the same volume of other groups or to well known human nature.

Yes, the number of atheists is growing rapidly.

Shocking: Young Americans Have a More Favorable View of Atheists Than Senior Citizens Do | Friendly Atheist

Yes, atheists have faced tremendous bigotry in the past, and to a degree, they still do.

Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists - Over 40 Years of Research Show Atheists Are Despised, Distrusted

Yes, any group of humans will have its flaws.

I STILL don't understand the perceived payoff for any atheist to adopt the Pat Robertson tactical line, but mebbe I just expected atheists to behave better because the ones I have known (and once was) always have.

 

[Pinkie]

Yes, it is. I find it very insulting. I find it demeaning to my intelligence.

Mr. Borlaug seems to have been an outstanding scientist and humanitarian.

Are you implying there are no spiritual or religious scientists or humanitarians?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Mr. Borlaug seems to have been an outstanding scientist and humanitarian.

Are you implying there are no spiritual or religious scientists or humanitarians?

Nope. Francis Collins is one of the discovers of the Human Genome. He's religious (one of the few) and has come under fire because of it.

I find it ironic. Six days out of the week, Collins uses modern science to find cutting edge discoveries but, on Sunday, he throws all that modernness out and throws it back 2000 years.

 

[Ikari]

I STILL don't understand the perceived payoff for any atheist to adopt the Pat Robertson tactical line, but mebbe I just expected atheists to behave better because the ones I have known (and once was) always have.

You'll always find "good" atheists (for lack of a better term) in group and likely will find them more numerous. But that doesn't mean they all will be that way. Indeed, they all WON'T be that way. I don't understand this insistence that atheists on the whole should be conducting themselves any differently than any other group out there who can realize full statistics. As the group expands and gets to critical mass, you'll see this behavior pop up as you are going to get jerks in the group. People who seemingly have nothing better to do than to ridicule religion. Whatever, call it payback or human nature or whatever; it's going to exist. There's not much one can do about it, humans will be human in the end. And all this really comes down to is group statistics, I don't think that atheists are significantly different on this front from other groups.

 

[Pinkie]

You'll always find "good" atheists (for lack of a better term) in group and likely will find them more numerous. But that doesn't mean they all will be that way. Indeed, they all WON'T be that way. I don't understand this insistence that atheists on the whole should be conducting themselves any differently than any other group out there who can realize full statistics. As the group expands and gets to critical mass, you'll see this behavior pop up as you are going to get jerks in the group. People who seemingly have nothing better to do than to ridicule religion. Whatever, call it payback or human nature or whatever; it's going to exist. There's not much one can do about it, humans will be human in the end. And all this really comes down to is group statistics, I don't think that atheists are significantly different on this front from other groups.

I'm confused as to why any atheists would see a reason to recruit. Isn't the whole idea "think for yourself"?

 

[Ikari]

Nope. Francis Collins is one of the discovers of the Human Genome. He's religious (one of the few) and has come under fire because of it.

I find it ironic. Six days out of the week, Collins uses modern science to find cutting edge discoveries but, on Sunday, he throws all that modernness out and throws it back 2000 years.

There are a lot of religious scientists out there. Even in physics, which has the highest percentage of admitted or self labeled atheists. Hell in my department we have Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. Religion is not actually at odds with science and both can be held logically by an individual.

 

[Pinkie]

Nope. Francis Collins is one of the discovers of the Human Genome. He's religious (one of the few) and has come under fire because of it.

I find it ironic. Six days out of the week, Collins uses modern science to find cutting edge discoveries but, on Sunday, he throws all that modernness out and throws it back 2000 years.

So what? Isn't that his private life, and none of your business? As long as his science is sound, how are you negatively impacted by this man's spirituality?

 

[Pinkie]

There are a lot of religious scientists out there. Even in physics, which has the highest percentage of admitted or self labeled atheists. Hell in my department we have Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. Religion is not actually at odds with science and both can be held logically by an individual.

Couldn't find the "like" button.

Great post, Ikari.

 

[Ikari]

I'm confused as to why any atheists would see a reason to recruit. Isn't the whole idea "think for yourself"?

I'm confused as to why you would believe atheists would conduct themselves in a manner opposite to how humans conduct themselves. Everyone seeks out groups, everyone wants to be a part of a group. We're social beings by nature. Religion often times fulfilled a large social role in our lives. But if one holds no religion, it doesn't mean that they've ceased to be social creatures. Some want their voices heard, so they strive for larger groups. Some want to rally against a perceived embedded religion which pushes religious doctrine over them. Some have nothing better to do and want to meet with a group of like minded people to sit around and self-confirm their beliefs.

Can you answer me as to why you believe atheists should act differently than other humans?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I'm confused as to why any atheists would see a reason to recruit. Isn't the whole idea "think for yourself"?

People may not have the ability to "think for themselves." I went to Catholic school from Kindergarten - High school. I'd always had doubt, but, with parents as strict Christians, I never had the ability to read books that even questioned my faith.

 

[Thorgasm]

Why not? Is referring to your POV as a "belief" somehow demeaning to you?

No. I see the non-existence of god as the default state. Until they find a flying elephant, they don't exist.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

So what? Isn't that his private life, and none of your business? As long as his science is sound, how are you negatively impacted by this man's spirituality?

I simply stated I find it ironic.

 

[Pinkie]

I simply stated I find it ironic.

I find it interesting. But I'm not so ill-mannered as to demand he explain to my satisfaction.

 

[Pinkie]

No. I see the non-existence of god as the default state. Until they find a flying elephant, they don't exist.

I've never "seen God" (though I hear it's possible with the right man).



However, I have seen "evidence" of a divinity...in nature, in some humans, in parts of my life. I choose this belief because it brings me comfort....I don't need for anyone to join me in it.

I would like to be treated respectfully, despite having a different POV on the subject as others, though. That'd be nice.

 

[blackjack50]

I don't see it that way at all. Atheism is inspirational. Life is entirely what you make of it. There is no set path you need to follow. The only meaning in life is the meaning you give it yourself. Of course, the idea that you're gone forever when you die is sort of depressing, but the idea of existing forever with no way to ever escape consciousness is just terrifying.

Well this is the point of view I that I don't mock. You are entitled to it. It is when someone feels they must convert me to atheism, or that they must argue with me over the existance of god, or they must basically treat me as irrational because I believe in God that I think these things. Misery loves company. That is what I fall on. Why should I join them in non-belief if I am happy with my religion and they seem only to want to destroy it? I think you get my drift.

What I find funny is that if Atheism is inspirational, and life is what you make of it, then can't I make life happy by believing in God? That I have a belief that maybe dying isn't not all that bad because I will end up in a better place. That is what heaven is. It isn't just an existing forever thing. It is being happy forever. Ya dig? lol.

 

[Thorgasm]

I've never "seen God" (though I hear it's possible with the right man).



However, I have seen "evidence" of a divinity...in nature, in some humans, in parts of my life. I choose this belief because it brings me comfort....I don't need for anyone to join me in it.

I would like to be treated respectfully, despite having a different POV on the subject as others, though. That'd be nice.

I have no problem with that.

 

[Dogger807]

What's up with atheists? Not much, they are just getting organized. Something, they've never really done before and it's crushed the status quo.

 

[scourge99]

Unless I'm mistaken, you're an atheist. That means by definition you believe in the lack of a god. The only question is whether you acknowledge that you believe in the lack of a god, or if you represent the lack of a god as a fact. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You don't appear to quite grasp what the epestemic default position is. The following post gives a very good description:


Recently, there has been some debate regarding whether or not there is an epistemic "default position" regarding the ontological existence of objects. I am here going to argue that there is an epistemic default position under the right circumstances. What are the right circumstances? Well, it's fairly obvious that not every question has a default position: should I turn left or right when I come to a fork in the road? What am I going to do with my time tonight? How many ducks are out there on the lake? In fact, there's probably quite a few questions that don't have an epistemic default. Rather than attempting to give universal rules on when there is an epistemic default, I will instead just give the relevant instances in which there is an epistemic default: that is, there is always an epistemic default when we are asking ourselves what exists. In ontological questions such as these, we are wondering whether or not X exists. Ultimately, it represents an ontological dichotomy: in reality, either X exists or X does not exist. However, we can't just sort of flip a coin to make our decision and still count ourselves among the rational folks. So what options are there? Assuming that X isn't inherently contradictory, we have a positive position (I believe/know X exists), a negative position (I believe/know X does not exist), a neutrally skeptical position (I'm not convinced X exists or that it doesn't exist), an agnostic position (I believe the question of X's existence can never be solved), an implicitely ignorant position (What is X?), and so on. It's far from a dichotomy so far as epistemology is concerned. Before learning what X is, I think it's so obvious that I don't even have to bother defending the assertion that the default position is implicit ignorance (i.e., "What is X?") However, once knowledge of what X represents is attained, we must suddenly make a choice on an epistemic position for X. Is there a default position once we learn what X is? It should be intuitively true that yes, there is --that of neutrality. Supposing we're just told what X is and not why we should believe it exists, we'll find ourselves in the default position of saying "I'm not convinced X exists or that it doesn't exist." The neutrally skeptical position is the default position once X is explicitely known, before we attempt to justify X's existence or not. Now, suppose that someone argues that there are consequences for lacking belief in X. Is this any reason to suppose that belief in X is just as rational as the default position of being unconvinced by X? No, of course not --there are an infinity of possibly existing things, and an infinity of possible consequences for not believing in any one of them. Even so, the most rational position is at all times to go only as far as you epistemically can based on the justification. It's still the case that the neutral default is the most rational position if there is no justification for the positive or negative position. So, what if someone argues that X be treated as the default position in an attempt to show that the starting point is arbitrary? This simply can never be the case in an ontological question because with ontological questions we're asking about the existence of something --therefore in all ontological questions, there will be a position that's more privative (which ends up being the negative assertion). Since X is less privative than ¬X, that means X must be the positive position. It can't be the default position under any circumstances. So, yes --with ontological questions there is always a default position. When it comes to theism/atheism, weak atheism is the default position. It is never possible for theism to be the default position in that context so someone can't just simply turn it around. Likewise, it's meaningless to refer to "possible" consequences of lacking theism until justification for theism is forthcoming --because, as mentioned before, there are an infinity of "possible" consequences of not being convinced by an infinity of possible ontologies, yet that's clearly no reason to believe any of them or any indication that remaining neutrally skeptical somehow shirks epistemic duties!!

 

[Paschendale]

Mr. Borlaug seems to have been an outstanding scientist and humanitarian.

Are you implying there are no spiritual or religious scientists or humanitarians?

No... I'm saying that dismissing a rational conclusion as a mere belief suggests that the rational process that lead to it is invalid. A belief, in terms of religion and faith, is holding to a position despite contradictory evidence. My position as an atheist is in accordance to that evidence, as opposed to ignoring that evidence.

However, I have seen "evidence" of a divinity...in nature, in some humans, in parts of my life.

I've asked a few people to explain how this is evidence. No one ever has an answer other than "I see pretty things and they make me feel like there's a god." Do you have a different one? I would be quite pleased to hear why, well... anything observable in the world actually suggests a deity. And especially why it suggests a specific one.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

A belief, in terms of religion and faith, is holding to a position despite contradictory evidence.

What is the contradictory evidence?

My position as an atheist is in accordance to that evidence, as opposed to ignoring that evidence.

Your position is in accordance with your subjective interpretation of evidence or lack thereof.

I've asked a few people to explain how this is evidence. No one ever has an answer other than "I see pretty things and they make me feel like there's a god." Do you have a different one? I would be quite pleased to hear why, well... anything observable in the world actually suggests a deity. And especially why it suggests a specific one.

In other words, like the rest of us, you perceive reality. You've decided that your perception is the rational perception and consequently dismiss any perception other than yours as irrational. That's nothing more than self-centeredness.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

What's up with atheists? Not much, they are just getting organized. Something, they've never really done before and it's crushed the status quo.

Please explain because this just sounds delusional to me.

 

[atrasicarius]

Atrasicarius, I personally find the New Testament (and some of the Old Testament) preposterous. I am not a christian. I don't understand why you'd toss anti-christian analysis at me.

ALL I believe is that there is a God, a Divine. That's it. End of story.

I'm not an atheist.....but I was once. I can respect your POV, and I can respect the POV of Jews, Muslims, and (most) christians. I did consider Judaism for a long time, but in the end, it just wasn't for me.

Anyone who has dedicated time, energy and thought to developing a spiritual inner life, assuming it hasn't led them to violence, gets my respect.

So, why are SOME atheists unwilling to show this mutual respect to SOME religious or spiritual people, especially lately?

That wasn't directed at you, that was directed at hallam. I don't really have a problem with deists, although I can have a philosophical debate with them from time to time. The thing is, that's pretty much the only remaining "gap" big enough to potentially hold a god, so you can't say with any kind of certainty that there isn't one there. Of course, you also can't say with any kind of certainty that there is one there. I tend to believe (yes, TacticalEvilDan, believe is actually the right word to use in this case) that there isn't a god there for various philosophical reasons, but there's really no way to know that. Anyway, hallam was talking about something completely different. He was saying that there's no evidence to suggest that the Christian God is a human construct, which is factually wrong, so that's what that post was about.