WTF Is Up With Atheists Lately?

[Cameron]

If ever there was a group that had no need to be banging on people to join, it's atheists. Yet they're rampant on facebook, at least. I joined a few pages, because as a Deist, their POV interests me. I also like a magazine/facebook page called "Skeptical Inquirer", which makes scientific matters easy for me to understand.

What I don't understand is this urge to ridicule or harrass people with religious beliefs, (unless mebbe the Catholics for reasons having nothing to do with a belief in God).

I find it highly ironic that a group which is presumably full of free-thinkers who gave the matter deep thought now seeks to expand its own ranks by shaming, bullying, etc. It's as if this is some new fad....as in, it's cool in 2011 to be an atheist.

Any thoughts?

Fervent atheists and fundamentalist conservative christians are equally obnoxious, IMO. I think it's a product of them both being pretty small minorities and yet believing with every fiber of their being that they know better than everyone else. This leads to an intense desire to convince others that they are right. And the ridicule and harassment of others comes from feeling threatened.

 

[NoC_T]

Fervent atheists and fundamentalist conservative christians are equally obnoxious, IMO. I think it's a product of them both being pretty small minorities and yet believing with every fiber of their being that they know better than everyone else. This leads to an intense desire to convince others that they are right. And the ridicule and harassment of others comes from feeling threatened.

I say let them continue to do so.

If their platform is one of sideline heckling, they can only hurt their cause.

 

[Ikari]

What goes around comes around, or something.

Seemingly just like this thread continues to come back around.

 

[RadicalModerate]

Organized religion, power structures based on millenia-old beliefs, proposed human understanding of proposed God's word, divine revelation, Judgement Day, mythical beliefs replacing science...these are the issues this lone atheist has with religion. God isn't something I oppose theologically because it's definition is too fluid for me to oppose in an intellectually honest way. I oppose that which happens here on Earth, that which happens under a mistaken belief of human superiority and understanding in the face of the God of Abraham.

 

[Pinkie]

Organized religion, power structures based on millenia-old beliefs, proposed human understanding of proposed God's word, divine revelation, Judgement Day, mythical beliefs replacing science...these are the issues this lone atheist has with religion. God isn't something I oppose theologically because it's definition is too fluid for me to oppose in an intellectually honest way. I oppose that which happens here on Earth, that which happens under a mistaken belief of human superiority and understanding in the face of the God of Abraham.

I don't have a single gripe as to atheism, Radical. I've spent decades in that belief myself.

What I object to is the cognitive dissonance that I get from hearing anyone proclaim that atheism is the only rational belief (so far, so good) in a screech and with a arrogance that would do the heaviest bible-thumper proud.

How can a belief that exists when rationality allegedly trumps emotion be the POV of so many loud, obnoxious hysterics?

 

[Pinkie]

Seemingly just like this thread continues to come back around.

Stop bumping it, then.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Stop bumping it, then.

NoC_T did. Nice reading comprehension skills.

 

[Pinkie]

NoC_T did. Nice reading comprehension skills.

Everyone who posts, bumps. Even those of you who're tired of trying to defend bad behavior, appeals to emotion, bullying, shaming and other attempts at domination in the name of a more rational belief by us all.

Thank God none of you guys is a 4th grade math teacher.

 

[Djoop]

How can a belief that exists when rationality allegedly trumps emotion be the POV of so many loud, obnoxious hysterics?

I always considered myself an atheist until I discovered I have no ffing clue. More than anything, I mostly detest the abrahamic faiths. I experience it every the time the pope tells Africans not to use condoms, when priests touch little children, or when a mullah opens his mouth. Whatever the Divine may be, that's not it, nor should we want it to be. Certainly, there's an intrinsic need to ridicule those who empower these criminals.

 

[blackjack50]

Organized religion, power structures based on millenia-old beliefs, proposed human understanding of proposed God's word, divine revelation, Judgement Day, mythical beliefs replacing science...these are the issues this lone atheist has with religion. God isn't something I oppose theologically because it's definition is too fluid for me to oppose in an intellectually honest way. I oppose that which happens here on Earth, that which happens under a mistaken belief of human superiority and understanding in the face of the God of Abraham.

I take issue with this comment specifially. At what point does it "replace science?" Sure there are plenty out there that think it does, but that really isn't the case with ALL religion. I am a Presbyterian and I CERTAINLY believe in Science. I believe in Evolution. I believe in Dinosaurs and Ice Ages. As a matter of fact, I even believe that the cause of the plagues was most likely...Santorini. Look it up. I can believe in these things because they don't contradict God. They don't contradict the idea. They really don't even contradict the story if you take the stories as metaphors. Do you understand that?

I can understand you taking issue with people who disagree with cold hard science. I do the exact same thing with people within Christianity. I also disagree with people trying to kill in the name of Jesus. That is a total distortion of the message. No true Christian would agrgue that. Jesus wouldn't want somebody killed in his name.

PS

I take issue only with atheists who decide to mock. Those who think they are somehow intellectually superior because they have no faith.

 

[Pinkie]

I always considered myself an atheist until I discovered I have no ffing clue. More than anything, I mostly detest the abrahamic faiths. I experience it every the time the pope tells Africans not to use condoms, when priests touch little children, or when a mullah opens his mouth. Whatever the Divine may be, that's not it, nor should we want it to be. Certainly, there's an intrinsic need to ridicule those who empower these criminals.

I couldn't agree more -- I'd like to burn the Vatican to the ground with a flamethrower, myself. But the screaming isn't directed at Catholics for the evils their faith has perpetuated, Djoop.

I get it myself (as you can plainly see) even though I have no sect, make no decision based on my "faith" and have never suggested to anyone that they consider adopting it.

I just find it bizarre that anyone would think you can increase the amount of rational thinking going on by appealing to the emotions of those you deem irrational.

 

[Djoop]

I couldn't agree more -- I'd like to burn the Vatican to the ground with a flamethrower, myself. But the screaming isn't directed at Catholics for the evils their faith has perpetuated, Djoop.

I get it myself (as you can plainly see) even though I have no sect, make no decision based on my "faith" and have never suggested to anyone that they consider adopting it.

I just find it bizarre that anyone would think you can increase the amount of rational thinking going on by appealing to the emotions of those you deem irrational.

Ironic yes. Maybe they're simply projecting their own emotions.

 

[NoC_T]

NoC_T did. Nice reading comprehension skills.

That's right.

Blame me.

Go on.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Everyone who posts, bumps. Even those of you who're tired of trying to defend bad behavior, appeals to emotion, bullying, shaming and other attempts at domination in the name of a more rational belief by us all.

Thank God none of you guys is a 4th grade math teacher.

Well theists lay the claim for appeals to emotion with the whole "it is for comfort" - in fact, you claim that if I am not mistaken?

Bullying? I suppose if you are weak you might call it that.

Domination? Well when one side has almost all the empirical evidence, logic, and reason behind it and the other has ... nothing. There is domination.

That's right.

Blame me.

Go on.

Blame blame blame! *shakes finger*

 

[Pinkie]

Well theists lay the claim for appeals to emotion with the whole "it is for comfort" - in fact, you claim that if I am not mistaken?

Yes, I freely admit I choose to believe there is a Divine for my own emotional comfort, but I don't think many believers do this. In fact, I've never met anyone else who does.

Bullying? I suppose if you are weak you might call it that.

Remember, I was asking about the phenomena of the Obnoxious Atheist on facebook and YouTube. I wasn't relating a tale of my own woe.

Domination? Well when one side has almost all the empirical evidence, logic, and reason behind it and the other has ... nothing. There is domination.

Do you usually present a scientific theory at the top of your lungs, whilst bellyaching about all the evils of religion? No?

Then why do so where a discussion of the existence of God is underway?

You keep asking me "why not?" But you keep dodging my question:

"Why?"

Blame blame blame! *shakes finger*

Blame for what? Other than adding to the level of pointless bitching that the world has to bear, I see no blame.

I see irrational behavior from people who claim to value rationality, and I wondered if I could understand that bit of dissonance better.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Yes, I freely admit I choose to believe there is a Divine for my own emotional comfort, but I don't think many believers do this. In fact, I've never met anyone else who does.

I've met many. They sacrifice reality for emotional comfort.

Remember, I was asking about the phenomena of the Obnoxious Atheist on facebook and YouTube. I wasn't relating a tale of my own woe.

Point remain the same. Anyone who complains about bullying is weak. Overcome your oppressors.

Do you usually present a scientific theory at the top of your lungs, whilst bellyaching about all the evils of religion? No?

Yes.

Then why do so where a discussion of the existence of God is underway?

Because nearly all of the claims that were once attributed to "god" have now been investigated and can be explained naturally.

You keep asking me "why not?" But you keep dodging my question:

"Why?"

Why what?

Blame for what? Other than adding to the level of pointless bitching that the world has to bear, I see no blame.

I see irrational behavior from people who claim to value rationality, and I wondered if I could understand that bit of dissonance better.

Again with the failure of reading comprehension. Try and read NoC_T's response. I'm not ordering you Hooked on Phonics.

How is atheism an example of cognitive dissonance? Which aspects are conflicting? If you are saying people that lay the claim to rationality, being irrational, is the dissonance - then please show the irrationality of atheists. I also suppose the paradox could be: "If one is irrational, one can then irrationally (and falsely) lay a claim to rationality."

 

[Pinkie]

Zgoldsmith wrote in part:

How is atheism an example of cognitive dissonance? Which aspects are conflicting? If you are saying people that lay the claim to rationality, being irrational, is the dissonance - then please show the irrationality of atheists. I also suppose the paradox could be: "If one is irrational, one can then irrationally (and falsely) lay a claim to rationality."

I did not say atheism itself is an example of cognitive dissonance. I said defending atheism/attacking belief in God in an IRRATIONAL MANNER was causing me cognitive dissonance.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Zgoldsmith wrote in part:



I did not say atheism itself is an example of cognitive dissonance. I said defending atheism/attacking belief in God in an IRRATIONAL MANNER was causing me cognitive dissonance.

:roll:

Try reflective equilibrium.

 

[Cephus]

I did not say atheism itself is an example of cognitive dissonance. I said defending atheism/attacking belief in God in an IRRATIONAL MANNER was causing me cognitive dissonance.

Where do you see anyone attacking belief in God in an irrational manner? I must admit, I usually only see people attacking religion on the basis of it's utter lack of rational support, which is an entirely rational thing to do. In fact, if religion weren't so irrational in the first place, most people would never bother trying to attack it in the first place.

 

[Pinkie]

Where do you see anyone attacking belief in God in an irrational manner? I must admit, I usually only see people attacking religion on the basis of it's utter lack of rational support, which is an entirely rational thing to do. In fact, if religion weren't so irrational in the first place, most people would never bother trying to attack it in the first place.

I think raising your voice, insulting people, forcing them out of a group, etc. in the name of rationality is irrational. These behaviors and others like them appeal to the listener's emotions, which should not be the aspect of the personality appealed to when rationality itself is what's being promoted.

I acknowledge that atheists have suffered and continue to suffer, and that such people are entitled to their justifiable FEELINGS on the matter. But I prefer it when scientists and rationalists use the approach taken in "Skeptical Inquirer" (debunking claims) as opposed to shaming devices to achieve their goals.

I can't see how this preference makes me an enemy or opponent of atheists or of atheism. Can you?

 

[Pinkie]

:roll:

Try reflective equilibrium.

Which is just a fancy way of saying "you did, so so can I".

Well first, I never did it. And second, you lose the moral high ground in condemnation of the bad behavior of religious fundies when you engage in the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR you decry.

"You", meaning "those zealous atheists I saw on facebook", not you personally.

 

[Cephus]

I think raising your voice,

After watching a group tell the same lies over and over and over, even after being corrected time and time again, it's hardly unwarranted to get frustrated at demonstrated ignorance or dishonesty. It's like having a group of people ask you how you explain monkeys having wings. You can only tell them that monkeys don't have wings so many times, only to have them come back with the exact same question, before you want to smack some people in the head, and rightfully so.

insulting people,

It is not an insult to tell someone they are wrong or to expect them to defend their beliefs and claims rationally. We're on a debate board, that is the purpose of a debate board.

forcing them out of a group, etc. in the name of rationality is irrational.

Please demonstrate that anyone here has the *ABILITY* to force anyone out of any group, period. Outside of the moderators, no user here could do that if they wanted to. In fact, the moderators specifically created a place where these people can go where their beliefs cannot be challenged, yet they come *HERE*! They're posting in a forum where they know they're going to get challenged, that's the purpose of this forum, yet they keep doing it!

And you're whining that they're getting challenged in a forum where they're supposed to get challenged?!?!?! If they don't want to be challenged, they can go to the Religion forum, one floor down.

These behaviors and others like them appeal to the listener's emotions, which should not be the aspect of the personality appealed to when rationality itself is what's being promoted..

The only appeal to emotion here comes from the religious, who cannot come up with a better reason for believing the things they believe than "it feels good".

I acknowledge that atheists have suffered and continue to suffer, and that such people are entitled to their justifiable FEELINGS on the matter. But I prefer it when scientists and rationalists use the approach taken in "Skeptical Inquirer" (debunking claims) as opposed to shaming devices to achieve their goals.

No, this has nothing to do with feelings, it has to do with facts. Skeptical Inquirer and Michael Shermer follow the same scientific method that we do here, they just deal with a more rational kind of religious crazy than we usually have to. At least in the stuff they publish, their opponents are well-versed in logic and can at least put on a reasonable show.

Too bad that's not true here.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I think it should be stated again that Atheism is not a unified belief system, with clubs in every town. In fact Atheism is not a belief system but instead the disbelief in gods and/or the super natural. Atheists are not a certain section of society as if you could pick one out of a crowd. There are good people and bad people some are Atheists some are not, the same goes for religious people as well.


Just because someone claims to be an Atheist does not mean that they are out to defend Atheism and by default attack the belief in gods. More specifically Atheists are not at all what the religious are taught by their spiritual leaders and other believers. Yes there are some outspoken Atheist assholes that are very vocal and even some that seem to hypocritically treat Atheism like a religion but they are not the majority.


I know from going to church that Christian's generally treat Atheism as if it were a religion ran by Satan. Christian's teach that Atheist's have been deceived by Satan to believe that there is no god. They go even further and insist that all Atheists are agents of Satan sent to destroy Christianity. That something needs to be done to stop the attack on the Christian faith. Many (not all) Christians take this propaganda to heart, and anyone that does not believe that jesus died for our sins are being deceived by the devil. ANd even further these deceived fools as they are portrayed are immoral subhuman threats to the free world. And in American Christian faith they twist that with patriotism and assert that only Christian's are true Americans and everyone else that is not Christian is here to make America into a haven for the devil. Its has to do with the doomsday revelations teachings of the bible.

Now the part about Atheists and wanting everyone to be rational is another twisted stereotype that religious people like to throw around. Sure it is more rational to not believe every folktale that comes down the road, but really Atheism does not have goals. Again Atheism is the lack of belief in gods and the super natural nothing more or less. Of course though that brings us to there are different types of Atheism (strong, weak, agnostic, etc). The fact that Atheism comes in different flavors proves the point though that Atheism is not a united front. In fact Atheism is anti-collective in nature and is more in tune with individualism than anything.

Which brings us to the other propaganda put out by religious groups, the one that assets that Atheism and Communism go hand and hand. Atheism has nothing to do with Communism, in reality Communism uses/used Atheism as a tool and nothing more. Atheism does not lead to Communism. Religion though has much more in common with Communism than Atheism. Religions exist as collectives of people that personally believe the same thing about their existence while living and while they are dead. Atheism in contrast varies greatly do to the individualist aspect of personal beliefs. The only thing that Atheists have in common as a group is that they do not believe in gods or the supper natural. Atheists do not believe in the same concepts of ideology and so on.

 

[RadicalModerate]

I don't have a single gripe as to atheism, Radical. I've spent decades in that belief myself.

What I object to is the cognitive dissonance that I get from hearing anyone proclaim that atheism is the only rational belief (so far, so good) in a screech and with a arrogance that would do the heaviest bible-thumper proud.

How can a belief that exists when rationality allegedly trumps emotion be the POV of so many loud, obnoxious hysterics?

If you think I'm some screeching atheist, you're dead wrong. I can't stand the arrogant atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens as much as I can't stand Osteen, Robertson and Falwell (may he rest in piss).

I agree with your last part. I try to distance myself from those people as much as possible. I think scathing critiques on organized religion are needed and I love to watch apologists squirm, but as far as the existence of "God" is concerned, I try to measure my approach because I know just as much or as little as the most dedicated deist.

 

[blackjack50]

It is not an insult to tell someone they are wrong or to expect them to defend their beliefs and claims rationally. We're on a debate board, that is the purpose of a debate board.

Insults are not really limited to name calling Mr. Cephus. They can include mocking tones, claiming someone is irrational based upon 1 single debatable point, and generally claiming that a person or group is ignorant because they don't believe the same thing as you.

I do propose you a question:

If someone is using scientific method to prove God does not exist, pray tell me what is the experiment they are using?