• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists

logician

Well-Known Member
Yes, I turn daily to the atheist channel to get an hour's worth of atheist propaganda to spread as "good news" to the people. LOL

I personally have never tried to convert anybody to anything in regards to atheism, and don't know any atheists that do. Like our forefathers, I believe personal beliefs are private affairs, and should not be worn on your shoulder, or screamed out as some kind of religious or anti-religious statement.
 

MissAlice

Well-Known Member
I've actually argued with atheists as well as religionists.

They're not that different from eachother only in that atheists use pragmatic means of proving something. Other than that, I agree atheists can be just as manipulative and offensive as people of belief.

Anyway, I'm wondering why there are so many posts casting the shadow on the atheists. Not too long ago I saw one member who is no longer here making fun of both atheists and other beliefs that weren't fundementally christian.

Oh well....
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
The atheists on this board were believers until I de-converted them. Sorry about that, I didn't know, I was just trying to help.
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
I suppose I fall in the middle. I don't make a habit of spouting my atheism, ridiculing people's beliefs, or trying to change their beliefs, although if someone wants to engage in religious discussion, I will point out what I see as flawed logic or nonsense if they wish to debate. Otherwise, we'll probably simply have a discussion -- no debating or pointing out flawed logic.

But I do find myself cracking sacrilegious jokes from time to time -- nothing intentional, it just happens. And I don't tell those types of jokes to religious people.

Sometimes I understand why the religious may be offended by some offensive portrayals of Christ or what have you, but on the other hand, I understand why people have de-baptisms, especially if a person felt like the baptism was forced on them, such as an infant baptism. Sometimes it's good to joke and laugh at what has been a source of pain in a particular religious community. I come from a very cult-like religious background that takes even fundamentalism to the extreme. I belong to an online support group for people coming out of this particular community, and it is therapeutic for us to make fun of the beliefs that once traumatized and hurt us, it is empowering, healing, and liberating.

I am not saying that all blasphemous outbursts are of that nature, but they can be, and I don't see the problem there.

I have a live and let live mentality. I tend to leave people alone and don't challenge their religious convictions unless I am challenged, threatened, or these groups become political and try to take away my freedoms -- I've experienced all three of those things from people who never really understood my beliefs and worldview to begin with. I'm not sure how well they understood their own.
 

rageoftyrael

Veritas
I think i said that wrong. when i say that this place is meant for attacking people's beliefs, i really meant that more like in a debate way. Like we spend most of our time debating about what's true, what's likely, what is just plain bull. And people sometimes feel as if their belief is being attacked. that's pretty much what i meant. not that this forum is meant to just start trolling, and calling people stupid.
 

rojse

RF Addict
The day atheists are organized enough, and dogmatic enough, to worry about schisms is the day I adopt some other name for my non-belief in gods.

We can call ourselves the Allied Atheist Alliance, another group can be the United Atheist Alliance, and the third group can be the Unified Atheist League.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The day atheists are organized enough, and dogmatic enough, to worry about schisms is the day I adopt some other name for my non-belief in gods.

That's the most sensible thing I've read in a couple days.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I respect people who deserve respect, and I ridicule people who deserve ridicule.

Any person who espouses the view that atheists are somehow divided into "groups" deserves plenty of ridicule, as well as a slap upside the head.
 

Amill

Apikoros
I suppose I fall in the middle. I don't make a habit of spouting my atheism, ridiculing people's beliefs, or trying to change their beliefs, although if someone wants to engage in religious discussion, I will point out what I see as flawed logic or nonsense if they wish to debate. Otherwise, we'll probably simply have a discussion -- no debating or pointing out flawed logic.

I have a live and let live mentality. I tend to leave people alone and don't challenge their religious convictions unless I am challenged, threatened, or these groups become political and try to take away my freedoms -- I've experienced all three of those things from people who never really understood my beliefs and worldview to begin with. I'm not sure how well they understood their own.

Pretty much exactly how I feel. Well said.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Well, it is. We are the new atheists and we've taken over this forum, the airport, the radio stations, and all major buildings.

Oh, and all your bases are belong to us :)

Don't panic, though, we believe in freedom of religion. It's one of our commandments.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Yes, I turn daily to the atheist channel to get an hour's worth of atheist propaganda to spread as "good news" to the people. LOL

I personally have never tried to convert anybody to anything in regards to atheism, and don't know any atheists that do. Like our forefathers, I believe personal beliefs are private affairs, and should not be worn on your shoulder, or screamed out as some kind of religious or anti-religious statement.

Can you recommend a good atheist weekly service in my area? Thanks, I don't want my children to go a week without indoctrination in my non-faith.
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Wasn`t this guy shredded for his book in another Op you posted apex?

I doubt his atheism and he is definately not 3.0.
My recent complianing aside I`ll take 2.0 over this guys 3.0 any day.

He is such a minority he is non existent IF he is even an atheist.
Yep, that's the guy. Bruce Sheiman, who I almost wasted $15 on his book An Atheist Defends Religion if I hadn't bought it, read it, then returned it.
Take that Borders return policy!
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I don't understand this whole "new" label. There have always been anti-religion atheists. They're nothing new. The difference is between atheists who believe that all religion is bad and should be abolished and feel the need to tell everyone and be rude about it, and atheists who don't mind religion that doesn't affect anyone but the believers and don't mind talking reasonably with reasonable religious people about it.

The difference here is the same as the difference between the Westboro Baptist Church and my parents' church. It's the difference between being rude and unreasonable and being polite and reasonable. It has nothing to do with atheism or theism.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Yep, that's the guy. Bruce Sheiman, who I almost wasted $15 on his book An Atheist Defends Religion if I hadn't bought it, read it, then returned it.
Take that Borders return policy!

Oh for the love of Pete - that guy isn't even an atheist.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
Wasn`t this guy shredded for his book in another Op you posted apex?

I doubt his atheism and he is definately not 3.0.
My recent complianing aside I`ll take 2.0 over this guys 3.0 any day.

He is such a minority he is non existent IF he is even an atheist.
The article is not solely about him.

And as for the book, that was not the reason people here were "shredding" him. It was the article I posted, not the book. So far the book has been pretty good and I have not really found anything I disagree with. The article is a different story however.
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
The article is not solely about him.

Maybe not, but the first two paragraphs were so idiotic I couldn't be bothered to read the rest.

Has the author never heard of Ayn Rand? Is she supposed to be "New"? What about Stalin and Mao? Were they "New"? What about Bertrand Russell? If all these vocal, derisive anti-religionists were "New Atheists", when exactly did "New Atheism" diverge from "Old Atheism"? And who decided Bruce Sherman, an agnostic pretending to be an atheist in order to sell his book to gullible theists, gets to be a "Post-New-Atheist" movement all by himself?
 
Top