Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[PureX]

I have no problem with atheists who are merely atheists because they don't believe in gods, I'm one of them. I have a problem with atheists who are so, as I said, more-intellectual-than-thou, that they believe the only reason theists are theist is because they lack some intellectual capability.

It might surprise some folks around here to see me say that I feel much the same way. I consider myself to be "half an atheist" as I am profoundly agnostic. And there are valid reasons why anyone might choose atheism that I can respect and even perhaps appreciate. But there are also a number of patently silly and absurd reasons that I see being posited all the time around here as if they were some sort of pronouncement from some Mighty Olympus of Truth that nearly always ends up being nothing more than scientism and a visceral resentment against organized religion.

I'm no fan of organized religion, myself, but neither am I blindly anti-religious. Just because it's not for me doesn't mean it's not a wise and useful choice for others

Fundamentalism is still a minority where theism is concerned, globally. But it is more prevalent in English speaking social media websites like this one. Because sites like this bring both the most interesting, educated, nuanced debaters and the ones for whom have much more quantity over quality of debates.

And, as I said, this idea that these atheists or those theists taught themselves that they are innately more logical or more moral means they often miss their own prejudices because of that a priori assumption that their biases must not really be baises because they are logical or moral. Two sides of the same coin.

Yep. "Empirical Scientism" has become the new 'God-breathed inerrant Bible' for those atheistic fundis. Absolute, unquestioned, inviolable. Which is why I can't help but poke holes in it whenever I can. I am actually doing them a service, even though they cant see it.

Which is why I pointed out those among Brights or JP fans so often come with other social stereotypes and biases. The atheists there have just convinced the biases are supported by logic (usually in the form of bioessentialism.)

Anyway, I've repeated myself enough now.

Hey, good post.

 

[Kathryn]

ENTJ here.

 

[F1fan]

A lot, yes, I'd agree with that. Atheists who peddle intellectual and logical superiority complexes and try to deconvert others to atheism in a proselytic nature is something I come across *a lot* on this forum and in other religiously centered forums.

Not all, not most, a lot. Which is why I said subculture.

I'm more aware of it here because it's where I moderate and proselytizing even by atheists is against the rules.

It's a toxic behavior and should be called out just as frequently as the proselytic fundamentalists they fight with (instead of working on their own religious trauma.)

I have no problem with atheists who are merely atheists because they don't believe in gods, I'm one of them. I have a problem with atheists who are so, as I said, more-intellectual-than-thou, that they believe the only reason theists are theist is because they lack some intellectual capability.

This seems to me like a person who says that birds are arrogant for flying. If they would only walk like the rest of us there would be no problem.

The thing is most atheists are atheists because they use their intellectual ability and apply it to many concepts including religious ideas. Objectively there really is no basis for belief in religious ideas. We don;t see atheists knocking on doors, and standing on street coners talking about how atheism is true. Atheists pretty much mind their own business. As an atheist myself very few people that know me know I'm an atheists. Religion seldom comes up. But since the invention of the internet, and forums that are open to discuss these ideas, we atheists are free to discuss why we reject religious claims. Theists come to orums knowing they face criticism, yet they stay, and they make their claims.

Are atheists really so flawed as a prejudiced category that now we have to walk on eggshells and limit what we can pose as criticism? I underrstand the criticism can be harsh and uncompromising, but arguments tend to meet the level of claims, and theists make extraordinary claims.

Because that is behaving arrogantly. No different than fundamentalists who believe atheists are atheist because they lack some moral quality.

That is arrogant because one side aims to inflate their status at the cost of another, even though it isn't true. Is it arrogant of you to say this about fundamentalists? It sounds harsh. And did you not use your intellect to assess what you observed?

What do atheists do that misrepresents what theists claim, and falsely inflate their status?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And I say this as an atheist who has had this phase, along with a lot of other atheists with religious trauma.

Interestingly, everyone but one person in my Atheist and Secular Humanist group has religious trauma. It brings to mind Paine when he complained Christianity is good at producing fanatics and atheists.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This seems to me like a person who says that birds are arrogant for flying.

I guess I'm a flightless bird then, as I do not have such a lofty opinion of my own intellect and reason just because I'm an atheist.

Objectively

I doubt your objectivity.

Are atheists really so flawed as a prejudiced category that now we have to walk on eggshells and limit what we can pose as criticism?

Nobody here is allowed to try and convert or deconvert or belittle or demean the people they're debating with here. Not that it will stop either group from insisting *they* are the persecuted ones.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. I mean to say that all judgment should be tentative, and remain suspect. Especially our own.

That is your personal judgement.
You were just arguing against personal judgement.

Also, you criticize atheists for not believing in gods
that leave no footprint, yet you're silent when
believers leap to sky fairy tales as The Truth.

Your posts are woefully inconsistent.
And show great anger at us.

 

[shunyadragon]

A lot, yes, I'd agree with that. Atheists who peddle intellectual and logical superiority complexes and try to deconvert others to atheism in a proselytic nature is something I come across *a lot* on this forum and in other religiously centered forums.

Not all, not most, a lot. Which is why I said subculture.

I'm more aware of it here because it's where I moderate and proselytizing even by atheists is against the rules.

It's a toxic behavior and should be called out just as frequently as the proselytic fundamentalists they fight with (instead of working on their own religious trauma.)

I have no problem with atheists who are merely atheists because they don't believe in gods, I'm one of them. I have a problem with atheists who are so, as I said, more-intellectual-than-thou, that they believe the only reason theists are theist is because they lack some intellectual capability.

Because that is behaving arrogantly. No different than fundamentalists who believe atheists are atheist because they lack some moral quality.

Which is also a subculture within theism. Fundamentalism is still a minority where theism is concerned, globally. But it is more prevalent in English speaking social media websites like this one. Because sites like this bring both the most interesting, educated, nuanced debaters and the ones for whom have much more quantity over quality of debates.

And, as I said, this idea that these atheists or those theists taught themselves that they are innately more logical or more moral means they often miss their own prejudices because of that a priori assumption that their biases must not really be baises because they are logical or moral. Two sides of the same coin.

Which is why I pointed out those among Brights or JP fans so often come with other social stereotypes and biases. The atheists there have just convinced the biases are supported by logic (usually in the form of bioessentialism.)

Anyway, I've repeated myself enough now.

There are too many problems with the above too even respond well. I even doubt you are truly an atheist based on the above. You are presenting atheists as if they are evangelical Christians.

One thing you clearly misrepresent is the concept of what is proselytizing. Debating one's beliefs here in the forum is not proselytizing.

The rest is waist deep in manure.

 

[shunyadragon]

I guess I'm a flightless bird then, as I do not have such a lofty opinion of my own intellect and reason just because I'm an atheist.

I doubt your objectivity.

Nobody here is allowed to try and convert or deconvert or belittle or demean the people they're debating with here. Not that it will stop either group from insisting *they* are the persecuted ones.

I doubt that you are genuinely an atheist. @F1fan is right on with the objections to extreme misrepresentation of atheists.

 

[Kfox]

Christians often make certain generalizations about atheists:
1. That they are arrogant and dogmatic

So are many Christians

2. That they prefer to be non-religious because they are selfish and religion is an inconvenience

So are many Christians. You don't have to be skeptical of God in order to be selfish.

3. That they are angry with God

For those who are angry, they're angry at God's fan club, not the imaginary God. It's those who believe in God that we have to contend with

4. That they either lost their father at a young age, or had a strained relationship with their father, making it more difficult to form a good relationship with the Divine Father.

It would make more sense to assume the one with father issues is the one who prefers a relationship with an imagined "Divine Father" because he lacks one with his own

 

[shunyadragon]

There are a lot of atheists in Australia. They're certainly not all following evidence and rejecting assumptions.
Heck, I'd go further and suggest most aren't. They're humans, after all.

What objective evidence do atheists are not following????

 

[F1fan]

I guess I'm a flightless bird then, as I do not have such a lofty opinion of my own intellect and reason just because I'm an atheist.

How did you dare come to the conclusion that religious claims of Gods existing aren't valid unless you used intellectual ability? You seem to be flying but prefer to see yourself as flightless. There are all sorts of abilities and talents by artists and athletes and writers and craftmens, etc. That a select few excel over the rest of us should be seen as arrogant. Just because atheists demostrate their intellect openly in public discussions is no more arrogant that the winner of a marathon being arrogant that he beat everyone else.

I doubt your objectivity.

Yet you offer no reason why. How is it not objective to notice that religious claims lack evidence? Could your doubt be bias against atheists you judge as arrogant? It goes both ways. This is why discourse is crucial. I've been wrong before, I will be wrong again. Sometimes I catch my own mistakes, sometimes others point it out. If someone else questions my assertons and conclusions I expect them to explain why.

Nobody here is allowed to try and convert or deconvert or belittle or demean the people they're debating with here. Not that it will stop either group from insisting *they* are the persecuted ones.

Correct, and I see many theists getting away with posts that cross this line and do not get moderated. I've had posts moderated for nothing more than blunt criticism, and it's called proselytizing. How does following logic and pointing out irrational beliefs an effort to convert anyone? Arguably any debate aims to convince others their judgments are flawed, and discourse is a process that explores the truth. I don't consider making accurate judgments as conversion. I see conversion as attempts to coerce others that some dogma is true and valid. Still, feelings get hurt. Debating personal beliefs is not enjoyable for all users.

There is a lot of "eye of the beholder" going on. Openness and transparency is not a bad thing.

 

[F1fan]

Yep. "Empirical Scientism" has become the new 'God-breathed inerrant Bible' for those atheistic fundis. Absolute, unquestioned, inviolable. Which is why I can't help but poke holes in it whenever I can. I am actually doing them a service, even though they cant see it.

All you do is poke holes in your strawman. You might be half atheist, but you are fully anti-science. Your misrepresentation of science mirrors fundamentalist Christians.

 

[PureX]

That is your personal judgement.
You were just arguing against personal judgement.

Also, you criticize atheists for not believing in gods
that leave no footprint, yet you're silent when
believers leap to sky fairy tales as The Truth.

Your posts are woefully inconsistent.
And show great anger at us.

Ah yes, the old "Nut-huh, YOU did it!" retort. If it worked in grade school, why not now? Right?
Some people just never seem to get past it.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I've noticed some differences in debate style between some atheists, and me. That's okay though, because I don't really use the "atheist" label per se - I refer to myself as a non-theist.

Some might question why I'm not an agnostic, but I disagree with some specifics that can come with agnosticism, too.

Basically, I have three intellectual goals currently:

1. Focus on mind-friendly things, such as mental health, intellectual ability, grammar, and social skills.

2. See where the philosophical belief that is Existentialism takes me.

3. Study more science. More cosmology, etc. But with an open mind.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah yes, the old "Nut-huh, YOU did it!" retort.

But you must admit that it's bogus for you
to apply personal judgement, but deny
this right to others when we reach a
different conclusion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is a vague claim. In what way way aren't atheists in Australia not following evidence and avoiding assumptions?

In the same way all humans fail to follow evidence and avoid assumptions. For some reason, some people seem to think that 'following the evidence' when it comes to God makes that group of people follow the evidence in all aspects of their life. I've seen nothing to suggest that's true.

So all of a sudden it goes from some to most, and still no evidence of how you calculate this claim.

Could it be you are making it up?

Unlike the claim that atheists do follow evidence, and do avoid assumptions, you mean? Interesting angle.

I find your statement odd, because what would make an Australian atheists different than atheists anywhere else? We are all dealing with the same religious claims, and the same lack of evidence for those religious claims. So explain.

The thing that makes Australian atheists different than American atheists is simply the number/percentage of them. If you have a relatively small group of people who are openly atheists, and they suffer a level of discrimination, it's more likely to be a considered or idealistic position. Where there is a much larger level of atheism, and an even higher level of agnosticism, you'll get plenty of atheists who haven't bothered to really think through their position...it just feels right. Indeed, many of them here wouldn't even bother calling themselves atheists, since that would tend to indicate a level of effort and thought many aren't interested in investing.

So...if you don't like the Australian example, use the Czech Republic...it's the same idea. If 50% of a country is atheist, and you think atheists are rational, follow evidence, and make no assumptions, you'd have a heck of a lot of trouble explaining our politics (as a simple example).

Being an atheist confers no special protection from the failings and foibles of humanity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The thing is most atheists are atheists because they use their intellectual ability and apply it to many concepts including religious ideas.

Thats actually mostly true of those who started out religious and later on became athiest. Outside if this group most people, even atheists, just tend to stick to what they were born to.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I doubt that you are genuinely an atheist. @F1fan is right on with the objections to extreme misrepresentation of atheists.

You certainly sound like an evangelical Christian here lol. No true Scotsman at its finest.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How did you dare come to the conclusion that religious claims of Gods existing aren't valid unless you used intellectual ability? You seem to be flying but prefer to see yourself as flightless. There are all sorts of abilities and talents by artists and athletes and writers and craftmens, etc. That a select few excel over the rest of us should be seen as arrogant. Just because atheists demostrate their intellect openly in public discussions is no more arrogant that the winner of a marathon being arrogant that he beat everyone else.

Yet you offer no reason why. How is it not objective to notice that religious claims lack evidence? Could your doubt be bias against atheists you judge as arrogant? It goes both ways. This is why discourse is crucial. I've been wrong before, I will be wrong again. Sometimes I catch my own mistakes, sometimes others point it out. If someone else questions my assertons and conclusions I expect them to explain why.

Correct, and I see many theists getting away with posts that cross this line and do not get moderated. I've had posts moderated for nothing more than blunt criticism, and it's called proselytizing. How does following logic and pointing out irrational beliefs an effort to convert anyone? Arguably any debate aims to convince others their judgments are flawed, and discourse is a process that explores the truth. I don't consider making accurate judgments as conversion. I see conversion as attempts to coerce others that some dogma is true and valid. Still, feelings get hurt. Debating personal beliefs is not enjoyable for all users.

There is a lot of "eye of the beholder" going on. Openness and transparency is not a bad thing.

Yes I'm aware that people being pushy, aggressive, insulting and myopic think they're just being 'open' or 'blunt.'

Every bully thinks they're just the 'brutally honest' sort, and that really they're just the victim of other bullies. And anyone who doesn't see it their way is just being irrational and censoring, and obviously just not seeing their stunning intellect.

I've no patience for it.

 

[F1fan]

Yes I'm aware that people being pushy, aggressive, insulting and myopic think they're just being 'open' or 'blunt.'

Who does that? Give us examples.

Every bully thinks they're just the 'brutally honest' sort, and that really they're just the victim of other bullies. And anyone who doesn't see it their way is just being irrational and censoring, and obviously just not seeing their stunning intellect.

If you are truly an atheist then you understand the prejudices against our category. Being honest is only brutal to those who hold more fervently on ideas that are easily questioned.

What’s interesting is that your last few posts have been increasingly accusatory and passive aggressive. Do you think being vague is any less bullying?

I've no patience for it.

It’s your responsibility to find it. That’s the challenge for all of us.