Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Bunyip]

Kind of makes sense to me. I've often wondered why atheists spend so much time in 'religious' forums? One would think they wouldn't have any interest in dealing with people they despise.

Well I can clear that up easily, atheism is not about despising religious people, you have confused it for bigotry. Atheism is the disbelief in God.

 

[Cephus]

Kind of makes sense to me. I've often wondered why atheists spend so much time in 'religious' forums? One would think they wouldn't have any interest in dealing with people they despise.

We don't despise theists, we just don't understand them. That's the purpose of communication, to discuss ideas and debate concepts, to come to conclusions based on logic and reason. The same can be said about people who get on political forums or social forums.

 

[outhouse]

One would think they wouldn't have any interest in dealing with people they despise.

You might need to learn the difference between atheism, and anti theism. Im not sure you understand they are two different topics.

I've often wondered why atheists spend so much time in 'religious' forums?

One does not have to believe in the supernatural, to have a passion for learning credible history during these periods.

 

[viole]

Kind of makes sense to me. I've often wondered why atheists spend so much time in 'religious' forums? One would think they wouldn't have any interest in dealing with people they despise.

What makes you think that I despise you.? i love the believer....but just happen to hate the belief.

I hope you appreciate the fact that they are two different things. My love for you complels me to try to deliver you from what I consider a defective epistemology.

And if I knew I would come back to life after three days, guess what? I would even die for your defective epistemology. How is that not love?

Ciao

- viole

 

[gsa]

Kind of makes sense to me. I've often wondered why atheists spend so much time in 'religious' forums? One would think they wouldn't have any interest in dealing with people they despise.

As others have said, atheists don't generally despise theists. In this country, most atheists work and live alongside theists without any problems, date theists, etcetera.

Moreover, religion still plays an important role in society. So atheists have cause for concern and participation in the discussions.

 

[Willamena]

Kind of makes sense to me. I've often wondered why atheists spend so much time in 'religious' forums? One would think they wouldn't have any interest in dealing with people they despise.

Atheism isn't about feelings, it's just about a right picture of the world. Sure, some may get upset that others have a wrong picture of the world, but that's only because they think they are the only ones in the world. They fail to recognize that everyone has the right picture of the world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Kind of makes sense to me. I've often wondered why atheists spend so much time in 'religious' forums? One would think they wouldn't have any interest in dealing with people they despise.

There's a difference between finding something interesting and wanting to do it yourself. You wouldn't ask "why would someone who doesn't do Renaissance Fairs or Civil War Reenactments want to talk about history?", would you? Religion is kinda like that: you don't have to do the thing to want to talk about the thing.

Also, I think it's strange that nobody ever asks your question about religious people. After all, this is a general site that isn't dedicated to any particular religion. Why would a believer in one particular faith want to associate with people of other religions? Does it mean he's shopping around for a new church?

If we understand why a religious person would want to be here, I don't know why it's so hard to see why a non-religious person would want to be here, too. A lot of the reasons are the same.

 

[Cephus]

Atheism isn't about feelings, it's just about a right picture of the world. Sure, some may get upset that others have a wrong picture of the world, but that's only because they think they are the only ones in the world. They fail to recognize that everyone has the right picture of the world.

That's actually wrong. Not everyone has the right picture of the world. The only "right" picture is the one that is factually accurate. There are plenty of people who have an entirely inaccurate view of what's really going on in reality. The only way we can find real solutions to real world problems is for people to accept and deal with reality as it actually is, not as they wish it was.

 

[outhouse]

They fail to recognize that everyone has the right picture of the world.

Yet everyone does not. Many do not see reality.

 

[Willamena]

That's actually wrong.

I knew you would say that.

 

[Cephus]

I knew you would say that.

Yes, I speak the truth. Anything wrong with that?

 

[Willamena]

Yes, I speak the truth. Anything wrong with that?

Of couse not.

Everyone does it.

 

[Cephus]

Of couse not.

Everyone does it.

No, there are plenty of people who do not. They might think they do, but when you rationally and critically evaluate what they are saying, it's anything but the truth.

 

[Prophet]

ROLFMAO

A fundamentalist atheist huh? That's hilarious buddy.

I feel I have good reason to doubt that you have anything beyond a vague idea of what fundamentalism entails. Coming from a place of relative ignorance, you seem to reason that fundamentalism necessarily must associate with religiosity, making your denial that such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist exists a tautology. You do this in the face of the fact that the "new atheists" have been popularly derided as atheist fundamentalists by their detractors since their arrival.

Fundamentalism, in general, can be correctly understood as an unwavering attachment to a set of principles, which may seem relatively harmless until you gain some insight into some of the psychology that goes into uncompromising "one way" worldviews such as wanting to create a worldwide caliphate or seeking the elimination of religious belief. Beings like you who give into such thinking then reason that they are what is right with the universe and those on the other side is what is wrong, and will proceed to angrily accuse the other side of their own very worst offenses. You love to point out Islamic genocides, yet you and Jihadists both hope for the elimination of everyone who doesn't think like you do.

 

[Bunyip]

I feel I have good reason to doubt that you have anything beyond a vague idea of what fundamentalism entails. Coming from a place of relative ignorance, you seem to reason that fundamentalism necessarily must associate with religiosity, making your denial that such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist exists a tautology. You do this in the face of the fact that the "new atheists" have been popularly derided as atheist fundamentalists by their detractors since their arrival.

Fundamentalism, in general, can be correctly understood as an unwavering attachment to a set of principles, which may seem relatively harmless until you gain some insight into some of the psychology that goes into uncompromising "one way" worldviews such as wanting to create a worldwide caliphate or seeking the elimination of religious belief. Beings like you who give into such thinking then reason that they are what is right with the universe and those on the other side is what is wrong, and will proceed to angrily accuse the other side of their own very worst offenses. You love to point out Islamic genocides, yet you and Jihadists both hope for the elimination of everyone who doesn't think like you do.

Actually no, I want religion to persist. I am not anti-theist. I want to establish a common language between atheism and theism, not to annihilate it.

 

[Prophet]

Actually no, I want religion to persist. I am not anti-theist. I want to establish a common language between atheism and theism, not to annihilate it.

I've watched you spend endless paragraphs making claims about your expertise in history while at the same time treating historical evidence you don't like as if you were a hostile counsel in a court of law. I've watched you do the same for your claims of expertise in espionage and then backpedal rapidly when asked how Nero pulled off creating an intelligence agency without a police force in place.

You claim many things about yourself, but I believe I have good reason to doubt you. I don't believe you are an historian. I don't believe you know anything more than I do about espionage. And I don't believe your current claim that you are not anti-theist unless this is a recent change (and probably not even then). You've offered too much evidence to the contrary in your own testimony.

 

[Bunyip]

I've watched you spend endless paragraphs making claims about your expertise in history while at the same time treating historical evidence you don't like as if you were a hostile counsel in a court of law. I've watched you do the same for your claims of expertise in espionage and then backpedal rapidly when asked how Nero pulled off creating an intelligence agency without a police force in place.

You claim many things about yourself, but I believe I have good reason to doubt you. I don't believe you are an historian. I don't believe you know anything more than I do about espionage. And I don't believe your current claim that you are not anti-theist unless this is a recent change (and probably not even then). You've offered too much evidence to the contrary in your own testimony.

That's nice dear.

 

[lovemuffin]

Actually no, I want religion to persist. I am not anti-theist. I want to establish a common language between atheism and theism, not to annihilate it.

Have you ever talked about this in more detail? It sounds interesting

 

[Bunyip]

Have you ever talked about this in more detail? It sounds interesting

Well no, the assumption is that atheism equates to an intention to destroy all religions and the religious. Kind of a bogeyman mentality. I delight in the fact the the world's cities are graced by Cathedrals, temples, synagogues, mosques and so on. Religious thought, art and philosophy has made a stunning contribution to modern civilisation. What I contest is the influence of our traditional mythologies on politics, science and in law. Along with radical and militant sects, and the increasing trend towards religious extremism.
By a common language, I mean that my experiences in debating with and studying fundamentalists I have noticed that any meaningful dialogue is often obstructed by the fact that we are not using a common language - For example, when discussing evolution with a US young earth creationist whilst I would define 'evolution' as changes in allele frequency over time, they often define 'evolution' as something very, very different (Monkeys turning into people, primordial soup turning into people etc etc). Unless we are talking about the same thing when we use terms like 'God','evolution','faith' etc we can not have a meaningful dialogue.

 

[lovemuffin]

Given some of our previous exchanges, and my own frustration at them, it's kind of cool to me that in reality we have some goals in common. Cheers