Atheism

[1137]

I'm sure others here might feel similar, but online religious discussion has led to almost exclusively bad experiences with atheists. Not just here mind you, this is not some sort of meta post. These days in person life hardly allows for me to have this conversations, I'm either with a small group of known friends or on the clock, so as far as I can tell from experience, this is the majority of atheists. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure theories on this range from "duh, they're all evil and immoral" to "being anonymous", but I think the answer lies in between.

I do not believe atheism to be some inherently negative or wrong metaphysical view, but I think two things contribute to the overwhelmingly negative experience. First is simply the main authors that are read by atheists. From fringe groups like the church of Satan to the most popular authors like Dawkins, I've seen a tendency to treat theists in some of the worst ways possibly, even calling them mentally ill or deluded as a whole. Let's look at some quotes.

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that." - Dawkins

"My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in The Devil or God, they are abdicating reason. " - Peter Gilmore

In these quotes I see the same type of generalizing, closed minded, hateful and insulting exclusivist tactics engage in by literally all fundamentalist groups. The others are insane, they're dangerous, there are no exceptions to this rule. This is the way groups like the medieval church, the Phelps family, the Islamic state, etc. et al. treat those who disagree with their metaphysical world view. Of course it is not an atheists fault if they have no other sources to go to, just as it's not a child's fault if they're raised unaware of other metaphysical positions. But the question then becomes, "why are the sources like this?"

I certainly think atheism make sense, I can easily see why people would believe that we're all wrong and the universe lacks any deities. But unlike certain religious groups, I do not believe this position somehow leads to negativity, anger, and hate. I believe the problem is that after years of brainwashing, torment, and building resentment, when atheism finally hit the playing field it was more a reaction than a philosophical system. It was not enough to reject gods, there was now a chance to get back at the institutions and ideologies that had treated them poorly. Instead of just considering arguments, it was decided that religious people were deluded fools, all brainwashed and lost, all mentally ill and misled. This is best illustrated by the death of skepticism in "free thinking" atheistic circles, replaced by essentially a new dogma of a universe without god. Materialism must be true because god can't possibly exist, theists must be brainwashed because they couldn't possibly have valid reason to believe, etc. and so on. Even the need to defend one's own position was dropped, in favor of simply mocking and stalling the theist.

No, I do not think this describes all atheists, I have some very good, intelligent, calm and reasonable atheist friend, the kind who will tell you why, and admit when you have a decent point even if in the end it's wrong. But like with religion, this is the minority. I believe that between a limited market and reactionary thought, atheism has become what we know it as (at least with internet atheists). Now maybe I've just had bad experiences, does anyone else agree or disagree? Whether small or large, I believe this mindset is due to the limited resources and reactionary thinking. Saying they're simply godless or have no morals is a cop-out imo, though I know it's probably believed by many. What do you think?

 

[Kemosloby]

I'm sure others here might feel similar, but online religious discussion has led to almost exclusively bad experiences with atheists. Not just here mind you, this is not some sort of meta post. These days in person life hardly allows for me to have this conversations, I'm either with a small group of known friends or on the clock, so as far as I can tell from experience, this is the majority of atheists. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure theories on this range from "duh, they're all evil and immoral" to "being anonymous", but I think the answer lies in between.

I do not believe atheism to be some inherently negative or wrong metaphysical view, but I think two things contribute to the overwhelmingly negative experience. First is simply the main authors that are read by atheists. From fringe groups like the church of Satan to the most popular authors like Dawkins, I've seen a tendency to treat theists in some of the worst ways possibly, even calling them mentally ill or deluded as a whole. Let's look at some quotes.

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that." - Dawkins

"My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in The Devil or God, they are abdicating reason. " - Peter Gilmore

In these quotes I see the same type of generalizing, closed minded, hateful and insulting exclusivist tactics engage in by literally all fundamentalist groups. The others are insane, they're dangerous, there are no exceptions to this rule. This is the way groups like the medieval church, the Phelps family, the Islamic state, etc. et al. treat those who disagree with their metaphysical world view. Of course it is not an atheists fault if they have no other sources to go to, just as it's not a child's fault if they're raised unaware of other metaphysical positions. But the question then becomes, "why are the sources like this?"

I certainly think atheism make sense, I can easily see why people would believe that we're all wrong and the universe lacks any deities. But unlike certain religious groups, I do not believe this position somehow leads to negativity, anger, and hate. I believe the problem is that after years of brainwashing, torment, and building resentment, when atheism finally hit the playing field it was more a reaction than a philosophical system. It was not enough to reject gods, there was now a chance to get back at the institutions and ideologies that had treated them poorly. Instead of just considering arguments, it was decided that religious people were deluded fools, all brainwashed and lost, all mentally ill and misled. This is best illustrated by the death of skepticism in "free thinking" atheistic circles, replaced by essentially a new dogma of a universe without god. Materialism must be true because god can't possibly exist, theists must be brainwashed because they couldn't possibly have valid reason to believe, etc. and so on. Even the need to defend one's own position was dropped, in favor of simply mocking and stalling the theist.

No, I do not think this describes all atheists, I have some very good, intelligent, calm and reasonable atheist friend, the kind who will tell you why, and admit when you have a decent point even if in the end it's wrong. But like with religion, this is the minority. I believe that between a limited market and reactionary thought, atheism has become what we know it as (at least with internet atheists). Now maybe I've just had bad experiences, does anyone else agree or disagree? Whether small or large, I believe this mindset is due to the limited resources and reactionary thinking. Saying they're simply godless or have no morals is a cop-out imo, though I know it's probably believed by many. What do you think?

The Dawkins quote begs the question that the official story of 9/11 is the truth. So perhaps the purpose is to get everybody in the same boat, subtley, on certain key issues such as that. No matter where you go they don't question the official story of 9/11.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm sure others here might feel similar, but online religious discussion has led to almost exclusively bad experiences with atheists. Not just here mind you, this is not some sort of meta post. These days in person life hardly allows for me to have this conversations, I'm either with a small group of known friends or on the clock, so as far as I can tell from experience, this is the majority of atheists. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure theories on this range from "duh, they're all evil and immoral" to "being anonymous", but I think the answer lies in between.

I do not believe atheism to be some inherently negative or wrong metaphysical view, but I think two things contribute to the overwhelmingly negative experience. First is simply the main authors that are read by atheists. From fringe groups like the church of Satan to the most popular authors like Dawkins, I've seen a tendency to treat theists in some of the worst ways possibly, even calling them mentally ill or deluded as a whole. Let's look at some quotes.

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that." - Dawkins

"My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in The Devil or God, they are abdicating reason. " - Peter Gilmore

In these quotes I see the same type of generalizing, closed minded, hateful and insulting exclusivist tactics engage in by literally all fundamentalist groups. The others are insane, they're dangerous, there are no exceptions to this rule. This is the way groups like the medieval church, the Phelps family, the Islamic state, etc. et al. treat those who disagree with their metaphysical world view. Of course it is not an atheists fault if they have no other sources to go to, just as it's not a child's fault if they're raised unaware of other metaphysical positions. But the question then becomes, "why are the sources like this?"

I certainly think atheism make sense, I can easily see why people would believe that we're all wrong and the universe lacks any deities. But unlike certain religious groups, I do not believe this position somehow leads to negativity, anger, and hate. I believe the problem is that after years of brainwashing, torment, and building resentment, when atheism finally hit the playing field it was more a reaction than a philosophical system. It was not enough to reject gods, there was now a chance to get back at the institutions and ideologies that had treated them poorly. Instead of just considering arguments, it was decided that religious people were deluded fools, all brainwashed and lost, all mentally ill and misled. This is best illustrated by the death of skepticism in "free thinking" atheistic circles, replaced by essentially a new dogma of a universe without god. Materialism must be true because god can't possibly exist, theists must be brainwashed because they couldn't possibly have valid reason to believe, etc. and so on. Even the need to defend one's own position was dropped, in favor of simply mocking and stalling the theist.

No, I do not think this describes all atheists, I have some very good, intelligent, calm and reasonable atheist friend, the kind who will tell you why, and admit when you have a decent point even if in the end it's wrong. But like with religion, this is the minority. I believe that between a limited market and reactionary thought, atheism has become what we know it as (at least with internet atheists). Now maybe I've just had bad experiences, does anyone else agree or disagree? Whether small or large, I believe this mindset is due to the limited resources and reactionary thinking. Saying they're simply godless or have no morals is a cop-out imo, though I know it's probably believed by many. What do you think?

By definition it's a negative stance: a-theism. So I think negativity is somewhat inherent in a person defining their belief as a dis-belief of the alternative.

Because it's always easier to critique other's beliefs than our own, is it not? It's always tempting to imagine that we know why others believe as they do, and that the reasons are 'poor' ones.

How does a person critique a belief of their own, that they don't even acknowledge as such?

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sure others here might feel similar, but online religious discussion has led to almost exclusively bad experiences with atheists.
:
What do you think?

I think if you began each conversation by offering us bacon, you'd have better experiences.
But this is no guarantee. Many atheists, like many believers, are contentious jerks.
And no one is nastier than when they talk to their own....
Catholic v Baptist
Atheist capitalist v atheist commie.....
Oh, how the red red krovvy doth flow!

I speculate that the only way to ensure civil discourse about religion is if some day we
can program sentient computers to do this for us.
But even then, human programmers could mess things up....

 

[Deathbydefault]

Nonsense should be called nonsense, not respected as truth.

I might not have much of an imagination, but I could easily sit here for ten or so minutes and come up with a couple paragraphs of utter nonsense, then preach them as truth.

The universe and reality were created by the draconic goddess, kaltame.
She eventually fell to the string of time from which she was born of nothing.
After creating reality and an internal space of existence, she then created a universe that could eventually produce weaker lifeforms.
All of these deeds were done in her final moments of existence, humanity is a production of this great goddess.

This is the truth that was revealed to me by one of the keepers created to hold the cosmos in stability.
Come praise our goddess in hopes that she may once be reborn from nothing and see us as the greatest species within creation.

Idiocy.

 

[1137]

Nonsense should be called nonsense, not respected as truth.

I might not have much of an imagination, but I could easily sit here for ten or so minutes and come up with a couple paragraphs of utter nonsense, then preach them as truth.

The universe and reality were created by the draconic goddess, kaltame.
She eventually fell to the string of time from which she was born of nothing.
After creating reality and an internal space of existence, she then created a universe that could eventually produce weaker lifeforms.
All of these deeds were done in her final moments of existence, humanity is a production of this great goddess.

This is the truth that was revealed to me by one of the keepers created to hold the cosmos in stability.
Come praise our goddess in hopes that she may once be reborn from nothing and see us as the greatest species within creation.

Idiocy.

Exhibit A, your honor.

 

[Laika]

I'm sure others here might feel similar, but online religious discussion has led to almost exclusively bad experiences with atheists. Not just here mind you, this is not some sort of meta post. These days in person life hardly allows for me to have this conversations, I'm either with a small group of known friends or on the clock, so as far as I can tell from experience, this is the majority of atheists. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure theories on this range from "duh, they're all evil and immoral" to "being anonymous", but I think the answer lies in between.

I do not believe atheism to be some inherently negative or wrong metaphysical view, but I think two things contribute to the overwhelmingly negative experience. First is simply the main authors that are read by atheists. From fringe groups like the church of Satan to the most popular authors like Dawkins, I've seen a tendency to treat theists in some of the worst ways possibly, even calling them mentally ill or deluded as a whole. Let's look at some quotes.

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that." - Dawkins

"My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in The Devil or God, they are abdicating reason. " - Peter Gilmore

In these quotes I see the same type of generalizing, closed minded, hateful and insulting exclusivist tactics engage in by literally all fundamentalist groups. The others are insane, they're dangerous, there are no exceptions to this rule. This is the way groups like the medieval church, the Phelps family, the Islamic state, etc. et al. treat those who disagree with their metaphysical world view. Of course it is not an atheists fault if they have no other sources to go to, just as it's not a child's fault if they're raised unaware of other metaphysical positions. But the question then becomes, "why are the sources like this?"

I certainly think atheism make sense, I can easily see why people would believe that we're all wrong and the universe lacks any deities. But unlike certain religious groups, I do not believe this position somehow leads to negativity, anger, and hate. I believe the problem is that after years of brainwashing, torment, and building resentment, when atheism finally hit the playing field it was more a reaction than a philosophical system. It was not enough to reject gods, there was now a chance to get back at the institutions and ideologies that had treated them poorly. Instead of just considering arguments, it was decided that religious people were deluded fools, all brainwashed and lost, all mentally ill and misled. This is best illustrated by the death of skepticism in "free thinking" atheistic circles, replaced by essentially a new dogma of a universe without god. Materialism must be true because god can't possibly exist, theists must be brainwashed because they couldn't possibly have valid reason to believe, etc. and so on. Even the need to defend one's own position was dropped, in favor of simply mocking and stalling the theist.

No, I do not think this describes all atheists, I have some very good, intelligent, calm and reasonable atheist friend, the kind who will tell you why, and admit when you have a decent point even if in the end it's wrong. But like with religion, this is the minority. I believe that between a limited market and reactionary thought, atheism has become what we know it as (at least with internet atheists). Now maybe I've just had bad experiences, does anyone else agree or disagree? Whether small or large, I believe this mindset is due to the limited resources and reactionary thinking. Saying they're simply godless or have no morals is a cop-out imo, though I know it's probably believed by many. What do you think?

Accusing religious people of being "dellusional" or "insane" is basically short-hand for much bigger and harder philosophical questions about the origins of religious belief and the nature of knowledge. It simply appeals to what is most familiar rather than asking whether it is acurate to describe religion as a mental illness.

For example, if we think about how we understand dreams most people now days would accept that they are things that occur within the brain during sleep. Other views (often historically older) may have treated them as a means to knowledge or as a supernatural experience. The dillemma for a materialist is "how do we know that dreams are not real?" Much the same problem arises for materialistic-atheism.

However, most of the self-professed atheists today would reject materialism as a dogma and treat it very much like a faith. my impression is that people like Richard Dawkins largely take the conception of knowledge we have today for granted and don't delve into these questions very deeply. They are less concerned with "why" someone may hold false or illusionary beliefs, and more interested in demonstrating that they are false. (E.g. Dawkins refutation of Thomas Aquina's five proofs for the existence of god in the God Dellusion is extremely brief).

Many online discussions resemble a sort of "policing" of standards of knowledge based on what is logical, what constitutes evidence, what is rational, etc. Being at the other end of this is very "difficult" and can often feel pretty brutal. This is not true of all atheists because atheism is not a single group. E.g. Buddhists are atheists and can represent more spiritual and introspective forms of atheism such as existentialism, or there are those forms of atheism which are transformative and take on views that man should be deified as sacred and worthy of worship such as atheistic LHPs, radical humanists, nietzsche's "god is dead" theology, etc.

Sadly this does not appear very common nowdays but it does happen and a diversity of atheist views and responses to religion do exist.

 

[Cephus]

Hey, that's okay, online discussion with the religious has led a lot of atheists to take a very dim view of theists too.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What is with all these threads stating the butt-hurtedness of theists lately?

You want to know the main difference I see between atheists and theists? From my perspective, atheists aren't afraid to say what it is that they think, usually because it contains measures of truth beyond anything pointed the way of the supernatural. And yes, sometimes that may be blunt or brash, and you may take it very personally. However, there are PLENTY of theistic people who pour venom into their words/conversations/posts in just the right amounts so as to be able to back-track out of it and say that whatever you read isn't what they meant, and "you took it the wrong way", etc. It's the difference between being aggressive about your beliefs/values versus being passive-aggressive... with the added escape-hatch of lying about not being aggressive at all in the first place. This is by no means all theistic people, of course... but these types are in no short supply.

 

[Cephus]

What is with all these threads stating the butt-hurtedness of theists lately?

Because they're losing.

You want to know the main difference I see between atheists and theists? From my perspective, atheists aren't afraid to say what it is that they think, usually because it contains measures of truth beyond anything pointed the way of the supernatural. And yes, sometimes that may be blunt or brash, and you may take it very personally. However, there are PLENTY of theistic people who pour venom into their words/conversations/posts in just the right amounts so as to be able to back-track out of it and say that whatever you read isn't what they meant, and "you took it the wrong way", etc. It's the difference between being aggressive about your beliefs/values versus being passive-aggressive... with the added escape-hatch of lying about not being aggressive at all in the first place. This is by no means all theistic people, of course... but these types are in no short supply.

Unfortunately, theists, by and large, use their religious beliefs as part of their self-identity. That means they cannot rationally discuss their beliefs because their beliefs are part and parcel of what they are and any doubt or criticism of their beliefs is seen as a personal attack upon themselves. That means that theists, and as you say, it may not be all theists, but certainly a sizeable amount, are absolutely incapable of stepping back and rationally evaluating the things that they believe because questioning their own religious identities simply makes them feel bad and, at least in my experience, emotional comfort is much more important for a lot of theists than actually being correct in their beliefs. And I'm sure we'll get some people trying to defend that view, but I find it reprehensible.

 

[Skwim]

Because they're losing.



Unfortunately, theists, by and large, use their religious beliefs as part of their self-identity. That means they cannot rationally discuss their beliefs because their beliefs are part and parcel of what they are any any doubt or criticism of their beliefs is seen as a personal attack upon themselves. That means that theists, and as you say, it may not be all theists, but certainly a sizeable amount, are absolutely incapable of stepping back and rationally evaluating the things that they believe because questioning their own religious identities simply makes them feel bad and, at least in my experience, emotional comfort is much more important for a lot of theists than actually being correct in their beliefs. And I'm sure we'll get some people trying to defend that view, but I find it reprehensible.

Nicely put.


.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sure others here might feel similar, but online religious discussion has led to almost exclusively bad experiences with atheists.

There's one consistent factor in all your experiences with atheists: you.

Consider the possibility that your approach to these discussions is causing the problem. You generally come across as someone looking to fight with atheists. No surprise if this is what you get.

 

[1137]

There's one consistent factor in all your experiences with atheists: you.

Consider the possibility that your approach to these discussions is causing the problem. You generally come across as someone looking to fight with atheists. No surprise if this is what you get.

Yep, I'm the only one in the world with bad atheist experience. Impeccable point as always.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yep, I'm the only one in the world with bad atheist experience. Impeccable point as always.

Not what I said, is it?

You aren't exactly demonstrating that you're coming at these threads with an open attitude.

 

[HonestJoe]

Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

OK. You're wrong.

Atheism generally means not believing in any god or gods and it is essentially the opposite of theism. Atheists as a whole are at least as diverse a collection of individuals as theists as a whole, especially when you consider the world-wide context. Atheists can and will believe an almost infinite range of vastly different things beyond the singular concept you're focusing on. Many atheists won't even recognise that they're atheist and many more won't be aware of or use that term. The vast majority would never contribute to forums like this (most couldn't even if they wanted to). Their position on the existence of gods simply isn't important or key to their lives - it just is.

The vast, vast majority of atheists won't have read any of the authors you've identified (and lots of non-atheists will have done, maybe even without entirely disagreeing with them). Quite a lot of us really don't like them at all, certainly not what they've become to represent and how we're all often condemned, dismissed or attacked as a result. They don't represent or speak for atheists any more than you represent or speak for theists.

No, I do not think this describes all atheists, I have some very good, intelligent, calm and reasonable atheist friend, the kind who will tell you why, and admit when you have a decent point even if in the end it's wrong. But like with religion, this is the minority.

I think you're wrong on both counts there. Most people, atheist or theist, are fairly decent and normal. Belief or not in gods (especially specifically just that) really doesn't make any difference to that.

There are all sorts of other things some people build upon that kind of raw concept for all sorts of reasons and some of them are bad (by accident or design). In my opinion, one of those bad things is the identifying vast groups of people with sweeping generic labels to identify them with specific concepts regardless of whether they personally identify with them at all.

 

[1137]

Not what I said, is it?

You aren't exactly demonstrating that you're coming at these threads with an open attitude.

Well look penguin, why even be upset with the thread if it doesn't apply to you? Why not contribute to the discussion instead of ad hominem attacking me? Do you really deny that these individuals exist? Are you THAT fundamentalist that you can't even accept there's bad atheists out there as described by the OP? I mean hell, I quoted two of them!! I realize now it's impossible to question the oh holy religion of atheism on any such forum, whether this or otherwise, in any productive way other than excluding atheists in the first place.

 

[Kartari]

Hi 1137,

I'm sure others here might feel similar, but online religious discussion has led to almost exclusively bad experiences with atheists. Not just here mind you, this is not some sort of meta post. These days in person life hardly allows for me to have this conversations, I'm either with a small group of known friends or on the clock, so as far as I can tell from experience, this is the majority of atheists. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure theories on this range from "duh, they're all evil and immoral" to "being anonymous", but I think the answer lies in between.

I do not believe atheism to be some inherently negative or wrong metaphysical view, but I think two things contribute to the overwhelmingly negative experience. First is simply the main authors that are read by atheists. From fringe groups like the church of Satan to the most popular authors like Dawkins, I've seen a tendency to treat theists in some of the worst ways possibly, even calling them mentally ill or deluded as a whole. Let's look at some quotes.

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that." - Dawkins

"My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in The Devil or God, they are abdicating reason. " - Peter Gilmore

In these quotes I see the same type of generalizing, closed minded, hateful and insulting exclusivist tactics engage in by literally all fundamentalist groups. The others are insane, they're dangerous, there are no exceptions to this rule. This is the way groups like the medieval church, the Phelps family, the Islamic state, etc. et al. treat those who disagree with their metaphysical world view. Of course it is not an atheists fault if they have no other sources to go to, just as it's not a child's fault if they're raised unaware of other metaphysical positions. But the question then becomes, "why are the sources like this?"

I certainly think atheism make sense, I can easily see why people would believe that we're all wrong and the universe lacks any deities. But unlike certain religious groups, I do not believe this position somehow leads to negativity, anger, and hate. I believe the problem is that after years of brainwashing, torment, and building resentment, when atheism finally hit the playing field it was more a reaction than a philosophical system. It was not enough to reject gods, there was now a chance to get back at the institutions and ideologies that had treated them poorly. Instead of just considering arguments, it was decided that religious people were deluded fools, all brainwashed and lost, all mentally ill and misled. This is best illustrated by the death of skepticism in "free thinking" atheistic circles, replaced by essentially a new dogma of a universe without god. Materialism must be true because god can't possibly exist, theists must be brainwashed because they couldn't possibly have valid reason to believe, etc. and so on. Even the need to defend one's own position was dropped, in favor of simply mocking and stalling the theist.

No, I do not think this describes all atheists, I have some very good, intelligent, calm and reasonable atheist friend, the kind who will tell you why, and admit when you have a decent point even if in the end it's wrong. But like with religion, this is the minority. I believe that between a limited market and reactionary thought, atheism has become what we know it as (at least with internet atheists). Now maybe I've just had bad experiences, does anyone else agree or disagree? Whether small or large, I believe this mindset is due to the limited resources and reactionary thinking. Saying they're simply godless or have no morals is a cop-out imo, though I know it's probably believed by many. What do you think?

Unfortunately, being an atheist does not make one immune to being an a$$hole. Nastiness can be found in any camp, religious or otherwise. I've witnessed some nasty and insulting posts written by atheists towards theists in my time.

But I have to disagree with you, as I've not witnessed "almost exclusively bad experiences" caused by atheists being thus. Only in some instances.

...

In friendliness, and in a general sense, I suggest that a significant part of the problem is a sensitivity on the part of theists to atheist arguments. Naturally, people tend to get attached to their beliefs. It's easy to integrate one's most cherished beliefs into their worldview to such an extent, they become personally identified with their beliefs. And when those beliefs come into question or are challenged, even when done so without any apparent ill will, I've noticed that sometimes theists engaged in debates interpret such posts in a way that makes them feel personally criticized or hurt. They then wrongly perceive the atheist as being mean and react accordingly.

I've also generally seen a tendency to repeatedly misinterpret or misunderstand either atheism itself or arguments made by atheists, which can and does agitate atheists. For instance, that atheism is a "belief system," or that evolution is "just" a theory. In some cases, it's actually a very sad reminder of just how poorly educated we are, when for instance presumably grown adults demonstrate a lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is, and why it's so different from the colloquial usage of the word theory as mere guesswork, when I recall learning this distinction in grade school... (*sigh*) A lot of effort is thereby spent attacking the same straw men, chasing the same red herrings, making the same convenient equivocations, using the same circular reasoning, and making other repeated logical errors over and over again ad infinitum.

...

I mention all this to shed light on why some atheists might get nasty sometimes. As an atheist who has engaged in theistic debates for many years, I can attest to it being rather tiring to perpetually read and respond to the same set of logical mistakes, and not infrequently without the other party comprehending what you are actually communicating.

This tiresomeness of course does not warrant a nasty response. I resent when such reactions are posted as much as you may. And if an atheist is that tired of seeing these mistakes, they should seriously consider spending their time doing more productive things.

If one should respond, an atheist should cordially point out the logical flaws, and leave it at that. If the person fails to understand, and continues making the same mistakes, well... what can you do.

Seeing these same mistakes over and over again can superficially give the impression that theists tend to lack intelligence. I strongly disagree with this. I know some very intelligent people who are theists. I instead attribute the errors I have mentioned to emotional bias, something even the best humans are susceptible to.

 

[1137]

Hey, that's okay, online discussion with the religious has led a lot of atheists to take a very dim view of theists too.

Very true. I bet if we had this identical question about theists you guys would not feel the need to lash out like children, calling things irrational BS, precious little feelings, lunatic illogical belief, butt hurtedness... I mean back when mods gave a damn that would never even slip by the forum rules!

Simply wrong. Theists simply don't like being called out on their irrational BS. It hurts their precious little feelings. The refusal to coddle lunatic emotional beliefs is not mean. Theists need to grow a pair and figure it out.

I'm guessing by you're defensiveness and what I pulled above, you're one of the atheists in question. So what made it this way? Was religion bad to you growing up? Were you abused or indoctrinated? What made you decide to reject skepticism enough to call all theism lunatic, emotional, irrational, bull ****? Do you not believe a single theist could have rational reasons for believing? And what do you think of atheists who adhere to skepticism, do not make A statements regarding theistic rationality, or don't feel the need to childishly insult theists?

What is with all these threads stating the butt-hurtedness of theists lately?

You want to know the main difference I see between atheists and theists? From my perspective, atheists aren't afraid to say what it is that they think, usually because it contains measures of truth beyond anything pointed the way of the supernatural. And yes, sometimes that may be blunt or brash, and you may take it very personally. However, there are PLENTY of theistic people who pour venom into their words/conversations/posts in just the right amounts so as to be able to back-track out of it and say that whatever you read isn't what they meant, and "you took it the wrong way", etc. It's the difference between being aggressive about your beliefs/values versus being passive-aggressive... with the added escape-hatch of lying about not being aggressive at all in the first place. This is by no means all theistic people, of course... but these types are in no short supply.

Sure, of course there are theists like this, they seem to be the majority on BOTH sides. Would you care to address the type of atheist I'm discussing in the OP? You're more than welcome to compare them to similar theists, hell it's likely rooted in many of the same psychological processes.

Because they're losing.



Unfortunately, theists, by and large, use their religious beliefs as part of their self-identity. That means they cannot rationally discuss their beliefs because their beliefs are part and parcel of what they are any any doubt or criticism of their beliefs is seen as a personal attack upon themselves. That means that theists, and as you say, it may not be all theists, but certainly a sizeable amount, are absolutely incapable of stepping back and rationally evaluating the things that they believe because questioning their own religious identities simply makes them feel bad and, at least in my experience, emotional comfort is much more important for a lot of theists than actually being correct in their beliefs. And I'm sure we'll get some people trying to defend that view, but I find it reprehensible.

Uh, everyone's beliefs/philosophy/metaphysics is part of your identity. Who else is doing the thinking and reasoning? I'd say you make a good point here that likely applies to modern atheism as well: an inability to look inwards and question/doubt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well look penguin, why even be upset with the thread if it doesn't apply to you?

I'm not upset. Are you projecting?

Why not contribute to the discussion instead of ad hominem attacking me?

I haven't used an ad hominem here. I've been critical of you; not the same thing.

Do you really deny that these individuals exist? Are you THAT fundamentalist that you can't even accept there's bad atheists out there as described by the OP?

Of course there are nasty atheists. Pick any random group of people and there are bound to be at least a few jerks. But you aren't saying that some of the atheists you encounter are nasty; you're saying that they're "almost exclusively" nasty.

Which do you think is more likely:

- virtually every atheist is a jerk? or
- you tend to get atheists' backs up?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@1137 - a suggestion, based on your behaviour in this thread and elsewhere:

Instead of flying off the handle, assuming nasty or idiotic interpretations of what atheists tell you, try something new:

Start by assuming the most charitable interpretation of what someone else is telling you. If multiple interpretations are possible, don't assume the worst until you get them to confirm that this really is their position.

Try that consistently for a while and I'd be good money that atheists will suddenly seem to be much nicer than in the past.