Fundamentalist Atheists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They are more what I would term anti-theists, although they may also be atheist. These people use science in the same way as a theistic zealot would use God - to beat other people around the head. They crave certainty and superiority, which can happen in any number of ways - it also manifests among theists, satanists, political idealogues and intellectuals, astrologers, artists, even among environmentalists. It is a very general and ubiquitous psychological problem in homo sapiens.

Basically, it is an expression of insecurity of identity.

Can you give an example of such a person?

And I'm struggling to understand exactly what you object to about "beating other people around the head" with science. If a person's views are rooted in fact, then it seems that you're not arguing that these people's views are false, but that they should just deal with wrong people more tactfully. Is that what you're getting at?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

They are more what I would term anti-theists, although they may also be atheist. These people use science in the same way as a theistic zealot would use God - to beat other people around the head. They crave certainty and superiority, which can happen in any number of ways - it also manifests among theists, satanists, political idealogues and intellectuals, astrologers, artists, even among environmentalists. It is a very general and ubiquitous psychological problem in homo sapiens.

Basically, it is an expression of insecurity of identity.

They just replaced one expression of religion with another. Like a junkie who replaces his heroin addiction with an addiction to alcohol then berates the junkies because they aren't alcoholics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not a big fan of them either

Yes, they're very annoying. They're just reactionary. There's obnoxious, narrow-minded people in all groups.

That's all they are; parasites, living off of senseless comparison.

Well, I have a thread on this very thing, and I don't even believe in a god, I was shocked how these people acted, they thought they had the answer for every dam thing you can think of.

A question to all of you: the OP talked about mainstream atheist and fundamentalist atheists. Are you talking about mainstream atheists, or "fundamentalist" atheists?

Or do you think that mainstream atheists are "fundamentalist" so it's a distinction without difference?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A question to all of you: the OP talked about mainstream atheist and fundamentalist atheists. Are you talking about mainstream atheists, or "fundamentalist" atheists?

Or do you think that mainstream atheists are "fundamentalist" so it's a distinction without difference?

I think the OP was referring to anti-theist "New Atheist" types like you would find in groups like the Rational Response Squad or the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The ones who put up the confrontational billboards and make films like the God Who Wasn't There.

 

[1137]

Maybe their criticisms have too much truth in them for you?

Hahaha, that's funny.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the OP was referring to anti-theist "New Atheist" types like you would find in groups like the Rational Response Squad or the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The ones who put up the confrontational billboards and make films like the God Who Wasn't There.

I don't really know the Rational Response Squad, but what do you have against the FFRF?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't really know the Rational Response Squad, but what do you have against the FFRF?

They're the ones who put up some of those annoying billboards. I've seen one outside of town, but in my area we just get the fundie Christian billboards scaring people about hell or denying evolution.

 

[1137]

Can you give an example of such a person?

And I'm struggling to understand exactly what you object to about "beating other people around the head" with science. If a person's views are rooted in fact, then it seems that you're not arguing that these people's views are false, but that they should just deal with wrong people more tactfully. Is that what you're getting at?

I don't know what he means by beating them over the head with science. They usually outright reject science that could support benefits from religion in any way - for example. It's almost like they've created a little religion for themselves.

 

[Bunyip]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

Anyone else see these folks?

You are making generalisations so broad that your point is reduced to bigotry.

Sure there are annoying atheists, bad mannered theists and so on - but it has nothing to do with atheism/theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know what he means by beating them over the head with science. They usually outright reject science that could support benefits from religion in any way - for example. It's almost like they've created a little religion for themselves.

Are you ever going to clarify who this "they" you're referring to is supposed to be?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They're the ones who put up some of those annoying billboards. I've seen one outside of town, but in my area we just get the fundie Christian billboards scaring people about hell or denying evolution.

What's wrong with the FFRF's billboards? Not all of them would be ones I'd put up myself (though many are), but I don't see how any of them justify your characterization of the FFRF as people.

 

[technomage]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

Anyone else see these folks?

Not a big fan, but I feel about them like I do fideist theists--there is no arguing with them, their minds are made up, and they do not allow themselves to be confused with such picayune concerns like facts or logic.

Not to be crude or anything, but if they can't take a f***, joke 'em.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not a big fan, but I feel about them like I do fideist theists--there is no arguing with them, their minds are made up, and they do not allow themselves to be confused with such picayune concerns like facts or logic.

Not to be crude or anything, but if they can't take a f***, joke 'em.

Same question for you: who is "they"?

 

[Bunyip]

Not a big fan, but I feel about them like I do fideist theists--there is no arguing with them, their minds are made up, and they do not allow themselves to be confused with such picayune concerns like facts or logic.

Not to be crude or anything, but if they can't take a f***, joke 'em.

Attacking a generalised group is just bigotry.

Why not address the behaviour of a specific person, and give examples - rather than attacking and insulting a broad group? Otherwise it is just rather hateful and insulting.

 

[technomage]

Same question for you: who is "they"?

Anti-theists. Examples include Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. These are the folks who insist that ALL religions are bad for EVERYONE.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What's wrong with the FFRF's billboards? Not all of them would be ones I'd put up myself (though many are), but I don't see how any of them justify your characterization of the FFRF as people.

I find them to be just another form of annoying proselytization.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You may be wondering why I keep asking for clarification about who we're talking about. The reason is because right now, I can't tell which of three things is going on in this thread:

- a straw man representation of atheists
- an argument that legitimately unreasonable atheists are much more prevalent than I think they actually are
- an argument that views I hold myself and consider reasonable aren't actually reasonable at all

How I approach the discussion in this thread depends on which of these is going on.

 

[Bunyip]

Anti-theists. Examples include Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. These are the folks who insist that ALL religions are bad for EVERYONE.

Hitchens is dead buddy, and Dawkins is very moderate and considered - he is hardly 'bashing' anyone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find them to be just another form of annoying proselytization.

Why would you think that? Woukd you say the same thing about, say, a Greenpeace billboard?

 

[technomage]

Attacking a generalised group is just bigotry.

I'm not attacking a generalized group. I'm attacking a very specific group. There is a difference.

Why not address the behaviour of a specific person, and give examples - rather than attacking and insulting a broad group? Otherwise it is just rather hateful and insulting.

If and when I choose to do so, I will. If in the meantime, you find my posts to be "hateful" and "insulting," then I must ask if the shoe fits.