The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[YmirGF]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

You should come to my neck of the woods. Here in paradise north atheists are the norm and very far from the exception. We tend to look on strong religious types as being a bit bonkers if I were to be perfectly honest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

"The people I insult and shout at all the time always come across as angry. What makes them inherently angry people?"

 

[Ponder This]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

I don't see a problem with vocal people arguing about the things they believe in and gaining exposure to opposite points of view. Argumentation fulfills an important social function for the evaluation of ideas.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." - attributed to Socrates by Plato

I would be far more worried about blind acceptance of ideas without the presence of argument.

 

[Father Heathen]

What do you mean by compete? Compete for followers? I don't really think of it as a competition. Really, it feels like some particular atheists have upset you.

If we define competition by gaining followers and we agree that theistic religions gain more followers than atheism (a fact I would assume but of which I am unsure), then I would not see this as a plight.

I think it's worth pointing out that religion "gains" far more via birth than by conversion, thus such numbers can't be used as a measure of merit, validity, or whatever point the argument is attempting to make.

 

[Jesster]

On this forum, I think atheists get upset by theists trying to put words in their mouths. Trying to dictate what they believe or don't believe. Trying to incorrectly paint atheists as materialists or physicalists or even nihilists. Anyone stupid enough to equate atheism with these things deserves some push back.

I try not to let out any of my frustrations anymore, but this is the big one that usually gets on my nerves. If you are a theist who starts doing this, don't expect me to ever respond to you in any serious manner. You'll likely get an eye-rolling sarcastic remark, if I'm even in the mood to say anything at all. I'm not going to be your straw man.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think it's worth pointing out that religion "gains" far more via birth than by conversion, thus such numbers can't be used as a measure of merit, validity, or whatever point the argument is attempting to make.

Agreed. All the more so when the theistic subgroups that are growing faster make mutually incompatible, even outright hostile claims.

If anything, that indicates how dangerous it is to lend much significance to the growth.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

Take it English is not your first language? Anyway, atheism has actually been growing in recent years. Most of Europe is secular and the percentages of people identifying as atheist and agnostic in the United States is rising as well.

 

[shmogie]

I know atheists. I know believers. I know people who never think about it.

I don't agree with Dawkins &c that religion is innately pernicious. I dine with too many decent intelligent people who are believers to think that's true. I admire Jorge Bergoglio. A pope with his humanity, intelligence and ability is lo-o-o-ong overdue, though he inherits a dirty gig.

On the other hand I think any fundamentalism, in any religion, is a fear-based closing of the mind, and should never be taught to children.

I think the concept of a real god, a god with objective existence, is incoherent. I've never heard a credible exposition of what such a being could be, such that if we found one we could tell it was a god. Imaginary gods, not a problem ─ they can be, and are, anything you want them to be and something else tomorrow.

Are you a decent, inclusive human being? Then (within reason) who cares what you believe?

There different atheists of different stripes. The ¨new atheists¨ of which dawkins is a perfect example, seem to be angry, very hostile to religion, crass in their words, and overall in actions anger many atheists. There is a great representation of them in this forum. Whenever there is a thread regarding Christian thought or doctrine, they fall over themselves to intrude, jeer, and generally disrupt on a thread in which they haven the slightest interest.

As to your use of the word ¨ Fundamentalism¨, I think you are really unclear as to what it means. Fundamentalism simply means believing in all the fundamental, foundations of ¨X¨. As applied to religion, it means a person who accepts and believes the fundamental doctrines of a faith structure. It has nothing to do with fear, or a closed mind, and certainly should be taught to the children of the parents that accept it. The concept of God is incoherent ? Nonsense. What is incoherent is the idea the universe created itself, that life created itself from the rain runoff from rocks and that the entire, huge universe, ordered itself so perfectly and beautifully with laws keeping it all working, purely by a chance that is so virtually impossible as to boggle the mind.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

Creative use of commas.

Atheism's plight isn't their lack of ability to preach their perspective, but rather all those English classes they skipped in middle school. Seriously, they thought, "Why do I have to take this class? I already know how to speak." That's why they argue, they butt heads with people who know how to speak.

 

[Curious George]

Creative use of commas.

Atheism's plight isn't their lack of ability to preach their perspective, but rather all those English classes they skipped in middle school. Seriously, they thought, "Why do I have to take this class? I already know how to speak." That's why they argue, they butt heads with people who know how to speak.

Oh, clever wit!

 

[LuisDantas]

There different atheists of different stripes.

True.

The ¨new atheists¨ of which dawkins is a perfect example, seem to be angry, very hostile to religion, crass in their words, and overall in actions anger many atheists.

Uh, no. There are many possible classifications of atheists. But the one you are using is one based on media spin, not on actual attitude or contents.

There is, in truth, no good reason to even speak of so-called "new atheism".

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

I belive atheist have consistent arguments. They may be far between, but they all speak with coherency. Religious persons can't agree on anything they believe in, but only in that they do belive in something.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There different atheists of different stripes. The ¨new atheists¨ of which dawkins is a perfect example, seem to be angry, very hostile to religion, crass in their words, and overall in actions anger many atheists. There is a great representation of them in this forum. Whenever there is a thread regarding Christian thought or doctrine, they fall over themselves to intrude, jeer, and generally disrupt on a thread in which they haven the slightest interest.

As to your use of the word ¨ Fundamentalism¨, I think you are really unclear as to what it means. Fundamentalism simply means believing in all the fundamental, foundations of ¨X¨. As applied to religion, it means a person who accepts and believes the fundamental doctrines of a faith structure. It has nothing to do with fear, or a closed mind, and certainly should be taught to the children of the parents that accept it. The concept of God is incoherent ? Nonsense. What is incoherent is the idea the universe created itself, that life created itself from the rain runoff from rocks and that the entire, huge universe, ordered itself so perfectly and beautifully with laws keeping it all working, purely by a chance that is so virtually impossible as to boggle the mind.

The problem with fundamental beliefs taught 2000+ years ago is largely (but not universally) apparent.

 

[Desert Snake]

I belive atheist have consistent arguments. They may be far between, but they all speak with coherency. Religious persons can't agree on anything they believe in, but only in that they do belive in something.

Theism doesn't have to be specific. The argument doesn't have to be from a religious perspective.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Just...wow...

I know, right? Makes you want to rethink your stance, right?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Excuse me? All religion?

Why would you think such a thing?



Then again, you do not have a good grasp of atheism either...

Why would I think that atheists find all religious adherents deceived? Isn't that axiomatic to your line of thought that no god exists, therefore, all religions are false?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why would I think that atheists find all religious adherents deceived?

Indeed, why?

Isn't that axiomatic to your line of thought that no god exists, therefore, all religions are false?

No. I do not even agree with that statement.

Quite on the contrary, I think religion is much too important a thing to be limited by theism.

 

[Curious George]

I'm still trying to identify the one thing that makes atheists on forums so adamant against all religion. I may have narrowed it down to:

*pride
*self-smugness
*superiority feelings

But I'm unsure. They tend to make a lot of noise that religion brings trouble, while insisting that everything is predetermined.

Except when "they" don't

 

[Curious George]

Why would I think that atheists find all religious adherents deceived? Isn't that axiomatic to your line of thought that no god exists, therefore, all religions are false?

I agree with the statwment that no god exists but that doesn't mean that I think that religious adherents are decieved. To be decieved there must be a deciever. This means that either the religion is the deciever, or the adherents themselves are the deciever. While it is possible that some religions are decieving I don't think that is likely the intent. And while some religious adherents might be tricking themselves, I think most are genuine.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Theism doesn't have to be specific. The argument doesn't have to be from a religious perspective.

Which is in itself an argument against theism. Consistency is evidence of truth.