Why do some atheists have to be so insulting and mean?

[Trailblazer]

When you get back from work: what evidence?

The Messengers God sends are the only evidence that God exists. I predict you will say it is not evidence, but it is the only evidence God provides so logically speaking there are three possibilities:

1. God exists and communicates using Messengers (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate at all (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

God has always sent Messengers as evidence of His existence, since mankind has existed, long before the Abrahamic religions were revealed, but God has never provided unequivocal proof of His existence and one reason is that because God wants us to have faith. But God does not want us to “just believe” anything. God wants us to employ our reason.

God does not prove He exists because He wants us to prove that to ourselves by using our own innate powers of reasoning.

God also does not prove He exists to everyone because God wants to separate out the wheat from the chaff, meaning He wants to separate those who are willing to make a sincere effort from those who do not really give a darn. The omniscient God already knows which are which, but he wants them to become who He knows they will be.

 

[Trailblazer]

Doesn't knowing that make you care less about their discourtesy?

Yes, it makes me care a whole lot less...
It might hurt for a few minutes but not much longer.
People who are discourteous hurt themselves more than anyone else, but sadly, they don't know that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your experience on that forum sounds similar to mine, a power hungry manager. I have finally had it with that. He says he took my Voice away but I am still talking. I have my own forum so I can do whatever I want there, but I would never put people down or try to control them. He tries to make me look like the bad guy because I am the only one who will stand up to him, but I was never rude, never. I am just honest. He does not like that because he isn’t. He even told me that sometimes we have to lie. No we don’t.

Thanks for the offer of the forum but I have more posts than I can handle as it is. I can only have one forum as my primary forum and it will be this one. Nothing could bring me back to that forum except an apology, but I know that will never happen. He has a vendetta against the Baha’i Faith, so I hope he is now happy that Baha’i talk is now gone from his forum... My husband is a Baha’i but he also blocked him, blaming me for going on his forum using his handle to steal posts after I had been blocked. I never did that, but my husband will not go there again anyway.

I understand that. I forgot you are Bahai. The link I would have given you, youd probably run into the same issue unfortunately. I sometimes call it christian-ego. Religion, in my opinion, should make you drop ego not be overly god-proud.

I was thinking of doing my own forum. Instead, I probably do an art group on Meetup.com after I graduate may. Its a group plateform for anyone who wishes to meet in person, hang out, worship, so have you of like interest. You can join a group of interest or create your own. Since you meet in person, it take more thinking about before creating one.

But, anyway, not many people understand the bahai faith. It can come off disrespectful because it sees all chosen religions under one umbrella. That would mean the other persons you speak with have to be understanding that your views about her religion is not the same as her views about it. If conflicted conversations come about because of how you express your beliefs honestly, that could be something to keep in mind.

Not referring to your OP experience just in general. People can be, um, weird sometimes. Keep with your own forum, do some deep breathing Wooooossaaaaaah and you'll be fine.


Edited.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:.

If I will a question and share an insight on this?

How can you have evidence of something you have no proof of?

If god is a fact and you have evidence, that evidence should help you establish the truth of gods existence. If you have evidence you should be able to prove god exists with that evidence: using evidence as the proof to your belief as true. The two work together.

If you have evidence and no proof of gods existence, then how so you have proof he exists? What is evidence if there is no use for it for yourself or for others?

For example, I have proof god does not exist based on the evidence, cultural associations, basic psychology, and believers testimonies. These are the evidences and I would use them to establish proof that god does not exist.


If you dont have proof for yourself and others, how is that evidence valuable to you beyond what they call blind faith?

 

[Trailblazer]

If I will a question and share an insight on this?
How can you have evidence of something you have no proof of?
If god is a fact and you have evidence, that evidence should help you establish the truth of gods existence. If you have evidence you should be able to prove god exists with that evidence: using evidence as the proof to your belief as true. The two work together.
If you have evidence and no proof of gods existence, then how so you have proof he exists? What is evidence if there is no use for it for yourself or for others?

My whole point of posting the definitions of evidence and proof was to point out that evidence is not the same as proof. Evidence indicates that God exists but it does not prove that God exists. In order to prove that God exists, that would have to be established as a fact, and that cannot be done because God is immaterial.

So all we have are the Messengers of God and their scriptures which are the best evidence that God exists.

For example, I have proof god does not exist based on the evidence, cultural associations, basic psychology, and believers testimonies. These are the evidences and I would use them to establish proof that god does not exist.

Nobody can prove that God does not exist. They can say that the evidence indicates that God does not exist, but they cannot prove it. If they could prove it, we’d all be atheists.

Likewise, nobody can prove that God exists. If they could, we would all be believers.

If you dont have proof for yourself and others, how is that evidence valuable to you beyond what they call blind faith?

Good evidence leads to a reason-based faith, in which case faith is not blind, it is reasonable.

A logical person realizes that nobody can prove that God exists so they simply accept the best evidence which is available, which is in this age the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. Never before in the history of mankind has there been evidence as good as what we have now.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How can you have evidence of something you have no proof of?

The Sun gives life to this earth.

The evidence is all around us and does not need us to offer proofs.

God gives life to out hearts.

The evidence of this is in our actions and no proof needs to be offered.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Good evidence leads to a reason-based faith, in which case faith is not blind, it is reasonable.

A logical person realizes that nobody can prove that God exists so they simply accept the best evidence which is available, which is in this age the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. Never before in the history of mankind has there been evidence as good as what we have now.

Ya Baha'ul'abha

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My whole point of posting the definitions of evidence and proof was to point out that evidence is not the same as proof. Evidence indicates that God exists but it does not prove that God exists. In order to prove that God exists, tha

They are interelated. I have evidence that my aunt existed. To confirm that evidence, I have proof such as pictures, memories, and her ashes. She isnt here that I can confirm her physical existence (outside her ashes) but I still love her (present tense) as you love god. Evidence and proof are so close that if you dont have confirmation of god by proof than the evidence indicates nothing.

That, and religions have different criteria of proof than what some atheists are asking for. Unless one is going off of faith, I do see evidence of god just not in the way many theist hear it from atheists and not from what some atheists are asking you guys to produce.

So all we have are the Messengers of God and their scriptures which are the best evidence that God exists.

I use god since Im not familar with divine messangers in our life times. So, when I say god, just replace it with messangers.

Nobody can prove that God does not exist. They can say that the evidence indicates that God does not exist, but they cannot prove it. If they could prove it, we’d all be atheists.

What proof can you not give, though? If you have evidence to indicate his existence, can you present the evidence as proof if that is what you believe is 100 percent true/fact?

Likewise, nobody can prove that God exists. If they could, we would all be believers.

I think its because its religion in nature. If we were talking about something else not existent and we talked about how it doesnt exist based on what we find to indicate otherwise, we wouldnt second guess. We'd say true and move on. Religion shouldnt be different in that logic. Just its personal and peoples beliefs are threatened so we all have to be believers to keep it balance. Interesting psychological game....

But my point was the two words are interrelated and when you have evidence that indicates god exist, and thus you believe he does, there would be proof to yourself at least that establishes truth based on what your evidence indicates. Once you confirm that truth by your messangers, it becomes fact. When you believe in facts (not unsupported beliefs), it would be easier to use words about evidence and proof of gods existence...​

By the criteria of your religion.

Anyone who questions your answers may not be following the same criteria of evidence, proof, and confirmation; thereby, why they keep asking. But Im around people who say they have proof of god via what their evidence indicates and thereby where they place their faith.

Aka. I live around stubborn christians.

Good evidence leads to a reason-base

Is your belief reason based?

A logical person realizes that nobody can prove that God exists so they simply accept the best evidence which is available, which is in this age the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. Never before in the history of mankind has there been evidence as good as what we have now.

He would have to be more than idea, testimony, and stories written about him to make a statment either way. In my head, its like saying Athena could or could not exist because the Pantheon was built for people to worship her and the gods. She must exist because here in DC we have trails full of roman statues in our court buildings walls, streets, etc...people still visit the pantheon or whats left of it. Histories are made.

So she must have existed.

No one ever questions why she doesnt exist. In my opinion, I dont see the jewish god any different. Based on what Im learning, its shocking..proof is in the history and its by different criteria than saying "I wanna magic being floating in the sky"

Not that type of proof.

Sorry. Read as will.

 

[stvdv]

when people act like this they are knocking others down in order to feel superior

At least he has a few narcissistic characteristics. This feeling superior is a big one. Good to know why he needs to feel superior.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Sun gives life to this earth.

The evidence is all around us and does not need us to offer proofs.

God gives life to out hearts.

The evidence of this is in our actions and no proof needs to be offered.

Regards Tony

I replied to @Trailblazer about what I mean by proof and evidence interrelated. I notice both some believers and some atheist believe proof has to be some guy flying in the sky. Each religion has their own criteria for truth. Anyone elses definition of proof is irrelevant to my point above.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I acknowledge my belief, faith as such, I don't claim 'undeniable fact' or intellectual superiority- again the wise man knows himself a fool
The bones of Piltdown man were declared to belong together 'without question' Phrenology was the 'purest form of science' the laws of classical physics were 'immutable' while the Big Bang and concepts of deeper mysterious forces guiding physics- were 'religious psuedoscience'

If ToE is likewise a 'fact', then I am less interested in 'facts' than in what is actually true, which often turns out to be the exact opposite.

Maybe in the sadly misinformed Popular Press. But never in any serious scientific discussions among actual paleontologists, or if it was said, it was recognized as hyperbole.

Same with your claims about BB theory.

But the bottom line is that in Science? With enough evidence, people can and will change their minds.

But in Religion? No amount of evidence is ever permitted to challenge deeply held Dogma.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Thanks Bob. I agree that in an ideal situation the consequences would be immediate or at least soon thereafter.

To me, not being kind is mean unless there is a good reason not to be kind.

My religion is not as nice as Christianity, always turn the other cheek.

I believe we should be kind and compassionate to all people unless they have a selfish, private motive, or some disease of the soul. Kindness cannot be shown to liars or manipulators because it only makes them continue in their ways since they think you have been deceived.

Kindness to them is injustice to others.

Still, we should forgive them and realize it is not good to harbor hatred and anger and resentment. It took me a few days, but I have forgiven this man who was insulting and mean.

A friend of mine once observed, that forgiving others can often have no effect whatsoever on the person who is being forgiven-- indeed, they may be entirely ignorant that there was a problem in the first place.

Or if they did know, the issue simply does not rise to the level of notice.

In many ways, Indifference can be far more cruel than active dislike. At least with active dislike, there is acknowledgement of the other person(s), however negative.

But I'm wandering a wee bit off my point: Forgiving is an act that is most helpful to the person doing the forgiving. It can be a kind of relief within one's State Of Being.

I think that is one of the principle keys to being happy, or at least, less discontent.

I really didn't understand this, until several lengthy discussions with Buddhists. Which in hindsight, is not a little ironic, as I was raised in Christianity, and remained one into my 40s.

On the third paw? As I wrote that, I realize that seeing a Concept from a different angle or point of view, or even as described by a different philosophy?

Can help us understand the Concept better, can it not?

I have always been a huge fan of Interfaith Efforts-- I think I remained in Christianity far longer than I would have, due to being a bit active in Interfaith projects myself.

I still think that one of the Hopes For Humankind, are these Interfaith events, groups, efforts.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I replied to @Trailblazer about what I mean by proof and evidence interrelated. I notice both some believers and some atheist believe proof has to be some guy flying in the sky. Each religion has their own criteria for truth. Anyone elses definition of proof is irrelevant to my point above.

We have always offered the Evidence of God was the Messengers sent by God and the Proof of God is offered through them by their own selves, their Lives and their Message.

Thus why people can not see God is they do not take a good just and logical look at the Proof.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

A friend of mine once observed, that forgiving others can often have no effect whatsoever on the person who is being forgiven-- indeed, they may be entirely ignorant that there was a problem in the first place.

Or if they did know, the issue simply does not rise to the level of notice.

In the case of this atheist who had been mean to me he does not realize that he has been mean because he thinks his behavior is justified because of what he perceived that I did wrong. So he does not think I have to forgive him, he thinks he would be the one who needs to forgive me for what I did.

I am always the first one to admit it when I make a mistake, so why can’t he just forgive me for my mistake? It wasn’t even anything that hurt him or his forum. I made a mistake and I admitted to my mistake but at the time I did not even know it was against a forum rule in the forum group I was posting in. But in his eyes, everyone should know and nobody is allowed to make a mistake. I do not know where to go with that kind of thinking, it is so lacking in compassion.

The way I see it what really matters at the end of the day is how we treat other people. People make mistakes all the time. What matters most is that we admit we made a mistake, apologize if we hurt somebody, and move on. Moreover, I made one mistake but I did not do all the other things he accused me of, I just didn’t, so I will not admit to those. So he is the one who did the hurting because he accused me of all kinds of things I did not do by misconstruing what I meant in posts I wrote. By saying that atheists would “understand” about God after they die, I meant they would understand that God is good, which was clearly implied by my statement that followed “nobody ever saw a bad God in an NDE.” So I meant that everyone, believers and nonbelievers, would realize God is not bad after they die. He and his moderator perceived what I said as a threat because they were thinking in Christian terms, but Baha’is are not Christians and we do not believe in hell. They know I am a Baha’i, so their reaction and putting me on moderation for that post was unwarranted. They should have asked me what I meant instead of assuming they knew.

In many ways, Indifference can be far more cruel than active dislike. At least with active dislike, there is acknowledgement of the other person(s), however negative.

That is a good point Bob. I later came to find out this atheist was mad at me because he posted that to my husband on his forum that he was too mad to even read my private messages... But mad about what? What he perceives I have done is not a criminal action and I never insulted him or anyone on his forum as he has implied. The last thing I ever do is insult atheists as he said I did, I know I never did that. Probably dozens of times I have said that atheism is just as logical as belief because there is no proof that God exists. He is the one who insults believers by calling then brainwashed and stupid.

But I'm wandering a wee bit off my point: Forgiving is an act that is most helpful to the person doing the forgiving. It can be a kind of relief within one's State Of Being.

I think that is one of the principle keys to being happy, or at least, less discontent.

You are certainly right about that. I have forgiven this man, and I felt a lot better. I realized I was hurt more than I was angry, because I had considered him a friend and he stabbed me in the back. He has done this many times before but I always look for the good in people even if they act badly, hoping it will be different next time, and then they disappoint me. I pour my heart out to everyone but not everyone can be trusted to be kind. But I cannot be anyone other than I am so I guess I just have to be more careful who I trust.

I really didn't understand this, until several lengthy discussions with Buddhists. Which in hindsight, is not a little ironic, as I was raised in Christianity, and remained one into my 40s.

On the third paw? As I wrote that, I realize that seeing a Concept from a different angle or point of view, or even as described by a different philosophy?

Can help us understand the Concept better, can it not?

I assumed you had been a Christian but I did not know how long. Both my parents had been raised Christian but dropped out before we were born. I was not raised in any religion and did not believe in God as a child; I became a Baha’i in my first year of college quite my accident. I try to understand how so many nonbelievers were hurt by Christianity but it is difficult to feel their feelings since I was never Christian. They often strike out at me because they just assume all religions are the same as Christianity.

I have always been a huge fan of Interfaith Efforts-- I think I remained in Christianity far longer than I would have, due to being a bit active in Interfaith projects myself.

I still think that one of the Hopes For Humankind, are these Interfaith events, groups, efforts.

Well, as a Baha’i I have to say I agree with that, since the oneness of mankind was the primary message of Baha’u’llah. We have been enjoined to associate with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. Baha’is spearhead a lot of Interfaith efforts.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Very true. Nor for that matter, does a disbelief. Of course, a belief in a god can be based on evidence, while it's difficult to what evidence can be presented to explain a disbelief.

The original question in this thread is surely worth asking: why do some (thankfully not all) atheists resort to ridicule or abusiveness? Perhaps it's a bit like the USian culture wars: the minority can get over-excited when the majority ignore them. The militant atheist is just another offended fundamentalist.

We all have our principles and beliefs. Some are based on facts, some based on experience, and some are based on other subjective needs. Atheist do not need to disprove their position of disbelief. They do not have the burden of proof. They are not making any truth claim that a God can be disproven. Atheists are not saying that they have an invisible flying pink elephant, and asking for others to disprove it. They are simply saying that there is no fallacy-free, objective, God-specific evidence to suggest that a God(s) exist. Simply believing in a God is one thing, but devoting your entire life in Pious servitude because of a myth and a Book of Myths, is another. Atheist can only see that the King is not wearing any clothes.

I think that the majority of atheists couldn't care less what people want to believe in. Most would simply be amazed that any human could believe in such nonsense, but would respect their right to believe it. I love Star Trek and attend conventions, but I still know that it is not real. I suspect that many religious folk feel the same way. That is, religion satisfies other needs for them, just as attending ST conventions does for me. I don't see how anyone would be offended or threatened, if the majority believed that 1 + 1 = 3. Or that talking animal's exist, a 10,000 to universe, an afterlife, a woman created from a man's rib, miracles and a supernatural being. The majority would simply be wrong. An Atheist may simply "nod and grin", but militant? I think you might be just projecting.

As long as these belief are kept as a personal belief, there is no problem. The problem occurs when people want to share their beliefs with others, that don't share the same views. When religious fundamentalists what to include their unfalsifiable beliefs into our science classrooms, our government, and our private lives, these actions may wake up the sleeping tiger. Fortunately, we are all protected from this insidious encroachment by the Supreme Court, and our Constitution.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We have always offered the Evidence of God was the Messengers sent by God and the Proof of God is offered through them by their own selves, their Lives and their Message.

Thus why people can not see God is they do not take a good just and logical look at the Proof.

Regards Tony

Yes. I know.

My point to Trailbrazer is that evidence and proof are interrelated. If you dont have proof of god, than your evidence (messengers) are irrelevent to something you cannot prove.

Your messangers message means nothing without the existence of its source. If you cant prove the source, the messege from it means nothing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Atheist can only see that the King is not wearing any clothes

Great analogy

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said nothing about a larger trend. I said “some atheists.” I know more than one who has behaved this way although it was only one I was thinking about when I posted the OP.

You drew a link to atheism.

You could have said “some people” or “some people online.” Why did you make it about atheism?

Moreover, on forums I am constantly being insulted, directly or indirectly. This forum seems to be an exception.

I get why you might speak inappropriately right when something happened to frustrate you. I don’t get why you would keep on defending the inappropriate things even after things have calmed down and you’ve had a chance to reflect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, many people take things I say as insults but they definitely are not.

Well, no. Whether something is an insult is about how it’s received, not the intent behind it. If someone was insulted by something you said, then it was an insult. Your intent determines whether it was a deliberate insult or an accidental insult, but either way, it’s an insult. Take this thread: your OP insulted me.

And if “many people” find what you say insulting, then there very well could be a problem with your delivery (or you’re properly communicating ideas that are actually insulting without you realizing it).

Then if they just stuff that and don't try to clarify it with me, it festers and bad feelings result.

My bad feelings have continued despite your attempts to clarify.

The atheist forum owner I was referring to in the OP definitely misconstrued almost everything I said on his forum. That did not happen simply because he is an atheist and I am a believer, it is also because of our personalities. I know that because I get along with most atheists very well.

If you think most atheists are pleasant, why did you decide to complain about how mean atheists are?

 

[ChristineM]

I fully agree. No need for a God to know right from wrong...
They should face justice in this life but often that does not happen, in which case I hope they face it in the afterlife.

An interesting aspect of religious faith but like everyone else, they will be dead, belief will not change that.