Why don't atheists accept they are so evangelical and apologetic?

[Wrangler]

Only religious people could make such statements.

Well, this is a religious forum so ... Are you implying the Supreme Court is religious?

The statement is true EVEN IF non-religious people deny it. Like good health, the factors are real and impactful EVEN IF unhealthy people deny it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By definition, atheism stands for what it is not.

Which is exactly why it is dumb to call it a "worldview".

It's like calling "not playing soccer" a sport.

It posits a negation.

Indeed. Which by definition, means that whatever the worldview is of an atheist individual, you won't be able to deduce it from the label "atheism".

For instance, studies show religious people are happier, are less depressed and live longer

Even if that were true (I don't know if it is and don't think it's relevant), that doesn't say anything about theism being correct. Ignorance is bliss, after all.

What better standard to use to discredit a flawed religious world view than how it negatively affects ones quality of life?

In the bible belt, domestic violence, teenage pregnancy and divorce are more common then in the rest of the US.

In general, the higher the religiosity of a country, the MORE problems exist concerning human rights, the standing of women and the LOWER societal health in general is. Also illiteracy is higher, infant mortality is higher, etc etc.

You were saying?

And once again: be that as it may, that still says nothing at all about theism being true or not.

They cannot state what they are for as that would destroy their inherently nihilistic negation philosophy.

Nihilism and atheism aren't the same thing.
I as an atheist can very well state what I am "for". I am for secular humanism, freedom and human rights.

(Of course, they can speak for themselves individually but not atheists collectively).

EXACTLY.

And you know why? Because atheism is not a worldview. Because atheism is only about what one does NOT believe. It is not about what one DOES believe.

With that sentence, you have effectively contradicted everything else you said in this post about atheists.

Funny how that works.............

I usually end conversations with atheists by telling them I will pray for them

And I usually reply to such a statement with "I will think about you too".

. Paradoxically, that seems to annoy them.

Well it can, in certain contexts.
Usually when such a statement concerns an extreme display of condescending arrogance, as if there is something "wrong" with the atheist and that the theist thinks he's going to "fix them" by "praying for them".

In such context, saying "i will pray for you" is actually an insult in disguise.
But you probably don't even realize it.

They don't need no stinkin blessings?!

I don't care for it. Magic spells don't affect me.
You might just as well make a voodoo doll and put needles in it. It won't affect me either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And of course if I read you right, you are trying to prove in this post that the thread is a dishonest attempt. So bottomline is its an attempt at an ad hominem.

And is very right about that.

Strange that many atheists in this thread have displayed this attempt, and its ironic I said this in the OP.

It' a self fullfilling prophecy.
You knew this was going to be the result because you knew that your OP was just one big ad hominim aimed at atheists specifically to anger, insult and annoy them.

 

[lukethethird]

Well, this is a religious forum so ... Are you implying the Supreme Court is religious?

The statement is true EVEN IF non-religious people deny it. Like good health, the factors are real and impactful EVEN IF unhealthy people deny it.

There's obviously a difference between healthy and non-healthy, religious and non-religious.

 

[joelr]

Who do you mean "we"? So are you saying that "we" which I think you mean "atheists" are the only people who are as you said believes in science etc? Really? So you are proving what I said in the OP!

And of course you are trying to turn this into a discussion on God, Gods, validity of them, etc etc. Thats irrelevant. Please read the OP, and address it if you could.

I did address it.

By "we" I did mean atheist, meaning atheists are not dogmatic about science. Atheism just means a lack of belief in a God. It has nothing to do with science.

The next "we" means everyone. We all expect the scientific method to be used when it regards out health and safety. I didn't say only non-religious can believe in science, that would be absurd. Science isn't about "belief"? It's a method and sometimes it's wrong but it's proven to be our best method for discovering truth about the world.

Some of the examples you give are not about atheism. Atheism is just a belief that there is no good evidence for a God. Other types of behavior following from that, like people being wrong about verse and still backing each other up is not atheism. It's just psychology.

I'm sure some atheists are evangelical and some may be apologetic. Some atheists adopt positions and use sources that are fairly easily debunked but may continue to ignore reason and evidence that demonstrates they are wrong.

 

[McBell]

Atheism was deemed a religion by the US Supreme Court, and rightfully so.

Why do you think the Supreme Court recognizes atheism as equivalent to a religion?

 

[firedragon]

By "we" I did mean atheist, meaning atheists are not dogmatic about science. Atheism just means a lack of belief in a God. It has nothing to do with science.

I was never speaking about the definition of atheism. Defining Atheism does not make your argument correct. There are people who call themselves atheists but believe in a divinity. By definition they cannot be atheists, but they call themselves by the word. Read the OP, and you will see that the definition of atheism is not addressed.

The next "we" means everyone. We all expect the scientific method to be used when it regards out health and safety. I didn't say only non-religious can believe in science, that would be absurd. Science isn't about "belief"? It's a method and sometimes it's wrong but it's proven to be our best method for discovering truth about the world.

Oh yes. Everyone probably knows how science works. So "how science works" is not the topic.

Some of the examples you give are not about atheism. Atheism is just a belief that there is no good evidence for a God. Other types of behavior following from that, like people being wrong about verse and still backing each other up is not atheism. It's just psychology.

None of the examples I gave are from atheism.

I'm sure some atheists are evangelical and some may be apologetic. Some atheists adopt positions and use sources that are fairly easily debunked but may continue to ignore reason and evidence that demonstrates they are wrong.

Thats the point.

Apologies if I misunderstood you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
The next "we" means everyone. We all expect the scientific method to be used when it regards out health and safety. I didn't say only non-religious can believe in science, that would be absurd. Science isn't about "belief"? It's a method and sometimes it's wrong but it's proven to be our best method for discovering truth about the world. (#1)

Some of the examples you give are not about atheism. Atheism is just a belief that there is no good evidence for a God. Other types of behavior following from that, like people being wrong about verse and still backing each other up is not atheism. It's just psychology.

I'm sure some atheists are evangelical and some may be apologetic. Some atheists adopt positions and use sources that are fairly easily debunked but may continue to ignore reason and evidence that demonstrates they are wrong. (#2)

You are wrong! Now you are not wrong as a human in any moral sense. You are wrong, because you claim you can do something with a certain method(s), which you can't do using that method(s).

So how it is that you are wrong? Well, for #1 the word "best" can't be done with neither science nor any other objective methodology as reason or logic for an universal we. You are in effect subjective and only speaking for you and those who subjectively agree with you. Thus your "we" is limited, because I can do it differently for #1.
There is no one best method for all humans for all of the world, because for some versions of best, the word "best" is not independent of individual evaluation.
So here is how you know that your "best" is not science nor objective.
It has no international scientific measurement standard; i.e. you can't calibrate a scientific instrument to measure best.
You can't observe best. It has no objective referent, i.e. it is not independent of individual psychology and it works as subjective evolution of good and/or useful.

What I have written above is connected to this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

In effect you could apparently be a believer in a variant of scientism. "Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." I wrote apparently because you apparently take truth to be what matters. But that it matters, is not science and ends as a standard for normative and epistemological values.
But there is no such standard for all humans for all of the world. It can't be done with science, philosophy or religion.

Now if you can in effect do it other than just claim it, explain it and write it down. You would then be one of the most important humans in human history, because you would have done something nobody have done before you.

 

[night912]

Of course I expect some ad hominem and character assassination attempts even in this thread which is almost a norm. But in this matter, most atheists in this forum are pretty nice people. Yet at least one or two posts could be seen trying to attack the character of the person rather than analyse the point made in the OP. Thats ad hominem, and shows the character of the person doing it, not the other way around. One of my favourite sayings in the New Testament comes to mind: "Why do you look at the thimble in my eye when you have a plank in yours".

I also like that saying because of two reasons. First, it speaks of the truth. And the truth is that, regardless of who is doing the speaking, the truth remains, there is something in that person's eye. And second, the one whom is being referred to as having the plank in his/her eye, is the person who initially made their point by referencing that exact verse, regardless of the intention. It's is the meaning/purpose behind that verse. That's why it amuses me to see some people use that verse because they don't realize that they're talking themselves, being the one with the plank in their eye.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have seen arguments like "this verse in my opinion says this" with no regard to what it means. I mean "dogmatic refusal". I have also seen arguments like "God SHOULD HAVE kept languages without changing" so that we don't have to study an ancient language.

Recently there was an argument about a particular verse where the atheist picked up this argument from a "missionary website" but had no clue about it. Very dogmatic faith in a missionary website. What was more strange is that every single one of these episodes were found with other atheists defending this atheist so tribalistically (If there is such a word). Defend my brethren religiously with no regard to who or what is right. This is blind faith and tribalism.

Generally atheists accuse the "religious" of these same traits, but my opinion is that Atheists display these traits immensely but they so religiously deny it, together. The United Nations publication "State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples" has a definition for religion that has all of these traits as the definition. Its a strange thing. One would find the refusal of this also to be "Highly Dogmatic".

Let me state something from the Islamic point of view. The word used in the Qur'an for "religion" is the arabic word "Dheen". But, in all honesty, these two words are very different in meaning. Of course even this explanation can expect a dogmatic retort from someone who says "no. In my opinion they mean the same" . Nope. Try to analyse it rather than making a dogmatic faith statement. After all, atheists are supposed to be analytical and scientific as most would claim.

The etymology of the word “religion” is very different from that of dheen, and are in fact, different concepts. Some maintain, as did Cicero, that it comes from relegere, meaning, “to treat carefully.” Others follow the fourth-century Christian apologist Lactantius, who maintains that it derives from religare, “to bind.” As Lactantius writes, “We are tied to God and bound to Him (religati) by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration (relegendo), that religion has received its name. In Arabic, the word dheen means "way or system" in its essence. There have been usages where statements are made like "submission is a system based on reason". In that sentence, submission and system should be replaced by the words Islam and Dheen. The reason to adopt the famous word religion is because people are "bound" together. Does one not see that Atheists display the same symptoms? Maybe they display traits to the word religion more than a so called "religious" person would because its "dheen" for them, not religion. But I have noticed that most atheists do not with to analyse the meaning of the word Religion because they do not want to be associated with it, so they will resort to evangelical methods of denial of simple language. Also may argue that "etymologies dont matter". Actually, whatever argument that they could muster up to deny this. Thats dogmatism. The Romans used this same word as a binding to the state. Not religion. The famous Roman scholar who lived in the 1st century BC called "Cicero" accordingly used a rendition like "to select". So this is what you selected if his rendition is the "one".

One of the signs of religiosity we may observe today is this dogmatic worship of "science". Some atheists seem to claim science for themselves and deny the walking ability of science and religion together. What this seems to bring up is that dogmatic denial of a persons exegesis of his religion to be aligned with science by "hook or crook". This is a dogmatic faith that blinds reason. I address those who deny by default, and never even try and understand someones explanation but just deny no matter what. By Hook or Crook. Also they take their information predominantly from apologetic websites. Evangelical websites.

The general missionary response of atheists to "Religere" is that "religion is worshiping a divinity, and we don't" or something similar. But general refusal to analyse the meaning of it, and that they fit the bill in itself shows their religiosity and binding to the faith that "we are not religious". I think this is the definition of being "religious".

Another phenomenon of this level of dogmatic religiosity is the blind denial of facts when trying to blame religion for all the violence in the world forever. I have noticed that scholars who are also atheists dont do this because obviously they are more aware and I honestly have found them to extremely pragmatic and not so dogmatic. Yet, I am speaking about scholars, not evangelists and apologists that atheists seem to follow more.

Of course I expect some ad hominem and character assassination attempts even in this thread which is almost a norm. But in this matter, most atheists in this forum are pretty nice people. Yet at least one or two posts could be seen trying to attack the character of the person rather than analyse the point made in the OP. Thats ad hominem, and shows the character of the person doing it, not the other way around. One of my favourite sayings in the New Testament comes to mind: "Why do you look at the thimble in my eye when you have a plank in yours".

Anyway, this post was made as a general one and I can plead you not to get offended but try and make an analysis of what was said and provide your insight. I will truly appreciate it.

I think I get it: you see atheism as a default position.

This is why you interpret criticism of a religion as arguments in favour of atheism.

Interesting.

 

[firedragon]

I think I get it: you see atheism as a default position.

This is why you interpret criticism of a religion as arguments in favour of atheism.

Interesting.

Nope.

I think you are interpreting criticism of a group of atheists who behave this way as an attack on atheism as a whole, and of course launch a counter attack on the person making that criticism which is an analysis of his character but not the arguments put forth in the writing.

Many many atheists in this thread have executed the same strategy, just like you are attempting to do right now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope.

I think you are interpreting criticism of a group of atheists who behave this way as an attack on atheism as a whole, and of course launch a counter attack on the person making that criticism which is an analysis of his character but not the arguments put forth in the writing.

Many many atheists in this thread have executed the same strategy, just like you are attempting to do right now.

No attack, just trying to reconcile your description of disagreeing with religious claims as "evangelism" for atheism.

 

[firedragon]

No attack, just trying to reconcile your description of disagreeing with religious claims as "evangelism" for atheism.

You are misrepresenting me. And you have not read the OP it looks like.

Very very very few atheists have honestly attempted to address the OP. Why not attempt it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are misrepresenting me. And you have not read the OP it looks like.

Very very very few atheists have honestly attempted to address the OP. Why not attempt it?

We're doing our best. Your OP is pretty rambling. It's hard to take a coherent point from it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope.

I think you are interpreting criticism of a group of atheists who behave this way as an attack on atheism as a whole, and of course launch a counter attack on the person making that criticism which is an analysis of his character but not the arguments put forth in the writing.

Many many atheists in this thread have executed the same strategy, just like you are attempting to do right now.

So let me be honest. I am an atheist and I for at time tried not to be that, because some non-religious people can be as dogmatic as some religious people are that. But I figured out, that I am an atheist, albeit I am a friendly one. I see no fundamentally difference in being religious or not. What matters to me(my opinion) is the acceptance of diversity and that has nothing to do with religion or the lack of it in the end.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We're doing our best. Your OP is pretty rambling. It's hard to take a coherent point from it.

I can do it, because I can do rambling myself.
Some non-religious humans are as in the end dogmatic as some religious humans are that. And when you phrase that in regards to being an atheist, some atheists "circle the wagon" and start defending their "tribe".
Now the joke is this and it has nothing to do with atheism as such. Some non-religious people believe that they can do all of the world as rational as with reason, logic and evidence. They can't. Nobody can, but you are not allowed to point that out when they don't use reason, logic and evidence, because that is in effect their religion.

And now we can "fight" over what religion is. And the joke is that there is no one correct answer with reason, logic and evidence. It is in effect always in part a result of nature and nurture and non-religious are also subject to that. That includes me and we are in effect playing cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective relativism for a part of the world. Namely what matters.

 

[firedragon]

So let me be honest. I am an atheist and I for at time tried not to be that, because some non-religious people can be as dogmatic as some religious people are that. But I figured out, that I am an atheist, albeit I am a friendly one. I see no fundamentally difference in being religious or not. What matters to me(my opinion) is the acceptance of diversity and that has nothing to do with religion or the lack of it in the end.

Regards
Mikkel

Mikkel. I am not very good at remembering who people are. I mean in this forum. So maybe tomorrow I might not recognise your avatar or your name.

I dont know who you are. I dont know you are an atheist. But I recognise what you said as absolutely true.

The issue I have with some atheists is explained in the OP and these are my true sentiments. It is clearly evident that some atheists, though they claim to be scientific, reasoning, evidence seeking, fact checking individuals, many of them are absolutely not. Just read through this same thread. How have many people responded? Many of them are eternally trying to find a hypocrisy in the person who wrote the OP, rather than addressing the points. This is a cheap logical fallacy. How many even addressed one or two points in the OP?

Everybody is the same. The world has a scale, and it goes up and down through time. No one should drown in their bogus superiority complex, and I must say that some of the atheists are drowning in it.

Lets say a theist has this ever evangelising attitude. Some theists believe that if he converts someone to his particular theology he will be highly rewarded by his God. So he has a gain. He has an investment. What do atheists believe? Nothing. Then why do they have to be so arrogant and delve in a superiority complex? Why do they have to feel everything is about an attack on atheism and get on the defence mode like its his theology that's being attacked? Whats the investment he has in it? There is nothing. But he/she will still have the very same sentiments. Sometimes even more tribalistically inclined, reducing and insulting than anyone else I have seen gathering around someone like a group of brethren of a deadly tribe. You attack one of "US", I will also group up and attack you. Why this attitude?

This is because a theology and atheism are both identity statements. It is not just a belief alone. That is why 18% of the atheists in the U.S have been shown to be theists really. How could a theist be an atheist? Its the definition of an oxymoron. But I dont see anything wrong in it. This is how human nature works.

These threads are not open to attack anyone. But it is an excellent learning opportunity. And once in a while, someone drops a theory bomb, that can be a fantastic hypothesis to start a quantification.

Thats the whole point. Thanks for engaging. I respect your post, that's why I said so much.

 

[firedragon]

We're doing our best. Your OP is pretty rambling. It's hard to take a coherent point from it.

Lol. You said "WE". You speak for everyone?

You are dreaming mate. Tribal.

 

[McBell]

Lol. You said "WE". You speak for everyone?

You are dreaming mate. Tribal.

This post makes it appear that you are not looking for honest discussion.
You are merely twisting everything around to fit your narrative.

 

[firedragon]

This post makes it appear that you are not looking for honest discussion.
You are merely twisting everything around to fit your narrative.

This post makes it appear that you are not looking for honest discussion.
You are merely twisting everything around to fit your narrative.