I would like to vent over my experiences with Atheists who are apologetic and/or lukewarm

Dogma Hater
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
I would like to vent over my experiences with Atheists who are apologetic and/or lukewarm

I am sick of Atheists saying things to me such as "Those who proselytize Atheism are just as annoying as those who proselytize Theism" and "The lack of a belief is a silly thing to base a movement on [WTF:  A neighborhood watch is comprised of citizens who merely lack a willingness to tolerate crime in their neighborhood, yet they organize nonetheless]" and "I see not reason to spread Atheism, and content with the status quo wherein we all have our own respective views."

To be fair, most of these individuals do level moderate criticism at the spreaders of nonsense, evangelical theists, but direct extreme vitriol at the spreaders of sense, such as Dawkins, Denett, Stenger, Mills, and people like Brian Sapient.  It blows my mind that they seemingly are more up in arms over the spreading of sense than they are over the spreading of nonsense.  

I think that this attitude amongst these Atheists is rooted in one or more of apathy, laziness, self-loathing, over-socialization (in the sense of being conditioned to such an extreme that one will go to great lengths not to offend others), and a general lemming/herd mentality.  I think that self-loathing and over-socialization are the main elements for many, but I have met a few Atheists who simply object to the spreading of Atheism due to a combination of apathy and laziness.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:"Those who

Dogma Hater wrote:

"Those who proselytize Atheism are just as annoying as those who proselytize Theism"

Yeah, teachers are annoying too, how dare they shove their beliefs down our throats!

Theists aren't annoying because they want us to believe what they believe, they're annoying because they don't have proof for the claims they make, thusly treating us as if we're stupid by wanting us to believe things that logical people should avoid.

 

Quote:
The lack of a belief is a silly thing to base a movement

Not when people who do have belief are destroying the planet as the prepare humanity for an untimely end.

 

Quote:
I think that this attitude amongst these Atheists is rooted in one or more of apathy, laziness, self-loathing, over-socialization (in the sense of being conditioned to such an extreme that one will go to great lengths not to offend others), and a general lemming/herd mentality.  I think that self-loathing and over-socialization are the main elements for many, but I have met a few Atheists who simply object to the spreading of Atheism due to a combination of apathy and laziness.

You're on the right track, for damn sure.  I think many atheists have been convinced almost subliminally by theists to shut up and sit down. The atheists that have fallen for that routine, the atheists that believe we need to be quiet, I look at them the same way I view the theist: duped, misled, and ignorant.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:I am sick

Dogma Hater wrote:

I am sick of Atheists saying things to me such as "Those who proselytize Atheism are just as annoying as those who proselytize Theism" and "The lack of a belief is a silly thing to base a movement on [WTF:  A neighborhood watch is comprised of citizens who merely lack a willingness to tolerate crime in their neighborhood, yet they organize nonetheless]" and "I see not reason to spread Atheism, and content with the status quo wherein we all have our own respective views."

To be fair, most of these individuals do level moderate criticism at the spreaders of nonsense, evangelical theists, but direct extreme vitriol at the spreaders of sense, such as Dawkins, Denett, Stenger, Mills, and people like Brian Sapient.  It blows my mind that they seemingly are more up in arms over the spreading of sense than they are over the spreading of nonsense.  

I think that this attitude amongst these Atheists is rooted in one or more of apathy, laziness, self-loathing, over-socialization (in the sense of being conditioned to such an extreme that one will go to great lengths not to offend others), and a general lemming/herd mentality.  I think that self-loathing and over-socialization are the main elements for many, but I have met a few Atheists who simply object to the spreading of Atheism due to a combination of apathy and laziness.

So unless they become a lemming and follow you and do things the way you do, they will be Uncle Toms because you think they are being the good house niggers? Aren't you asking them to be a lemming by saying if they don't approach religious issues the way you do, they are not good atheists?

I have had this issue out with BOTH camps. The library types and the verbal brawlers, like me. There is NO one right way to approach this issue. YOU seem to miss the point they do. TIME, PLACE AND CONTEXT. Instead you both make it "us vs them" in a fallacious "either/or " battle when BOTH tactics are useful.

Atheists have too much to tackle within our own label to fight over what tactic should be used, rather the answer is

BOTH are valid and needed. I don;t think you give the other side enough credit, they ARE dealing with this issue and they are speaking out, but it pisses me off when both sides accuse the other of being unproductive or counter productive.

I doubt you know what the atheist voice was treated like in 01. I think many in both camps forget how far we have come and in my experience I have seen effective use of both the library types and those more like you and me. Give them credit, they ARE doing more than you think. Your only criticism should be, of them, the same one I have of your attitude in this post. YOU are not wrong, but neither are they.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Dogma Hater
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Dogma Hater

Brian37 wrote:

Dogma Hater wrote:

I am sick of Atheists saying things to me such as "Those who proselytize Atheism are just as annoying as those who proselytize Theism" and "The lack of a belief is a silly thing to base a movement on [WTF:  A neighborhood watch is comprised of citizens who merely lack a willingness to tolerate crime in their neighborhood, yet they organize nonetheless]" and "I see not reason to spread Atheism, and content with the status quo wherein we all have our own respective views."

To be fair, most of these individuals do level moderate criticism at the spreaders of nonsense, evangelical theists, but direct extreme vitriol at the spreaders of sense, such as Dawkins, Denett, Stenger, Mills, and people like Brian Sapient.  It blows my mind that they seemingly are more up in arms over the spreading of sense than they are over the spreading of nonsense.  

I think that this attitude amongst these Atheists is rooted in one or more of apathy, laziness, self-loathing, over-socialization (in the sense of being conditioned to such an extreme that one will go to great lengths not to offend others), and a general lemming/herd mentality.  I think that self-loathing and over-socialization are the main elements for many, but I have met a few Atheists who simply object to the spreading of Atheism due to a combination of apathy and laziness.

So unless they become a lemming and follow you and do things the way you do, they will be Uncle Toms because you think they are being the good house niggers? Aren't you asking them to be a lemming by saying if they don't approach religious issues the way you do, they are not good atheists?

I have had this issue out with BOTH camps. The library types and the verbal brawlers, like me. There is NO one right way to approach this issue. YOU seem to miss the point they do. TIME, PLACE AND CONTEXT. Instead you both make it "us vs them" in a fallacious "either/or " battle when BOTH tactics are useful.

Atheists have too much to tackle within our own label to fight over what tactic should be used, rather the answer is

BOTH are valid and needed. I don;t think you give the other side enough credit, they ARE dealing with this issue and they are speaking out, but it pisses me off when both sides accuse the other of being unproductive or counter productive.

I doubt you know what the atheist voice was treated like in 01. I think many in both camps forget how far we have come and in my experience I have seen effective use of both the library types and those more like you and me. Give them credit, they ARE doing more than you think. Your only criticism should be, of them, the same one I have of your attitude in this post. YOU are not wrong, but neither are they.

I certainly am not saying that they should stop doing things the way that they are doing them and follow us.  What I am saying is that some individuals among them should stop ridiculing us for doing things our way.  I agree with you, we do need to have Atheists participating in both strategies, and that is my my very point:  some people on the other side should stop cutting us down for being unapologetic.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Let me add, I DO agree with

Let me add, I DO agree with the tactics of Dawkins and Hitchens, BUT I also disagree with any theist or atheist who would advocate censorship as way to force people to get along.  THERE ARE atheists who would say "don't pick on theists". But there are also theists who have that PC attitude too who would say, 'Don't pick on atheists".

To clarify, do not confuse politically correct people(who can be believers or atheists) with "library types". There are "library type" atheists who speak out who are more comfortable in library debate setting where the words are not explosive, but discussive. These people are not always politically correct.

Infidel Guy takes a "library" approach, but is hardly politically correct. Bob Spense, on this site, is also more of a "library" type, but also hardly politically correct. These people chew their food, which is fine. I however, inhale my food. Neither is wrong.

If you want to attack censorship or political correctness, I am with you. But believers can also promote censorship and political correctness too. But don't discount an atheist who takes a more subtle approach, those people are needed too and ARE not always politically correct. Some people use fanesse as a tactic and some people use bluntness as an approach. I think time and place and context is the key, not one size fits all.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:Brian37

Dogma Hater wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Dogma Hater wrote:

I am sick of Atheists saying things to me such as "Those who proselytize Atheism are just as annoying as those who proselytize Theism" and "The lack of a belief is a silly thing to base a movement on [WTF:  A neighborhood watch is comprised of citizens who merely lack a willingness to tolerate crime in their neighborhood, yet they organize nonetheless]" and "I see not reason to spread Atheism, and content with the status quo wherein we all have our own respective views."

To be fair, most of these individuals do level moderate criticism at the spreaders of nonsense, evangelical theists, but direct extreme vitriol at the spreaders of sense, such as Dawkins, Denett, Stenger, Mills, and people like Brian Sapient.  It blows my mind that they seemingly are more up in arms over the spreading of sense than they are over the spreading of nonsense.  

I think that this attitude amongst these Atheists is rooted in one or more of apathy, laziness, self-loathing, over-socialization (in the sense of being conditioned to such an extreme that one will go to great lengths not to offend others), and a general lemming/herd mentality.  I think that self-loathing and over-socialization are the main elements for many, but I have met a few Atheists who simply object to the spreading of Atheism due to a combination of apathy and laziness.

So unless they become a lemming and follow you and do things the way you do, they will be Uncle Toms because you think they are being the good house niggers? Aren't you asking them to be a lemming by saying if they don't approach religious issues the way you do, they are not good atheists?

I have had this issue out with BOTH camps. The library types and the verbal brawlers, like me. There is NO one right way to approach this issue. YOU seem to miss the point they do. TIME, PLACE AND CONTEXT. Instead you both make it "us vs them" in a fallacious "either/or " battle when BOTH tactics are useful.

Atheists have too much to tackle within our own label to fight over what tactic should be used, rather the answer is

BOTH are valid and needed. I don;t think you give the other side enough credit, they ARE dealing with this issue and they are speaking out, but it pisses me off when both sides accuse the other of being unproductive or counter productive.

I doubt you know what the atheist voice was treated like in 01. I think many in both camps forget how far we have come and in my experience I have seen effective use of both the library types and those more like you and me. Give them credit, they ARE doing more than you think. Your only criticism should be, of them, the same one I have of your attitude in this post. YOU are not wrong, but neither are they.

I certainly am not saying that they should stop doing things the way that they are doing them and follow us.  What I am saying is that some individuals among them should stop ridiculing us for doing things our way.  I agree with you, we do need to have Atheists participating in both strategies, and that is my my very point:  some people on the other side should stop cutting us down for being unapologetic.

Ok, I got you now. But the amount of Caps in the OP came across as you wanting to "make them lock step" which is what PC people do, atheist or believer. Right, I agree, it is stupid to ask us to apologize when we are not the ones making absurd claims. That would be the same as the Church at the time telling Galileo, "look, we understand you have this "claim" but if you insist on spouting that the earth is flat we will put you under house arrest."

They certainly CAN do things the way they wish, but no, I will not apologize for calling a duck a duck and a myth a myth.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:To be

Dogma Hater wrote:

To be fair, most of these individuals do level moderate criticism at the spreaders of nonsense, evangelical theists, but direct extreme vitriol at the spreaders of sense, such as Dawkins, Denett, Stenger, Mills, and people like Brian Sapient.  It blows my mind that they seemingly are more up in arms over the spreading of sense than they are over the spreading of nonsense. 

 

As somebody that would probably fit into the category of the OP, I say that I advocate the spreading of reason and science.

 

My issue is when atheists don't use it. I am just as contempt or even more so when an atheist uses faulty logic/science than when a Theist does, considering most atheists groups [including this one] say that atheists are the rational ones with science on our side, I think we should keep it that way.

 

So when atheist activists disgard the scientific method when making claims, I see no reason to not call them out on it. I don't really see how doing that is apologetic or lukewarm.

 

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Awesome post DH. I agree

Awesome post DH. I agree completely.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  I'm probably the only

  I'm probably the only atheist on this forum ( to my knowledge ) who really has no desire to become an atheist activist, militant atheist, etc.     My lack of belief is strictly a personal issue and I really don't care to involve myself in the lives of others for the benefit of any cause..   I care little if a person is a theist or an atheist.  My only concern is whether they treat me with a modicum of civility. 

  I sort peoples worth, not based upon their belief system, but on whether they treat me with kindness, respect....

 

 

    I do recognize that there are legal issues that are worthy of our collective attention and I support political participation by atheists but I have no aspirations of becoming an atheist Che Guevara.  

 

 

  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
No balls, no glory...

No balls, no glory...


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
OP: It depends on how you do

OP: It depends on how you do it.  I prefer a more measured attitude because I don't think atheists are any more rational than theists just because they reject God.  I know too many atheists who are just angry children, and telling them they have an obligation to antagonize and debate theists at every turn does not help our reputation or help spread our 'message'.  Often it just makes us look like jerks, and communicating in that way is not always the best platform to spread an idea.

I think one of the great things about atheism is it frees us from any obligation to shout our 'faith' from the rooftops.  Some people don't want anything but mutual understanding between theists and non-theists.  Not every atheist thinks theism is evil simply because it exists and wants it to be destroyed.  Personally, I think you can seperate religion from dogma and have something that is fairly non-offensive to reason, like Deism.  I would be perfectly happy living in a world where religion existed, but fundamentalism was eliminated.

 

Having said that, I think there is a place for militant atheism...it is necessary and indeed even crucial.  But it is not the only option, or always the correct one. (I'm not saying that was your message)

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:No balls, no

Watcher wrote:

No balls, no glory...

   When I was in my late twenties and early thirties I was very anti-government.  I was very politically active especially regarding issues that involved self-defense and personal liberty.  In a case of last resort it was during that time that I began to cache weapons and ammo ( over 11,000 rounds of armor piercing rounds for my assault rifle as within effective range they would defeat bullet proof vests, I had an AN-M8HC white smoke grenade, Israeli made gas masks, appropriate web gear, manuals regarding MOUT tactics, etc.

  My like-minded friends thought of scenarios in which we could at least have a chance of seriously mauling the police based upon their predictable responses, etc.  We were very vigilant, very angry and very idealistic.   

  Glory was never a motivating factor.

 

 Being that I am much older and slightly wiser I have since abandoned the philosophy of radicalism. The thought of being a  martyr has lost it's appeal.  At this point I am simply a dis-interested observer. 

( Btw, I still considered myself to be a Christian during this period of radicalism...)

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:I am sick

Dogma Hater wrote:

I am sick of Atheists saying things to me such as "Those who proselytize Atheism are just as annoying as those who proselytize Theism"

One of my favourite comebacks to this -- though it only works face-to-face or in audio conversation (phone, Skype, etc.); internet forums are too slow for the quick back-and-forth required to explore this idea -- is that the person who says this is speaking out, expressing their opinion, with the intent of changing people's minds (specifically mine). And so, the person is a hypocrite.

The conversation usually goes like this:

Them: You atheists are just trying to change people's minds, just like evangelicals. You can't change people's minds. It doesn't work. I wish you all would stop. It's so annoying.

Me: Why are you telling me this?

Them: It's annoying.

Me: Yes, but *why* are you telling *me* this?

Them: I'm just saying what's on my mind.

Me: Why?

Them: I don't know, that's just what I do.

Me: Why this though? You complained about atheists and evangelicals. Why not talk about the weather, or what you did on the weekend?

Them: ???

Me: I'll tell you why, since you can't seem to figure it out. You're telling me because you want me to change my mind. You want me to stop speaking out the way I do.

Them: ???

Me: Don't you get it?! You complain about people trying to change other people's minds, while simultaneously trying to change someone's mind. You're a hypocrite. Not only that, you are wrong. People *can* change other people's minds. It does work. If it didn't work, you wouldn't be trying to do it to me right now. You would have talked about the weather or something. But instead you are trying to convince me that 'trying to change people's minds' is a bad idea and I should stop.

Them: No! I'm just saying what's on my mind!

Me: *thinking* These go to eleven!

Quote:
"I see not reason to spread Atheism, and content with the status quo wherein we all have our own respective views."

Again, the hypocrisy! My response is usually:

Me: Well *my* view is that there is such a thing as truth, and it is possible for people to be right or wrong. And you should respect my view, if you think everyone should respect everyone's views. Hypocrite. You're wrong, by the way.

Quote:
It blows my mind that they seemingly are more up in arms over the spreading of sense than they are over the spreading of nonsense.  

I think that this attitude amongst these Atheists is rooted in one or more of apathy, laziness, self-loathing, over-socialization (in the sense of being conditioned to such an extreme that one will go to great lengths not to offend others), and a general lemming/herd mentality.  I think that self-loathing and over-socialization are the main elements for many, but I have met a few Atheists who simply object to the spreading of Atheism due to a combination of apathy and laziness.

Good analysis. I like your take on the self-loathing. It's so true. I can almost understand their point of view. Here's what I think happened, based on my experiences with the same ideas:

When I was about 10 or 11, when I was first working out my take on objective truth, I wrestled with these problems, thinking, "Maybe there's no objective truth. Maybe we can't really know anything. Maybe we all have our own perspectives and they are equally valid. That would sure help everyone get along, wouldn't it! Hmm. Maybe that's just the way it is."

And that's where these people stopped. They just couldn't imagine that there's an answer to this conundrum. They got lazy and quit searching. All they care about is avoiding conflict and arguments and differing opinions. They want everyone to get along, no matter what compromises have to be made.

It's this quitting attitude, the sense that, "Well, I'm never going to find truth, so I guess no one can," that I think is accurately described by your 'self-loathing' idea. "The world is just too confusing and unintelligible to even bother trying to learn anything." Or, to put it another way, "I suck so bad, that the only way I can salvage any self-esteem is to assume that everyone else sucks just as much as I do. Intelligence means nothing. Intelligent people are 'nerds' and need to be derided, to protect my shallow ego. I must bring everyone else down to my lowly level."

I almost got stuck thinking in this defeatist way. Just for a month or so, I think.

But I took an extra step beyond, thinking, "But. But. It just doesn't seem right. It seems like there *is* some sort of truth to discover. It seems like there is a single reality that we all share, even if we happen to have different understandings and perspectives on it. If I have a party and tell my friends where I live, and they show up at my door on the right day at the right time, how could they have done that unless my house is in the same world that all of my friends (and myself too) live in? If we all had our own little realities, there would be nothing to connect us all together, and no way they could all show up at the right time and place."

For a while I got sidetracked with nihilism and solipsism, thinking, "Unless, this is all a vast illusion, and even my friends, my house, my party, or even myself aren't real. Or maybe I'm the only real thing and I'm just imagining my friends, house, and party."

And that's where lots of people get stuck also, namely so-called nihilists (who aren't really, they just think they are), post-modernists, existentialists, etc.

It usually takes a bit of experience with science to get past this hump. Once you realize that our ideas about reality can accurately represent the shared reality, and that other minds can know things that you yourself do not know, then it becomes absolutely clear that the world is just as it first appeared to us as children: Real, objective, understandable, shared, amazing.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Dogma Hater
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Watcher wrote:

No balls, no glory...

   When I was in my late twenties and early thirties I was very anti-government.  I was very politically active especially regarding issues that involved self-defense and personal liberty.  In a case of last resort it was during that time that I began to cache weapons and ammo ( over 11,000 rounds of armor piercing rounds for my assault rifle as within effective range they would defeat bullet proof vests, I had an AN-M8HC white smoke grenade, Israeli made gas masks, appropriate web gear, manuals regarding MOUT tactics, etc.

  My like-minded friends thought of scenarios in which we could at least have a chance of seriously mauling the police based upon their predictable responses, etc.  We were very vigilant, very angry and very idealistic.   

  Glory was never a motivating factor.

 

 Being that I am much older and slightly wiser I have since abandoned the philosophy of radicalism. The thought of being a  martyr has lost it's appeal.  At this point I am simply a dis-interested observer. 

( Btw, I still considered myself to be a Christian during this period of radicalism...)

I own a FAL and a Saiga-12, and they are fun to target shoot with.  I don't have quite what you had in mind, but for all I know, they could come in handy if the economy signficantly worsens. 

Did you buy the 11,000 AP rounds several years ago (I suppose you did if you are well past your early thirties)?  After Bush the Moron's idiotic fundy-inspired wars, the price of cartridges has increased significantly.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:To be


Dogma Hater wrote:
To be fair, most of these individuals do level moderate criticism at the spreaders of nonsense, evangelical theists, but direct extreme vitriol at the spreaders of sense, such as Dawkins, Denett, Stenger, Mills, and people like Brian Sapient.  It blows my mind that they seemingly are more up in arms over the spreading of sense than they are over the spreading of nonsense.  

To many theists, atheism is nonsensical, and any attempt to dissuade one from being a theists is spreading nonsense.

Dogma Hater wrote:
I think that this attitude amongst these Atheists is rooted in one or more of apathy, laziness, self-loathing, over-socialization (in the sense of being conditioned to such an extreme that one will go to great lengths not to offend others), and a general lemming/herd mentality.  I think that self-loathing and over-socialization are the main elements for many, but I have met a few Atheists who simply object to the spreading of Atheism due to a combination of apathy and laziness.

I suppose I'm lazy and loathing. I just like to chat about ideas. If I'm an evangelist for anything, it is open source software such as Linux and Firefox. I've converted many of Safari and IE users to the the browser that transcends them all....


 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Dogma

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Dogma Hater wrote:

To be fair, most of these individuals do level moderate criticism at the spreaders of nonsense, evangelical theists, but direct extreme vitriol at the spreaders of sense, such as Dawkins, Denett, Stenger, Mills, and people like Brian Sapient.  It blows my mind that they seemingly are more up in arms over the spreading of sense than they are over the spreading of nonsense. 

 

As somebody that would probably fit into the category of the OP, I say that I advocate the spreading of reason and science.

 

My issue is when atheists don't use it. I am just as contempt or even more so when an atheist uses faulty logic/science than when a Theist does, considering most atheists groups [including this one] say that atheists are the rational ones with science on our side, I think we should keep it that way.

 

So when atheist activists disgard the scientific method when making claims, I see no reason to not call them out on it. I don't really see how doing that is apologetic or lukewarm.

  

Yea, this coming from a person who postulated  a "giant consciousness" then back pedaling to "like a computer program". Yea, we don't use logic, but you do. What happened to the "epiphany" you supposedly had? I thought Hambi got to you. Maybe I am misunderstanding your post?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Maybe I am

Brian37 wrote:
Maybe I am misunderstanding your post?

You are.

She's just saying that she criticizes anyone who makes illogical or unscientific claims, not just theists.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Great post for sure. Don't

Great post for sure. Don't forget that our country has become so obsessed with political correctness that you can't say a damned thing to anybody without the fear of offending them somehow.  I think that may be part of the reason that people are apprehensive to be more aggressive. I for one, am one of the most politically incorrect people I've ever come across, only because I think being so "nice" is fake for one, and detrimental to society as a whole. I blast people every single day about their ridiculous beliefs and I don't think twice about it, nor do I feel any kind of remorse. They went through hundreds of years of literally killing people, so I'll just kill them with words. Two days ago I was told that I was," As dogmatic and narrow minded as and evangelical." I was slightly pissed at first, and then I realized, it was more of a compliment, I'll take it. Narrow minded, not so much, but I will tell you what's what without hesitation.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I just ridicule things that I feel are deserving of it.

 

I don't care if I convert theists, but I have noticed it has caused others to question beliefs they don't think about. Especially ones watching. Usually the kind of person I argue against will just dig in and sound increasingly ignorant as they parrot talking points they have heard that seem to always have glaring holes in them. I joke about the holes there, and the unsoundness of their arguments, and then they usually get into a frothy rage and people back away from them.

 

 

 

Like being approached by people at school demanding I give them money to support an anti-choice "clinic" (building near an abortion clinic and funds so they can organize and protest outside it daily with signs, and usually harass people that try to go in).

 

I asked them "So you think abortion should be illegal?" and they said "Yes. It is wrong and murder!" Then I asked them what the punishment should be. Blank empty stares. Then I explained the question informing them that if it is illegal there has to be a punishment. Still blank empty stares. I suggested then, "Well, you said it is murder right? So..death penalty? Life in prison? For the women that had the abortion, and the doctors?" Finally, "Well I didn't think that far ahead." (Because the direct result of your actions is too far ahead)

 

Right after this exchange a woman in her 40s came over and with righteousness asked me why I was "harassing" the guy that came up to me to demand money when I was minding my own business. I ended up asking her the same questions, and she said "YES. DEATH PENALTY. ABSOLUTELY. FOR EVERYONE THAT HELPED MURDER THOSE BABIES." Then I look at her "pro-life" button and say, "Well at least you are consistent."  

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Dogma Hater wrote:
I am sick of Atheists saying things to me such as "Those who proselytize Atheism are just as annoying as those who proselytize Theism" and "The lack of a belief is a silly thing to base a movement on [WTF:  A neighborhood watch is comprised of citizens who merely lack a willingness to tolerate crime in their neighborhood, yet they organize nonetheless]" and "I see not reason to spread Atheism, and content with the status quo wherein we all have our own respective views."

I do not know exactly what you are talking about but it does sound a bit like what some here have accused me of -- meaning some here agree with you.

As a physicist with decades of experience in middle management in the politicized world of Washingon DC my counsel is to win by attacking where the system is most vulnerable. That does not mean, I am an Atheist -- Hear me Roar!

A minority opinion does not set itself up as a target when the vast majority is interested in target practice. The minority opinion picks its targets and kills them until there are none left to disagree.

And I have tried it on usenet back in the mid-90s. You can argue down all comers and feel you are winning and then a new crowd appears with the same tired nonsense you worked so hard to quel and there they are with the ancient arguments and you start from scratch. talk.origins is where I learned that. Some participants started a FAQ. It never worked to keep; the newbies away.

My oldest newsgroup is soc.history.ancient where the bible thumpers are an annual plague and they are infesting it at the moment. Matt Giwer is my name. Read my posts. There is no way to win with these people and even if you do another crop of them will suddenly appear to save us from perdition a few months later.

The point is to win. The point is not to engage in an endless cycle of newbies. So there are both strategies and tactics to consider. One of the tactics that has earned me permanent bans and even here a temporary ban was treating Judaism as no better than Islam or Christianity for that matter.

[the link would serve as a derailment, removed by mod, it's in your sig, stop obsessing, you're annoying.]

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Interesting post. I think

Interesting post. I think something we need to admit is that as much as we love laughing at the infighting between theists of the same faith, there can be just as much fighting between atheists. I guess it's just human nature, but even in the smallish world as atheism, this forum looks down on that forum, these members don't speak to those members..and so on. United front people..

From a personal perspective, not everyone is cut out to be a militant atheist. As some here may remember, I was very active on this board in the past. However I went through some personal stuff(not atheist/theist related) and afterwards realised I no longer had the energy or desire to argue with theists everyday. For a long time I avoided anything that had to do with theism or atheism, as the smallest thing could make my blood boil, such as an article about atheist bus ads. (Not the first one around here that's experienced that I'm sure)

That said, I have never been apologetic about atheism. At the beginning of this year I lost my best friend to a religious debate, which I didn't start for the record. He stated his beliefs, I stated mine. Never did I insult him or his beliefs. He wanted an apology for what I had said, I refused to withdraw what I said. That was the end of that friendship.

 

Not sure if all that's on topic, but there it is.

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The point is to win. The point is not to engage in an endless cycle of newbies. So there are both strategies and tactics to consider. One of the tactics that has earned me permanent bans and even here a temporary ban was treating Judaism as no better than Islam or Christianity for that matter.

mod wrote:
[the link would serve as a derailment, removed by mod, it's in your sig, stop obsessing, you're annoying.]

QED

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Loc wrote:

Interesting post. I think something we need to admit is that as much as we love laughing at the infighting between theists of the same faith, there can be just as much fighting between atheists. I guess it's just human nature, but even in the smallish world as atheism, this forum looks down on that forum, these members don't speak to those members..and so on. United front people..

From a personal perspective, not everyone is cut out to be a militant atheist. As some here may remember, I was very active on this board in the past. However I went through some personal stuff(not atheist/theist related) and afterwards realised I no longer had the energy or desire to argue with theists everyday. For a long time I avoided anything that had to do with theism or atheism, as the smallest thing could make my blood boil, such as an article about atheist bus ads. (Not the first one around here that's experienced that I'm sure)

That said, I have never been apologetic about atheism. At the beginning of this year I lost my best friend to a religious debate, which I didn't start for the record. He stated his beliefs, I stated mine. Never did I insult him or his beliefs. He wanted an apology for what I had said, I refused to withdraw what I said. That was the end of that friendship.

 

Not sure if all that's on topic, but there it is.

 

 

This happens over many reasons.

 

I've broken off with someone I was dating before because he could not reconcile his beliefs with the relationship. He was catholic and even taught sunday school to a bunch of kids. The constant guilt, as well as blaming and forced depression on me, himself, and the relationship...made it incredibly unhealthy. It wasn't something I could live with on a daily basis. 

 

But a friendship? I disagree with friends on a number of things. I don't see how it can be terribly harmful though.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:I own a

Dogma Hater wrote:

I own a FAL and a Saiga-12, and they are fun to target shoot with.  I don't have quite what you had in mind, but for all I know, they could come in handy if the economy signficantly worsens. 

Did you buy the 11,000 AP rounds several years ago (I suppose you did if you are well past your early thirties)?  After Bush the Moron's idiotic fundy-inspired wars, the price of cartridges has increased significantly.

 

  My ammo hoarding period was during the latter part of the Bush Sr and Clinton presidential administrations so yes, ammo was much, much cheaper.  FAL's are cool.  I once owned a HK 91 and later a Springfield M1A w/18.5" factory barrel.   I like the Saiga 12's, especially the Saiga 12K.  Warsaw Pact weapons are typically ultra-reliable.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:Interesting post.

Loc wrote:

Interesting post. I think something we need to admit is that as much as we love laughing at the infighting between theists of the same faith, there can be just as much fighting between atheists. I guess it's just human nature, but even in the smallish world as atheism, this forum looks down on that forum, these members don't speak to those members..and so on. United front people..

From a personal perspective, not everyone is cut out to be a militant atheist. As some here may remember, I was very active on this board in the past. However I went through some personal stuff(not atheist/theist related) and afterwards realised I no longer had the energy or desire to argue with theists everyday. For a long time I avoided anything that had to do with theism or atheism, as the smallest thing could make my blood boil, such as an article about atheist bus ads. (Not the first one around here that's experienced that I'm sure)

That said, I have never been apologetic about atheism. At the beginning of this year I lost my best friend to a religious debate, which I didn't start for the record. He stated his beliefs, I stated mine. Never did I insult him or his beliefs. He wanted an apology for what I had said, I refused to withdraw what I said. That was the end of that friendship.

 

Not sure if all that's on topic, but there it is.

 

I believe your response is on topic: it speaks to your decision to not back down when confronted by your friend! Does that make you a 'militant atheist'? No, it makes you an atheist that refuses to cater to the religious sensibility of that friend. 

 

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
 Atheism is shared by a

 Atheism is shared by a group of people with varied personalities, attitudes, and knowledge. Some of these people, being outspoken and perhaps~loud~are bound to stand out in a crowd. These are the people that seem to stick in the minds of theists and atheists alike. In the eyes of many religious folk, atheists are ALL militant simply because we don't believe in their god. When it comes down to it, i believe that this 'militant atheism' is really just atheism where those with the louder voices take center stage and the religious label a group of people that make them question their beliefs.  

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


ksskidude
Superfan
ksskidude's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
I tend to agree.  If you

I tend to agree.  If you have ever been shouted at, or called evil or "walk with the devil," you want to argue back.  In 2006 I worked in MO and fought for stem cell research.  I had so many people tell me how I was evil and and godless, that I finally said enough was enough.  Now anytime anyone ever says anything to me about god, I will say< "i don't believe in god."  Or "I'm an atheist," and it literally stops them in their tracks.  Their not used to hearing it, and quite frankly, I rather enjoy making them uncomfortable.  I am no longer fearful of what they will say to me.  Its amazing what knowledge will do for someone.    Look we all are different, and we all will argue whatever way we see fit for that moment.  Just whatever you do, say whatever it is your going to say without calling them names or attacking them personally.  WE are better than that, and better than them!!


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ksskidude wrote:Now anytime

ksskidude wrote:

Now anytime anyone ever says anything to me about god, I will say< "i don't believe in god."  Or "I'm an atheist," and it literally stops them in their tracks...

 

That is true.  I had a guy selling CD's outside of a store ask me, "Do YOU love JESUS?!?" and when I said, "No." he just stood there with his mouth open, like it never occured to him that someone would actually give  negative answer.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3909
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I could reply to this, but

I could reply to this, but why bother? What's in it for me?

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The point is to win. The point is not to engage in an endless cycle of newbies. So there are both strategies and tactics to consider. One of the tactics that has earned me permanent bans and even here a temporary ban was treating Judaism as no better than Islam or Christianity for that matter.

mod wrote:
[the link would serve as a derailment, removed by mod, it's in your sig, stop obsessing, you're annoying.]

QED

Hey A_Nony_Mouse,

What country do you hail from by the way?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
I think there is an active

I think there is an active effort to convince atheists to "tone down" their rhetoric so they are less effective.  The so-called "atheist douchebag" strawman argument seems to be running rampant on other social sites like SomethingAwful, Fark and Reddit.  There appears to be a contingent of "quiet atheists" who frown upon more activist atheists.  Personally, I think these "quiet atheists" aren't atheists at all, but theists who pretend in order to quell contrary opinions.

I also think people like Ray Comfort and WOTM serve a similar purpose, by engaging some of the more activist members of the atheist community in totally pointless pursuits, so they can otherwise not direct their energy towards the main core of the church and religion. 

Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens seem to understand this and don't pay attention to either the creationist trolls or the people who suggest the only "good atheist" is a "quiet, respectful atheist."

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Pile wrote:Personally, I

Pile wrote:
Personally, I think these "quiet atheists" aren't atheists at all, but theists who pretend in order to quell contrary opinions.

There may be some theists who do this. However, there are absolutely real atheists who also try to shut down unapologetic atheists. Here's an example of someone I did not expect to join this bandwagon, namely Alonzo Fyfe: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-atheists-vs-appeasers.html

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Pile

natural wrote:

Pile wrote:
Personally, I think these "quiet atheists" aren't atheists at all, but theists who pretend in order to quell contrary opinions.

There may be some theists who do this. However, there are absolutely real atheists who also try to shut down unapologetic atheists. Here's an example of someone I did not expect to join this bandwagon, namely Alonzo Fyfe: [url]http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-atheists-vs-appeasers.html[/url]

 

I actually like the way atheist ethicist goes about. I mean come on, he just wrote a post rightfully blasting the Catholic Church, he's in no way hesitent to critisize Theism or Religion. I don't think he's trying to shut down critisisisms of Religion or Theism.

 

Hell, to go with the spirit of your comments there, post a quote of him saying that we shouldn't critisize Religion or Theism.

 

I actually like it when atheists address the arguments of other atheists.

 

I guess you can say he's ummm "unapologetic" about what he critisizes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I actually like the way atheist ethicist goes about. I mean come on, he just wrote a post rightfully blasting the Catholic Church, he's in no way hesitent to critisize Theism or Religion. I don't think he's trying to shut down critisisisms of Religion or Theism.

 

Hell, to go with the spirit of your comments there, post a quote of him saying that we shouldn't critisize Religion or Theism.

Okay, actually, you are right. I overstated his involvement. Actually, I think mostly I just wanted to link to another blog debate of mine . A better example would be the infamous Chris Mooney. Since I don't want to give him any link love, I'll link instead to Ophelia Benson, commenting on Mooney's book chapter about 'new atheists'

Quote:
I guess you can say he's ummm "unapologetic" about what he critisizes.

I agree, he is actually quite unapologetic, which is why I thought it very strange that he has effectively called a bunch of atheists bigots.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Cpt_pineapple

natural wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I actually like the way atheist ethicist goes about. I mean come on, he just wrote a post rightfully blasting the Catholic Church, he's in no way hesitent to critisize Theism or Religion. I don't think he's trying to shut down critisisisms of Religion or Theism.

 

Hell, to go with the spirit of your comments there, post a quote of him saying that we shouldn't critisize Religion or Theism.

Okay, actually, you are right. I overstated his involvement. Actually, I think mostly I just wanted to link to another blog debate of mine . A better example would be the infamous Chris Mooney. Since I don't want to give him any link love, I'll link instead to Ophelia Benson, commenting on Mooney's book chapter about [url=http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2824]'new atheists'[/url]. 

Quote:
I guess you can say he's ummm "unapologetic" about what he critisizes.

I agree, he is actually quite unapologetic, which is why I thought it very strange that he has effectively called a bunch of atheists bigots.

 

I never heard of or read anything by Chris Mooney.

 

But my concern is when atheists won't call another one out on something because they might get ragged on by other atheists.

 

 

 

 


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:TIME, PLACE

Brian37 wrote:

TIME, PLACE AND CONTEXT.

Holy shit, give the man a hand! That is about as precise as anyone can formulate the position of a reasonable person. I like you, Brian37. Except for that nigger part, I don't want to be associated with people who say the nigger word.

Instead of diving into discussion about absurdity of some position, it is pretty essential to figure out what is really going on on the stage and then make a decision on what it is you want to do about it. Sometimes you can find a reasonable theist to ally with and beat the verbal crap out of the loony in the room. Sometimes the discussion will only apparently be about religion, when in fact it is a power struggle on a different level altogether - which means you need to approach the situation from that angle. Taking the religious pretense seriously in a situation like this is fatal for your chances to influence the situation, no matter how good your argument is.

Lemme give you a quick example: if you step into a jewish community and challenge their rabbi on the 6k year old earth theory, you are not challenging their "absurd beliefs", but their entire social structure. This man teaches their kids, gives advice to families and makes their social structure "spiritually official". They can all perfectly well be aware of the fact that earth is a billions years old, in fact many are scientists themselves, but the social cohesion matters more than stating the obvious. In fact, the sheer truth that a crazy position like the one rabbi is sporting can defy even the "ruthless modern capitalist society" or the "onslaught of nihilism" or whatever their secret fear is is just FUCKING GREAT in their eyes - rock on, rabbi!

Arguing with him on trivialities that in the mind of community have no relevance whatsoever or are even positive is the equivalent of trying to stop a freight train with punches. I am not saying that you should get out of the way, but you DO want to look for a break lever or a turning operatus somewhere further down the tracks to slow it down or turn it in a direction you want it to go. I prefere the last one myself - why stop a freight train when you can knock down a prison wall with it?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Dogma Hater
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Has anyone noticed a

Has anyone noticed a correlation between these sorts of Atheists and the profession of the Historical Jesus (HJ) position [e.g., "Though I am an Atheist, I consider it obvious, just as all right-thinking people do, that Jesus of Nazareth really lived."]?


 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:Has anyone

Dogma Hater wrote:

Has anyone noticed a correlation between these sorts of Atheists and the profession of the Historical Jesus (HJ) position?

 

Yes.

 

Maybe we should refer to pussy footed atheism as faith based atheism from now on?

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Dogma Hater

Sapient wrote:

Dogma Hater wrote:

Has anyone noticed a correlation between these sorts of Atheists and the profession of the Historical Jesus (HJ) position?

Yes.

Maybe we should refer to pussy footed atheism as faith based atheism from now on?

Who cares if Jesus of Whatever ever lived? "Unapologetic atheists" miss the elephant in the room every time one is there, and most of the time one IS there. Some contexts are just not about the religion-atheism discussion. You don't go to a football match and start discussing with the dancing mascot that there is JUST NO WAY a chicken can be that big. In the best case you will get pushed off the court by angry cheerleaders, with whom I am sure you would like to discuss how degrading to women their role in the spectacle is. You know that that is not what it's about, the mascot is just there to promote unity on the team, while the chearleaders are there to give them social credence and an ego-boost. You know perfectly well that you will not eliminate either of the practices by arguing with the mascot or the cheerleaders. What the hell makes you ignore context when it comes to religion?

Understand me correctly, I have no problem arguing against religious dogmatics or even physically disabling religious nutcases, if the situation is appropriate. If I was in the position to stop the guy who killed that doctor a couple of months ago, I would gladly have shot him myself and I am certain any believer in the ten commandments would have done everything in his power to achieve same effect. Obviously, conflict here is not the point. We're not at war with the whole religious community, we are basically being used by a third party for divide-and-conquer purposes. And we gladly oblige.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Dogma Hater
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
ZuS, demonstrating the truth

ZuS, demonstrating the truth of the MJ position, beyond a reasonable doubt, would be a tremendous blow to Christianity.  I dare say that this blow to Christianity would be larger than the blow delivered by Darwin, because, afterall, one can be a Theistic Evolutionist.  Indeed, there are many such individuals.

Explain how one could reconcile the MJ position with even the most lukewarm of Christian sects.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:Has anyone

Dogma Hater wrote:

Has anyone noticed a correlation between these sorts of Atheists and the profession of the Historical Jesus (HJ) position [e.g., "Though I am an Atheist, I consider it obvious, just as all right-thinking people do, that Jesus of Nazareth really lived."]?

 

 

 

I don't see what that has to do with it.

 

 

 

 


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater wrote:Explain

Dogma Hater wrote:

Explain how one could reconcile the MJ position with even the most lukewarm of Christian sects.

Like this: "Dude, stop bothering the mascot and the cheerleaders, get off the grass, or we'll get Bib Bob to escort you!"

 

You seriously think people you are trying to convince give a flying hoot about whether their faith is true or not? No, man, they care much more about you calling them imbecilles and threatening their social structure. They are not into debating with their own Priest, he is the shaman of choice for the given century for a bloody reason. And he's nowhere near the shaman from the past century, or the one before - they change to accomodate the community. Faith is not a top-down thing, it's bottom-up. Get it through your thick head that it's NOT about faith or religion at all, but power, control, resources, social order and cohesion, human relations and personal and family security. You want any hope of defeating anything, you better get strapped up to face off human nature.

Of course, you could also just drop the childish discussions and help us define a more humanistic shaman for the next century. Pat Robertsons of the world don't need any help from us antagonising the broader public.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Who cares if Jesus

ZuS wrote:

Who cares if Jesus of Whatever ever lived? "Unapologetic atheists" miss the elephant in the room every time one is there, and most of the time one IS there. Some contexts are just not about the religion-atheism discussion. You don't go to a football match and start discussing with the dancing mascot that there is JUST NO WAY a chicken can be that big. In the best case you will get pushed off the court by angry cheerleaders, with whom I am sure you would like to discuss how degrading to women their role in the spectacle is. You know that that is not what it's about, the mascot is just there to promote unity on the team, while the chearleaders are there to give them social credence and an ego-boost. You know perfectly well that you will not eliminate either of the practices by arguing with the mascot or the cheerleaders. What the hell makes you ignore context when it comes to religion?

Understand me correctly, I have no problem arguing against religious dogmatics or even physically disabling religious nutcases, if the situation is appropriate. If I was in the position to stop the guy who killed that doctor a couple of months ago, I would gladly have shot him myself and I am certain any believer in the ten commandments would have done everything in his power to achieve same effect. Obviously, conflict here is not the point. We're not at war with the whole religious community, we are basically being used by a third party for divide-and-conquer purposes. And we gladly oblige.

I think I agree with this.

Most people, even theists, don't really care about religion...they just want to be left alone and proceed with what their culture has made them comfortable with.  They are secular people living secular lives.  As long as those beliefs are not causing direct harm to others I really don't think we should care.  New atheism has a use because I think the message is accurate, but when it comes to actually getting things done I think trying to shove anti-religion down humanities collective throat is not productive.

 

I do think unapologetic atheism is useful for a) diminishing the power of religious institutions by pointing out the absurdity of applying theistic doctrine to modern life though, and being activists for that cause b) being proactive in fighting fundamentalism.

But when it comes to an average theist who goes to church six times a year and listens more to scientists, doctors, mental health professionals and the media than his preacher when he is pondering a moral issue I think the New Atheist attitude actually hurts us because all we are attacking is the culture of a person, not his core beliefs.  With those people you are better off pushing for an attitude of mutual respect so you don't push them into militancy.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.