What are we talking about when we say "vocal anti-theists"?
People who disagree with their faith in a way that they can't counter?
Upvote
0
What are we talking about when we say "vocal anti-theists"?
People who disagree with their faith in a way that they can't counter?
No.
People who are unnecessarily negative or antagonistic towards religious beliefs and/or practices.
That's a judgement call, though. And when the system being criticized has a long history of privilege combined with an institutionalized persecution complex, the call isn't straightforward at all.
Do you think that the very vocal anti-theist atheists, who always speak out against religion, call it a mental illness, say that all religious people are ignorant (or worse) and generally act like fundamentalist/radicals in their beliefs and views do a disservice to atheism in general?
Do they embarrass you? Do you think they are doing more harm than good?
Do you think they give atheists in general a bad name?
Why or why not?
No.
People who are unnecessarily negative or antagonistic towards religious beliefs and/or practices.
Do you think that the very vocal anti-theist atheists, who always speak out against religion, call it a mental illness, say that all religious people are ignorant (or worse) and generally act like fundamentalist/radicals in their beliefs and views do a disservice to atheism in general?
Do they embarrass you? Do you think they are doing more harm than good?
Do you think they give atheists in general a bad name?
Why or why not?
The part I get irritated with is when people just assume that these types of folks represent atheists or that all atheists are like that. Atheists don't have a central command (as nifty as that sounds lol) nor is there one atheist we all look up to.
Atheists don't have a central command (as nifty as that sounds lol) nor is there one atheist we all look up to.
You mean that there's no Atheist High Command on the Mother Ship? :o
eudaimonia,
Mark
You mean that there's no Atheist High Command on the Mother Ship? :o
eudaimonia,
Mark
You have to look at where this claim comes from. Someone who believes something on faith, has to constantly convince themselves they are correct, because there is little to no objective evidence to support their faith.
So, one way to feel better about your faith, is to claim even the people who claim not to believe in their faith, really do, so they actually agree with me, so my faith must be ok.
People who disagree with their faith in a way that they can't counter?
That's probably true. Though not all Christians are like that. Like when I was a Christian, I thought I had reason and evidence to believe... and I accepted that atheists didn't believe.
Would you be willing to expand on the difference between necessary negative/antagonistic behaviour and unnecessary negative/antagonistic behaviour (since this is the keyterm of your statement)?People who are unnecessarily negative or antagonistic towards religious beliefs and/or practices.
Would you be willing to expand on the difference between necessary negative/antagonistic behaviour and unnecessary negative/antagonistic behaviour (since this is the keyterm of your statement)?
Sometimes I am surprised that something helped to get a point across that I wouldn´t have expected to.I think it is all in the style of communication used. Some folks are insulting, when that isn't necessary to get their point across.
Yeah, sure, you have your lines, I have mine, everybody´s got theirs.It is a fine line and I have no problem when someone calls someone else out for misrepresenting, being evasive or playing games and am even fine with the occasional sarcastic joke if the other party is making things intentionally difficult. But, there is a line and it is difficult to define in absolutes, but both believers and non-believers will cross it every once in a while.
I think it is all in the style of communication used. Some folks are insulting, when that isn't necessary to get their point across.
It is a fine line and I have no problem when someone calls someone else out for misrepresenting, being evasive or playing games and am even fine with the occasional sarcastic joke if the other party is making things intentionally difficult. But, there is a line and it is difficult to define in absolutes, but both believers and non-believers will cross it every once in a while.
Would you be willing to expand on the difference between necessary negative/antagonistic behaviour and unnecessary negative/antagonistic behaviour (since this is the keyterm of your statement)?