Question for atheists

Chany said:

What are we talking about when we say "vocal anti-theists"?

Click to expand...

People who disagree with their faith in a way that they can't counter?

KCfromNC said:

People who disagree with their faith in a way that they can't counter?

Click to expand...

No.

People who are unnecessarily negative or antagonistic towards religious beliefs and/or practices.

Sayre said:

No.

People who are unnecessarily negative or antagonistic towards religious beliefs and/or practices.

Click to expand...

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.

KCfromNC said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sure - it's a judgment call, just as much as suggesting that Christians abusing their position of privilege is a judgment call. But both happens.

Strathos said:

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?

Click to expand...

I used to find them irksome and somewhat embarrassing, but not anymore. They are loud, yes, but the volume of their voices is barely proportional to the monstrously loud voices of religion which seek to have a say in all aspects of life. Many religious figures expect atheists to tip-toe quietly around their sacred cows. You are at liberty to not believe, so long as you are quiet about it. Vocal atheists say no to that. We will not allow the loud voices of religion to drown out our own.

Sayre said:

No.

People who are unnecessarily negative or antagonistic towards religious beliefs and/or practices.

Click to expand...

Since I happen to value truth I definitely include those who deny that any good has been done by religion or who try to blame religion for conflicts that are clearly geopolitical.

Same for those who project all sorts of weaknesses onto all believers.

And those who cannot see the beauty of religious art are close behind, that includes the art implicit it cathedrals. (This does not include those who can see the art in some and find certain more modern examples. I simply call those atheists with good taste).

EDIT: When I left this thread after this post a line in one of the other posts on the screen caught my eye, one referring to calling religion a mental illness. I had intended to come back and edit my post say I considered that over the top. But before I got back I read some other posts regarding evidence. Now I'm not so sure, what SOME here consider evidence is quite delusional.

To me there is a huge difference between someone who feels something in their heart and is going to act on it (as long as it is not objectively and seriously dangerous) and someone who considers that feeling to be objective evidence that others should act on. Or worse yet that anyone who feels differently has simply not really looked into their own feelings.

Strathos said:

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?

Click to expand...

None of the above.

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. Most of the time, I haven't heard of these people who are considered to "represent" me. I learned about Richard Dawkins from this site in a topic claiming he is basically the Pope of atheism (paraphrasing).

Other than that, no I really don't care about rabid antitheists. As an atheist/apatheist, I have no goals tied to my "belief system" that are being undermined by "extremist atheists" (which I am wondering what that means, do they just really, really, REALLY not believe in any gods?).

Cute Tink said:

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.

Click to expand...

This.

Cute Tink said:

Atheists don't have a central command (as nifty as that sounds lol) nor is there one atheist we all look up to.

Click to expand...

You mean that there's no Atheist High Command on the Mother Ship? :o


eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist said:

You mean that there's no Atheist High Command on the Mother Ship? :o


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

I want one, just so I can walk in and say that I've been in The Command Center

Eudaimonist said:

You mean that there's no Atheist High Command on the Mother Ship? :o


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

Oh yes there is. On the Command Carrier:

Archaeopteryx said:

Oh yes there is. On the Command Carrier:

Click to expand...

I never get invited to the party...

bhsmte said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

KCfromNC said:

People who disagree with their faith in a way that they can't counter?

Click to expand...

No.

There are two ways I'm thinking of, though there may be other ways it is being used:

If by "anti-theists", you mean those who oppose religion, publicly condemn its practices, and aren't afraid to be blunt about what they see as holes in the religion- people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc., then no, I do not believe they are negative representatives of atheism. I do not oppose them, but support them. I may not believe all of their arguments are good or agree with everything they hold, but I support the general idea underlying their notions: that religion does not get a special pass on being criticized and questioned, and people should be held accountable for their beliefs, regardless of whether the beliefs have the label "religion" attached to it or not. The religious should not expect me to respect ideas I find undeserving of respect simply by the nature of the idea being religion.

If by "anti-theists", you mean atheists who do not actually have anything to offer but ridicule, who act like they're the greatest thing on earth, and pretty much become the non-believing equivalent of raving lunatics, then yes. I believe they are wrong.

Paradoxum said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nope, not all are like this. I would think, the one's who have the most inner doubts about their faith (but have an outward presence of being sure) are the one's who would make a statement that atheists really do believe in God.

Sayre said:

People who are unnecessarily negative or antagonistic towards religious beliefs and/or practices.

Click to expand...

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)?

quatona said:

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)?

Click to expand...

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.

bhsmte said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I am surprised that something helped to get a point across that I wouldn´t have expected to.

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, you have your lines, I have mine, everybody´s got theirs.
Now, how do we proceed from there?

bhsmte said:

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.

Click to expand...

I concur with this. It's a difficult balance because some people will be offended merely by your lack of faith (insert Darth Vader joke here), apart from anything else you might have to say. Being overtly insulting, however, can drag the conversation down into the gutter.

quatona said:

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)?

Click to expand...

Sure - you can still be respectful in how you talk without being insulting. Insults are never required when disagreeing with someone.