Question for atheists

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 have never witnessed a radical atheist before. Have you got video so I know exactly what you mean?

I have witnessed atheists mocking theists, but only out of retaliation, the theists (30 odd young muslim men) deserved every single bit of it! They came to an atheist meeting to hurl abuse at us. Then got angry at us for being vocal while they were praying to Allah.

Imagine the potential retaliation if we (3000+ atheists at the meeting) surrounded their mosque and hurled abuse at them?

Sayre said:

Sure - you can still be respectful in how you talk without being insulting.

Click to expand...

I would agree with this statement, in this abstract form.
In order to apply it practically, we are facing some harder questions, though. E.g. who gets to decide what constitutes an insult?

Insults are never required when disagreeing with someone.

Click to expand...

Before we can possibly come to an agreement whether something is required or not we first would have to determine the (greatest) goal (in regards to which we consider necessities/requirements for the strategy used). The fundamental disagreement may lie somewhere there.

On another note, I have never found "isn´t required" a compelling argument against something.
"Humour is never required when disagreeing with someone."

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...

As other people have said, I do not see Atheism as a "group", so what these "very vocal" people say does not embarrass me, and I think these people generally just end up making a bad name for themselves. I do find their sometimes bigoted statements offensive, but this is same for anyone of any belief system.

quatona said:

I would agree with this statement, in this abstract form.
In order to apply it practically, we are facing some harder questions, though. E.g. who gets to decide what constitutes an insult?

Before we can possibly come to an agreement whether something is required or not we first would have to determine the (greatest) goal (in regards to which we consider necessities/requirements for the strategy used). The fundamental disagreement may lie somewhere there.

On another note, I have never found "isn´t required" a compelling argument against something.
"Humour is never required when disagreeing with someone."

Click to expand...

Ahh you've boiled the fun out of this .

My rules are, of course, subjective. I don't think we can make them prescriptive, but we can personally adopt an appropriate intent and go from there. Of course, if it is AV, then all bets are off..

Sayre said:

Ahh you've boiled the fun out of this .

My rules are, of course, subjective. I don't think we can make them prescriptive, but we can personally adopt an appropriate intent and go from there. Of course, if it is AV, then all bets are off..

Click to expand...

I could add a few more than AV, you know what I mean?

bhsmte said:

I could add a few more than AV, you know what I mean?

Click to expand...

No way, papa

Sayre said:

Ahh you've boiled the fun out of this .

Click to expand...

My rules are, of course, subjective.

Click to expand...

Yes, that´s one thing.
As for me, I don´t even seem to have strict rules, and I observe myself being of different sensitivity (and acting differently myself) - depending on my mood, on my previous experiences with the person, on my prejudices and preassumptions.

I don't think we can make them prescriptive, but we can personally adopt an appropriate intent and go from there.

Click to expand...

Oh sure, that´s what we can do.
What we can not do:
a. reading the intent of another person and
b. making sure the other person knows our intent.

Of course, if it is AV, then all bets are off..

Click to expand...

His posts are a huge challenge to my sense of humour.

quatona said:

Yes, that´s one thing.
As for me, I don´t even seem to have strict rules, and I observe myself being of different sensitivity (and acting differently myself) - depending on my mood, on my previous experiences with the person, on my prejudices and preassumptions.

Oh sure, that´s what we can do.
What we can not do:
a. reading the intent of another person and
b. making sure the other person knows our intent.

His posts are a huge challenge to my sense of humour.

Click to expand...

It's impossible to read the intent of others - I'd agree . That makes communication very difficult.

I guess it boils down to ourselves and our own rules for ourselves.

Do you believe in moral imperatives?

Sectio Aurea said:

I have never witnessed a radical atheist before. Have you got video so I know exactly what you mean?

I have witnessed atheists mocking theists, but only out of retaliation, the theists (30 odd young muslim men) deserved every single bit of it! They came to an atheist meeting to hurl abuse at us. Then got angry at us for being vocal while they were praying to Allah.

Imagine the potential retaliation if we (3000+ atheists at the meeting) surrounded their mosque and hurled abuse at them?

Click to expand...

Many would have called my father a radical atheist. But there is one thing I find key that he lacked for the title.

He was vehemently anti religion based on experience. He had learned the hard way that it was the good Church going Christian that would cheat you in business or stab you in the back if it would profit them the slightest. And I'll add my refinement, the more they talk about being Christian the more likely they are to do this.

But I would not count dad as a radical atheist as he has one trait that many Christians here seem to lack. He still evaluated each individual as a unique person. Being a loud and proud Christian would trigger caution on his part, not judgment. In point of fact on of his closest friends is a rather devout Christian. A friend so close that the reflections of that friendship have survived dad's death by over 10 years.

Sayre said:

Do you believe in moral imperatives?

Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you mean by "believe in". Believe that moral imperatives are useful? No, I tend to think they aren´t. To me, they appear to be post-hoc abstract rationalizations; they oversimplify a very complex field; they tend to antagonistically emphasize one of two (or more) conflicting values (both of which actually need to be acknowledged), and so on.
Rather, I believe in the idea that people should openly reveal their personal needs.

quatona said:

Not quite sure what you mean by "believe in". Believe that moral imperatives are useful? No, I tend to think they aren´t. To me, they appear to be post-hoc abstract rationalizations; they oversimplify a very complex field; they tend to antagonistically emphasize one of two (or more) conflicting values (both of which actually need to be acknowledged), and so on.
Rather, I believe in the idea that people should openly reveal their personal needs.

Click to expand...

OK that's a respectable position. I have a need to retain autonomy of body and mind. What bothers me most is threatening the autonomy of mind through emotional manipulation and false hope.

Sayre said:

OK that's a respectable position. I have a need to retain autonomy of body and mind.

Click to expand...

Sayre, thanks for considering my ideas.
Yet, your response tells me that I have been unclear and misunderstandable.
I tend to think that abstractions don´t get us very far when dealing with each other.
Yes, I agree that "autonomy of body and mind" is a basic human need. However, I´d like to add that "being touched, being inspired, being challenged (and possibly being brought to our limits, even) - in body and in mind - is a basic human need, as well.
So, for me at least, these are conflicting needs, and the balance between the two that I seek at a given moment isn´t entirely clear, even to myself. Thus, I feel I am overasking others when expecting to know this balance that I am seeking at a given moment.

What bothers me most is threatening the autonomy of mind through emotional manipulation and false hope.

Click to expand...

Please allow me to ignore the "false hope" thing for the time being - it just doesn´t speak to me (particularly because whether hope was false can only be told in retrospective).
As for "threatening the autonomy of mind through emotional manipulation": again, that appears to be an abstraction (I don´t know where you draw the line between input and manipulation, and I don´t know beyond which point you feel your autonomy is threatened) that requires translation into concrete, identifiable actions and behaviours in order to be useful for the person opposite.

Here I am trying to present ideas and approaches to you that you may or may not be familiar with, and I have no idea whether this already constitutes "emotional manipulation" for you and whether you may already feel I am "threatening the autonomy of your mind". I don´t know how secure you are in your integrity, I don´t know to which degree you have learned to be affected or unaffected by the opinion of others, I don´t know how to push your emotional buttons (and what and where these buttons are), etc. This all is very different from individual to individual. So it seems to me that we better express our needs and feelings directly, concretely rather than hiding between abstractions.