Dealing with Atheists

[thefirstjustin]

I have had a few conversations with an Atheist I know, and there's something I have noticed in the "New Atheism" that is very disturbing. I've noticed that it is very militant, and the fundamentalism they despise in Fundamentalist Christianity is the same fundamentalism they possess for Atheism. It's the Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens kind of Atheism and has this fuming hatred for Christianity. I'm just curious if anyone else has noticed this same thing. I'm not needing any advice on dealing with this guy as I've received some from my spiritual father. If you haven't had to deal with this kind of Atheism yet, get ready it's headed your way and is very, very militant.

Thoughts? Experiences?

 

[buzuxi02]

Yes, its shame that these people have forgotten that their parents and grandparents and greatgrandparents were christians. Do they hate them as well?

 

[Feroc]

I think "hate" is a pretty hard word. I don't hate people for their beliefes, not until they harm someone because of it. But yes, I would describe myself as a Dawkins kind of Atheist (actually I don't really like Dawkins, there are some German humanists/atheists, that I prefer).

So why am I "militant"? Because I don't think, that religion is something good for the society, as more fundamentalist a religious person is as worse it is. That's the reason I support atheistic/humanistic activities.

 

[wayseer]

I have had a few conversations with an Atheist I know, and there's something I have noticed in the "New Atheism" that is very disturbing. I've noticed that it is very militant, and the fundamentalism they despise in Fundamentalist Christianity is the same fundamentalism they possess for Atheism. It's the Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens kind of Atheism and has this fuming hatred for Christianity. I'm just curious if anyone else has noticed this same thing. I'm not needing any advice on dealing with this guy as I've received some from my spiritual father. If you haven't had to deal with this kind of Atheism yet, get ready it's headed your way and is very, very militant.

Thoughts? Experiences?

I agree - some atheists have taken on a far more aggressive approach spurred on by Dawkins and Hitchens.

But the other side of the coin is that such aggression might also signal a degree of frustration that things are not going the atheists was as readily as expected.

 

[Dylan Michael]

There is a difference between Atheist and Anti-theist. I have many atheist friends that don't mind that I'm religious. I don't think I've met an anti-theist in real life; they tend to only be on the internet.

 

[al_man]

I have had a few conversations with an Atheist I know, and there's something I have noticed in the "New Atheism" that is very disturbing. I've noticed that it is very militant, and the fundamentalism they despise in Fundamentalist Christianity is the same fundamentalism they possess for Atheism. It's the Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens kind of Atheism and has this fuming hatred for Christianity. I'm just curious if anyone else has noticed this same thing. I'm not needing any advice on dealing with this guy as I've received some from my spiritual father. If you haven't had to deal with this kind of Atheism yet, get ready it's headed your way and is very, very militant.

Thoughts? Experiences?

Yep I'm in the exact same position, South African friend of mine grew up in a tight nit fundamentalist christian community, and then moved on to jehovas witnesses because of his father and in his mind he found out that everything they told him was a lie. He definatly does have a seething hatred for all religions and god, he said it him self. I tried to invite him along to my church so he can see that we arent all like the christians he knew, we don't all spread fear and hate into people to make them worship christ. But he said he'd only go if he could burn it down. I think the only way I am going to show him that christ is benificial to everyone is by leading by example and letting him see the goodness that has come from following christ and how joyful and fulfilled my life is.

He believes he is happy without religion and god, yet from what I have seen that is definitely not the case.

 

[MKJ]

I think that the Hitchens/Dawkind brand of atheism is a reaction to fundamentalism. Not only is it militant, it is anti-intellectual, in that it only addresses fundamentalist Christian understanding. It not only does not know anything about the Christian intellectual tradition, it denies the possibility that such a thing exists.

You can also see that in many cases, it has a mirror-image of the fundamentalist view of science, and has no real understanding of the philosophy of science nor of epistemology.

It is the atheist equivalent to fundamentalism in pretty much every way.

 

[cobweb]

There is a difference between Atheist and Anti-theist. I have many atheist friends that don't mind that I'm religious. I don't think I've met an anti-theist in real life; they tend to only be on the internet.

I agree that they are more prevalent on the internet. I used to be an atheist, but I always tried to be polite in real life.


I have a co-worker who is an anti-theist. He knows that I am religious and goes out of his way to try to say things that would be offensive in order to get a reaction. We get along mostly because I ignore what he says.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

I think "hate" is a pretty hard word. I don't hate people for their beliefes, not until they harm someone because of it. But yes, I would describe myself as a Dawkins kind of Atheist (actually I don't really like Dawkins, there are some German humanists/atheists, that I prefer).

So why am I "militant"? Because I don't think, that religion is something good for the society, as more fundamentalist a religious person is as worse it is. That's the reason I support atheistic/humanistic activities.

Brother, I want you to do something for me, I want you to visit an Orthodox Church and speak with the people there who will show you love and kindness and then tell me that religion isn't good for society. I want you to go with a group of Protestant believers building shelters for the homeless in Africa and providing them with food whilst world governments and global food organizations throw wheat into the ocean because of 'over supply' and then tell me religion isn't good for society.

I want you to come to Sydney and see how Catholic and Anglican churches are dealing with broken families because of drugs, alcohol and gambling addictions and then tell me religion isn't good for society.

I want you to speak with a prostitute who has left the dark world and has come to the knowledge of the truth through Christ and doesn't need to prostitute herself anymore and tell her that religion isn't good for society.

Do people do bad things in the name of religion? Is religion used as a scape goat for violence? Yes, but let us see now, humans have killed each other for land, resources, political and racial reasons, humans kill each other for any and every difference that they can conceive. Are you suggesting that atheist societies fair better than Christian ones? Would you like me to remind you of the death tally in the 20th century alone, perpetrated by atheists?

Atheism does nothing to help human society, the western world is in a state of social decay because people are drifting from God, don't believe me? Go out to your local club or bar and see the evil people are committing with and against one another. And thanks to liberal atheism, the western world will be islamic by the turn of the century, how do you like thems apples?

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Atheism - Conservapedia

This link contains some good info on the detrimental effects of atheism.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

I won't discuss religion with atheists. Ever, anymore. I hate having to generalize one group into a category, of the type that as soon as I meet them I know exactly what their reaction to certain things is, but that's the way it has to be.

They invariably call me some form of stupid, which is really one of my pet peeves, and I'm having enough problems being a Christian without putting myself into situations where I'm going to get angry. There's no point in talking to them; they know everything anyway.

Strangely enough I find that if you were to renounce your beliefs and become an atheist they automatically seem to think your intelligence level has risen as well *shrug*

 

[Michael G]

I think "hate" is a pretty hard word. I don't hate people for their beliefes, not until they harm someone because of it. But yes, I would describe myself as a Dawkins kind of Atheist (actually I don't really like Dawkins, there are some German humanists/atheists, that I prefer).

So why am I "militant"? Because I don't think, that religion is something good for the society, as more fundamentalist a religious person is as worse it is. That's the reason I support atheistic/humanistic activities.

Christians do no good? That is why when Archbishop KYRILL was just the abbot of a Monastery in Bulgaria he hid Jews in the basement of his monastery to protect them from the Nazis. What did he have to gain for protecting these people who had been criminalized by the Germans? If the Nazis had found out they would have killed him along with the Jews. Yeah, Christians do no good...

 

[thefirstjustin]

I won't discuss religion with atheists. Ever, anymore. I hate having to generalize one group into a category, of the type that as soon as I meet them I know exactly what their reaction to certain things is, but that's the way it has to be.

They invariably call me some form of stupid, which is really one of my pet peeves, and I'm having enough problems being a Christian without putting myself into situations where I'm going to get angry. There's no point in talking to them; they know everything anyway.

Strangely enough I find that if you were to renounce your beliefs and become an atheist they automatically seem to think your intelligence level has risen as well *shrug*

I've gotten to the same point.

 

[Michael G]

I won't discuss religion with atheists. Ever, anymore. I hate having to generalize one group into a category, of the type that as soon as I meet them I know exactly what their reaction to certain things is, but that's the way it has to be.

They invariably call me some form of stupid, which is really one of my pet peeves, and I'm having enough problems being a Christian without putting myself into situations where I'm going to get angry. There's no point in talking to them; they know everything anyway.

Strangely enough I find that if you were to renounce your beliefs and become an atheist they automatically seem to think your intelligence level has risen as well *shrug*

That is why I won't discuss Livin's iconoclasm with him. He does not believe in The Incarnation of Christ and thus it does no good to discuss with him a subject that has as its basis The Incarnation.

 

[Macarius]

I think "hate" is a pretty hard word. I don't hate people for their beliefes, not until they harm someone because of it. But yes, I would describe myself as a Dawkins kind of Atheist (actually I don't really like Dawkins, there are some German humanists/atheists, that I prefer).

So why am I "militant"? Because I don't think, that religion is something good for the society, as more fundamentalist a religious person is as worse it is. That's the reason I support atheistic/humanistic activities.

The examples of those most vigorous proponents of their religion - namely the saints - not-with-standing. The problem in religious history (for Christianity, anyway) has not been following the faith too much, but not taking it far enough.

It was economic greed and a lust for power that drove the political abuses of the middle ages which paid only lip-service to Christianity. It was an overgrown set of uncontrollable and animal passions (condemned by real Christianity) that led / leads to the violent militantism you so rightly condemn.

And look - atheists themselves have commited the same attrocities and more in the name of zealous passions. The Communist holocaust of religious believers in the USSR stands as a stark evidence that the removal of religion is not the balm the New Atheists think that it is.

Far from it - if you remove the metaphysical beliefs undergirding Christian ethics, eventually you LOSE those ethics (society-wise) as well. The sense of the unique value of the individual, the command to love our enemies - these depend on Christian metaphysics.

People - the same passionate, greedy, powerhungry people who blackened the name of Christ with their actions in the past - will not take long to take the new, subjective metaphysics of New Atheism as their calling card. In it, they no longer owe lip service to things like valuing life and love, but may freely extend the hand of their greed as they see fit.

Mark my words well: the death of religion will return this world to chaos and inaugurate a hell on earth as man destroys man on the assumption that no ultimate moral will exists and no ultimate accountability presides in love in the world.

Though I respect the neo-humanist critique of the damage religious abuse can cause, I think the over-reaction of the New Atheists throws out the baby with the bathwater.

I'd also be interested in hearing your syllogism written out. What major premise do you use to justify your position. Your minor premise is that Christians (or religions) haven't followed their teachings at all times. What major premise do you use to, then, reach the conclusion "Christianity (or religion) is false." I've never seen a functional major premise linking those two parts of the syllogism.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Joseph Hazen]

That is why I won't discuss Livin's iconoclasm with him. He does not believe in The Incarnation of Christ and thus it does no good to discuss with him a subject that has as its basis The Incarnation.

I actually had almost that exact conversation with someone on another forum. A Jehovah's Witness was attacking the use of images, and a Lutheran said "you clearly don't understand them in a Christian context" and I pointed out that it was a bit unfair to expect someone who didn't believe in the Incarnation to understand iconography.

Not sure they got the connection, lol, but s'true.

 

[Dorothea]

I think "hate" is a pretty hard word. I don't hate people for their beliefes, not until they harm someone because of it. But yes, I would describe myself as a Dawkins kind of Atheist (actually I don't really like Dawkins, there are some German humanists/atheists, that I prefer).

So why am I "militant"? Because I don't think, that religion is something good for the society, as more fundamentalist a religious person is as worse it is. That's the reason I support atheistic/humanistic activities.

do you think you believe this because of the type of Christians you encountered?

 

[Dorothea]

The examples of those most vigorous proponents of their religion - namely the saints - not-with-standing. The problem in religious history (for Christianity, anyway) has not been following the faith too little, but not taking it far enough.

It was economic greed and a lust for power that drove the political abuses of the middle ages which paid only lip-service to Christianity. It was an overgrown set of uncontrollable and animal passions (condemned by real Christianity) that led / leads to the violent militantism you so rightly condemn.

And look - atheists themselves have commited the same attrocities and more in the name of zealous passions. The Communist holocaust of religious believers in the USSR stands as a stark evidence that the removal of religion is not the balm the New Atheists think that it is.

Far from it - if you remove the metaphysical beliefs undergirding Christian ethics, eventually you LOSE those ethics (society-wise) as well. The sense of the unique value of the individual, the command to love our enemies - these depend on Christian metaphysics.

People - the same passionate, greedy, powerhungry people who blackened the name of Christ with their actions in the past - will not take long to take the new, subjective metaphysics of New Atheism as their calling card. In it, they no longer owe lip service to things like valuing life and love, but may freely extend the hand of their greed as they see fit.

Mark my words well: the death of religion will return this world to chaos and inaugurate a hell on earth as man destroys man on the assumption that no ultimate moral will exists and no ultimate accountability presides in love in the world.

Though I respect the neo-humanist critique of the damage religious abuse can cause, I think the over-reaction of the New Atheists throws out the baby with the bathwater.

I'd also be interested in hearing your syllogism written out. What major premise do you use to justify your position. Your minor premise is that Christians (or religions) haven't followed their teachings at all times. What major premise do you use to, then, reach the conclusion "Christianity (or religion) is false." I've never seen a functional major premise linking those two parts of the syllogism.

In Christ,
Macarius

Yep. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Faithful Skeptic]

I'm always reminded of the South Park episodes "Go God Go" and "Go God GO XII". Some of you might get offended from the actual show, as it does get graphic at times, but the Wikipedia article on these particular episodes is clean: Go God Go - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The episodes are a criticism of Dawkins-style atheism (he is a main character of the episodes). While I don't always agree with South Park shows, I do admire their intellectual honesty as they seem to hold no reservations when it comes to satirizing anything. Sure, they often go way, way overboard with their Christian satirizations, and I don't agree with them, but at least they're consistent. Shows like Family Guy, on the other hand, seem to cater to the new-Atheists and try their hardest only to offend Christians and not atheists, even when Atheists greatly merit criticism in their hypocrisy. Similarly, South Park made fun of both major candidates int he '08 election in an effort to mostly make fun of the election process itself, rather than any political ideology (which the show highlighted as more of a distraction from reality than anything else).

 

[Gwendolyn]

I think that the Hitchens/Dawkind brand of atheism is a reaction to fundamentalism. Not only is it militant, it is anti-intellectual, in that it only addresses fundamentalist Christian understanding. It not only does not know anything about the Christian intellectual tradition, it denies the possibility that such a thing exists.

You can also see that in many cases, it has a mirror-image of the fundamentalist view of science, and has no real understanding of the philosophy of science nor of epistemology.

It is the atheist equivalent to fundamentalism in pretty much every way.

Oh my gosh, THIS. I have read Dawkins' stuff because it came so heavily recommended by my atheist friends, and I was thoroughly disappointed at the anti-intellectualism of it all. The way Dawkins is glorified, I thought he would at least be seriously philosophical since he is taken so seriously and heralded as reason's poster boy. Instead, his arguments were basic and conveniently ignorant of those aspects of Christianity which contradicted or seriously challenged his arguments. His reason for ignoring them? "That isn't what most Christians believe, so I will not address it."

Riiiiiiight.