Why are some atheists... (meaning, born, delusion, Christ)

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

While I may have wished that some atheists expressed themselves in a less arrogant (perhaps) tone, I have considered this idea of just not believing and let other believe what the like. But the I am quite convinced that it is right and necessary to speak out.

Because religion dominates and, if we do nothing, it will dominate more. Even if there was no threat of forcing it on others through Law, interference in education, politics and the workplace, it is necessary to speak out because, frankly, the rationalist view is the better based in the only methods of obtaining reliable data and reaching reliable conclusions - validated evidence and sound reasoning. Not through Faith and reliance on a lot of conflicting Holy Books.

Yes, by all means speak out, just know when to hold your tongue. The greatest speech will be forgotten if even hints of belittling others. And speaking out will not do anything to prove your point. Find the proof and present it, let it do most of the speaking. Slow change is still change. Christianity didn't rise to its modern form in one day. You can't expect atheism to do the same.

We reason better, we are often more tolerant. While we don't oppose chunks of science wholesale because it conflicts with some faith of our, we demand a lot more rigorous validation of the data because that is the only kind that can really be believed.

Reason better, yes. More tolerant, that is debatable...pun intended. How can anyone demand tolerance if they ignore the concept themselves?

I wish it were possible to just set out a case and the theists to look and say 'Yes that seems to stack up..' but they do not. The response is so often to accuse us of bias, blindness and even lying. Of atheism being illogical, based on nothing reliable and just denial of what is evidently true. Not just here, but everywhere. On Internet, in the media and from the pulpit. But the fact is that it is so very often the other way around.

So put it to a challenge, present the findings and challenge the religious deniers to prove it wrong with verifiable results.

The irritation caused by this can make us very sharp at times. Sharper than I would like in myself. Sometimes the arguments produced are so nonsensical that mockery is the only response it deserves. I have sometimes been reproved for spending too much time seriously debating what seems like sheer fantasy.

There is always another way to respond. I like to step away for a moment or just leave it be for a few days, come back and reaffirm your argument then walk away and tell them you are. By inserting mockery you lessen the impact your argument could have.

Succinctly, we cannot be silent. We speak out because we have to. At the risk of sounding insufferably arrogant and absurdly pompous, the world needs us. It doesn't know that it needs us, but it does.

And that is the worst thing I have ever heard come out of the mouth of a theist, I never thought I would hear it come out of an atheists.

What the world needs is leaders who look towards the future and not focus on the past, we need leaders who don't feel like they are a gift to humanity.

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by Chango

I've noticed atheism is a continuum, not a category.

On one side, there are some atheists who have no problem whatsoever that everyone around them doesn't believe as they do and hardly even worry about it. Hell, there are even plenty of "closet atheists" who practice and even take important leadership roles in theistic religions completely free of personal conflict.

On the other side there are "foaming at the mouth" fundamentalist atheists who will punch you in the face if your say "God bless you" when they sneeze, will sneak out in the middle of the night to cut down crosses in sight of the public thoroughfare and make sure they never spend a single cent that hasn't had the "in god we trust" motto carefully ground off the coin or obscured on their dollar bills.

And there are all kinds in-between, just like theistic religion.

Also, it's interesting to note the fact that many hardcore "fundamentalist atheists" have "escaped" from fundamentalist religions too... with an especially large ax to grind because of it.

Once a fundie... always a fundie, just with a different "religion", I suppose.

Maybe it's time to form a new group that is by invite only. We'll test for arrogance, and any fundie-ish habbits.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

Yes, by all means speak out, just know when to hold your tongue. The greatest speech will be forgotten if even hints of belittling others. And speaking out will not do anything to prove your point. Find the proof and present it, let it do most of the speaking. Slow change is still change. Christianity didn't rise to its modern form in one day. You can't expect atheism to do the same.

Oh, I agree. That is why I advocate keeping one's temper, responding to abuse with a smile (or a smiley) and to nonsense with reason. I would like the approach I cultivate to be the objective rather than the atheist fundamentalism spoken of above.

Reason better, yes. More tolerant, that is debatable...pun intended. How can anyone demand tolerance if they ignore the concept themselves?

I agree again. We badly need to cultivate tolerance and reason and good temper, because it will look better and because that is what we have to become if (If I may use a term I used before and rather liked ) if we are to become a worldview rather than merely a lobbying group for taking 'In God We Trust' of US money. You must understand that I am not talking of an atheist worldview as such but a rational rather than a religion -based worldview. In fact, we have that, though there are worrying signs of theism grabbing reigns here and there.

So put it to a challenge, present the findings and challenge the religious deniers to prove it wrong with verifiable results.

I would propose an experiment. You marshal your argument as to why you have now become rather god- disbelieving and pick a theist; any theist, and try to get them to even accept that your reasons make sense -not to agree with them even - and you will soon see that a challenge to prove it wrong gets ignored, reversed into a demand that you prove their views wrong or somehow admit that it disproves yours, or you just get a faceful of accusations and Bible-quotes. Your approach, while it would be a consomme devoutly to be wished, doesn't work even with the most reasonable of theists.

There is always another way to respond. I like to step away for a moment or just leave it be for a few days, come back and reaffirm your argument then walk away and tell them you are. By inserting mockery you lessen the impact your argument could have.

Yes. That is a good method and I do sometimes step away for a greater or lesser time. Of course I am not saying that mere mockery solus is good. Reasoning is better, but ...well, ..I may be wrong, but I feel that at a time of persistent absurdity a bit of well -placed mockery is just what is needed rather than a reasoned response - which just gives the nonsense an undeserved air of credibility.

And that is the worst thing I have ever heard come out of the mouth of a theist, I never thought I would hear it come out of an atheists.

In a way I am glad you feel like that. What I am saying should not be accepted just because I say so. And I might be dead wrong, too. But I have thought it through and now see clearly that, if we value reason and evidence over faith and self -justification, then that should be the worldview we want for the world. And only atheism is the lobbying group to see that and work for it. And agnostics of course. And deists and pantheists...and Wiccans and native American religions...and any other religion that feels the pressure from a bigger one...well, yes, Ok...pretty much everyone but they have to be shown first that a world where religions don't dominate is a world where anyone can believe what they want, so long as they don't force it on anyone else.

What the world needs is leaders who look towards the future and not focus on the past, we need leaders who don't feel like they are a gift to humanity.

I couldn't agree more. And the last thing I want to see is a bunch of atheist demagogues grabbing power and acting like some Great Leader or other. The world needs us because we are saying what needs to be said, not because they should vote for us. Because the world needs a rational worldview, not a bunch of Pol Pots. It needs to rule itself with reason rather than the unreasoning instinct for group competition that we now have -it doesn't need Rule by a Oligarchy of Unbelievers.

I am pleased that your new- found atheism hasn't led you wholesale into New, militant or fundamentalist atheism and you contest what I say, as you should. I think that I can argue that the view I see is forward looking, desirable and right. But it may be unattainable. It may be impractical and it may go badly wrong if we ever got it. Thom R's misgivings about atheist regimes is very well taken and that is something I would like less than continued authority for the churches, mosques and Temples.

Let's keep talking.

[jackmccullough]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

yes we have the right to. But should we? We are trying to prove that without blind faith in myths a persons knowledge can achieve new heights. But, when you are tossing insults and calling names, it makes you look like you have a 4th grade mindset and are just a nerd turned bully with entitlement issues. Seriously, when people use the excuse, "we've been/we are oppressed", It annoys me. The only person oppressing you is yourself. You allow them to control you when you stoop to name calling and belittling. If you really were being oppressed you wouldn't be trying to become the oppressor.

Rise above the school yard antics, focus on advancing scientific discovery and move on. Allow your work speak for you. Imagine if Einstein stood around name calling and belittling everyone around him, do you think he would be seen as one of the greatest minds of our world? Hardly, we probably would have ignored most of his studies.

It appears you didn't read my post.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

Why are some atheists so entitled?

Do you have any specific examples?

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Oh, I agree. That is why I advocate keeping one's temper, responding to abuse with a smile (or a smiley) and to nonsense with reason. I would like the approach I cultivate to be the objective rather than the atheist fundamentalism spoken of above.

I agree again. We badly need to cultivate tolerance and reason and good temper, because it will look better and because that is what we have to become if (If I may use a term I used before and rather liked ) if we are to become a worldview rather than merely a lobbying group for taking 'In God We Trust' of US money. You must understand that I am not talking of an atheist worldview as such but a rational rather than a religion -based worldview. In fact, we have that, though there are worrying signs of theism grabbing reigns here and there.

I would propose an experiment. You marshal your argument as to why you have now become rather god- disbelieving and pick a theist; any theist, and try to get them to even accept that your reasons make sense -not to agree with them even - and you will soon see that a challenge to prove it wrong gets ignored, reversed into a demand that you prove their views wrong or somehow admit that it disproves yours, or you just get a faceful of accusations and Bible-quotes. Your approach, while it would be a consomme devoutly to be wished, doesn't work even with the most reasonable of theists.

Yes. That is a good method and I do sometimes step away for a greater or lesser time. Of course I am not saying that mere mockery solus is good. Reasoning is better, but ...well, ..I may be wrong, but I feel that at a time of persistent absurdity a bit of well -placed mockery is just what is needed rather than a reasoned response - which just gives the nonsense an undeserved air of credibility.

In a way I am glad you feel like that. What I am saying should not be accepted just because I say so. And I might be dead wrong, too. But I have thought it through and now see clearly that, if we value reason and evidence over faith and self -justification, then that should be the worldview we want for the world. And only atheism is the lobbying group to see that and work for it. And agnostics of course. And deists and pantheists...and Wiccans and native American religions...and any other religion that feels the pressure from a bigger one...well, yes, Ok...pretty much everyone but they have to be shown first that a world where religions don't dominate is a world where anyone can believe what they want, so long as they don't force it on anyone else.

I couldn't agree more. And the last thing I want to see is a bunch of atheist demagogues grabbing power and acting like some Great Leader or other. The world needs us because we are saying what needs to be said, not because they should vote for us. Because the world needs a rational worldview, not a bunch of Pol Pots. It needs to rule itself with reason rather than the unreasoning instinct for group competition that we now have -it doesn't need Rule by a Oligarchy of Unbelievers.

I am pleased that your new- found atheism hasn't led you wholesale into New, militant or fundamentalist atheism and you contest what I say, as you should. I think that I can argue that the view I see is forward looking, desirable and right. But it may be unattainable. It may be impractical and it may go badly wrong if we ever got it. Thom R's misgivings about atheist regimes is very well taken and that is something I would like less than continued authority for the churches, mosques and Temples.

Let's keep talking.

All I can say it that I agree with you on the majority of what you wrote.

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by jackmccullough

It appears you didn't read my post.

I apologize, it was late and I misread what you wrote.

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Do you have any specific examples?

None that I can give without fear of getting an infraction. But I am sure we all know who do this as their primary style of debate. I have friends who does this all the time as well. Luckily most of the time they do this everyone has already begun to them.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

All I can say it that I agree with you on the majority of what you wrote.

That's all I can ask.
Let's consider little wit's post and your response.

Originally Posted by littlewitness

...that's where you're sitting at the moment! The problem is not the evidence for evoltionism or creationism...it's the same evidence, regardless of which side of the fence you choose to stand on. It is the interpretation of the evidence that has caused "The Great Controversy." While it is true that there are more than a few creationists on the side of The G-d Hypothesis waiting for G-d to suddenly appear and wiggle on their faces and tweek their noses...it is also true that all of the evoatheists are daring G-d to actually do it! So when the evoatheists say that all life can be explained chemically and materialistically (methodological materialism) without reference to a Creator...their lying.

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

I say all life can be explained through science without reference to a creator. With the knowledge I posses at this time, I can earnestly say that I am not lying. Just wondering how this relates to the topic in the OP though.

As you saw, in just one short (and irrelevant) post, we got smearing, misrepresentation and accusation of habitually lying.
Even the most militant, arrogant and mocking atheists don't do this (apart from accusations of lying - but generally when it is clear that lying is what is going on) sort of thing, but this is par for the course and is what we can generally expect and our chum Eusebius and his forcefully - argued cases for Bible - reliability are a relief by comparison.

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Let's consider little wit's post and your response.

As you saw, in just one short (and irrelevant) post, we got smearing, misrepresentation and accusation of habitually lying.
Even the most militant, arrogant and mocking atheists don't do this (apart from accusations of lying - but generally when it is clear that lying is what is going on) sort of thing, but this is par for the course and is what we can generally expect and our chum Eusebius and his forcefully - argued cases for Bible - reliability are a relief by comparison.

I have seen some atheists on here use this same tactic. Claiming that anyone who is religious is lying or crazy. Doesn't happen too much.

This sort of "debating" doesn't really allow for the argument to be added on to. All they can do once they claim you are lying is continue to say you are lying. In which case it's not hard to point this out. Of course even the worst nut jobs have followers, most people will stand clear of such arguments. Not only that, but it isn't a hard argument to bust, If they claim you are lying that allows you to straight up call them on it. Ask them to prove that you are lying, and add that the inability to prove that you are lying will discredit everything else they have said.

You know they will respond with a bible quote, my suggestion for that is to know the bible and other ancient religious texts. Most of what is in the bible is in other texts. This site isn't a bad source for most of them: Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

You can always casually toss in the comparison of Jesus vs. Horus. One of my personal favorites. It's sarcasm and educational as well. The best way to arm yourself against religion is to know religion. My family helps supply my ammo without even knowing it.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

The questions: Am I wrong? Do you feel that atheists have a right to bash and belittle the religious? Why? What's the point? How does it help progress anything? How does it make you any different than the WBC?

Defending against the willful ignorance of religion is very different than the persistent push to force that ignorance upon every individual.

Get the theists to treat their religion, including their willful ignorance, bias, bigotry, and hate, like their wanker by keeping it private and forcing it on no one, and you won't hear a peep out of me.

WBC hates for the sake of hate, based on what they think a long dead goat herder believed, that is religion. I think it is great for the more these loons demonstrate their ignorance and hate the sooner people with the capacity of true thought will recognize the charade that religion is, the biggest con job ever perpetuated on mankind.

It is those that oppose the ignorance that have made the changes.
In the last century this is gained;
.... the right for women to vote
.... equal rights for people of color
.... the rights for people of different races to marry


...... yet much ignorance based on bronze age ignorance still exists, as people with different sexual preferences are still being told they are inferior and being discriminated against.