Atheist Zealot

Post Reply New Topic

I find it weird that I have had more atheists try and convert me than I have had from all religions put together. When ever somebody says a religion in a forum there is more often an atheist crashing it telling them what they believe and how its wrong. I see that more than if somebody starts a Atheist forum post and people try to tell them why they are wrong and explain away atheism. etc.

Are you an atheist zealot? Have you met any? And why is it necessary to try and convince people with a religion that they should be an atheist? If somebody loves chicken, do they go up to everybody eating beef and rant about how chicken is so much better? I don't understand religions and atheists that do this, but i understand religions think that if the person doesn't know then they go to hell. atheists don't believe in hell so why do they care (unless people say they are unhappy with their religion then i understand)

Good to see a fellow South Aussie on the forum. I certainly have meet such atheists. That said, the vast majority of atheists I know are first rate people.

There are a few of those around this forum, on both sides of the divide. The interesting thing is that, as you said, the Atheist zealots are a lot more aggressive about it than the theists. I've seen the posts from those Atheist zealots cross the line into outright hostility and offensiveness before. There seems to be a particular intolerance towards Christians, for some reason. Personally I don't like to take sides, which is why I haven't published my own views on the religion v atheism debate, but the good news is the zealots are in the minority and most of the people here are reasonable in their disagreement.

personally i couldn't be bothered giving any opinion at all if somebody isn't asking. and if i know somebody is going to dismiss what i say i am definitely not going to say anything as i have better things to do with my time.

I think it's because they see the corrupt elements of religion harming people, and they want to prevent that.

What they then don't see is the difference between harmful and beneficial religion. It's all bad to them, bye bye baby; out with bathwater

I suppose one's experience will shape how one sees religion generally; if one has been exposed to religious extremism, religious persecution, religious abuse etc. then it's fairly understandable that one would develop a bias/aversion.

I think that atheists don't understand mysticism, which I see as the core of any really useful religious practice. A lot of religious people don't understand mysticism either.

A lot of the religion that Dawkins et al. rail against is the fluffy, dogmatic, non transformative kinds of religion you find that tends to revolve around belief and with an emphasis on creating social cohesion rather than direct contact with 'God' or whatever you want to call it.

And of course you can't understand that part of religion unless you actually follow a path. I doubt you'd get Dawkins or Hitchens to take a month long meditation retreat seriously. Or get them Sufi whirling, that would be funny

Coincidently, I was taking a look at Richard Dawkin's astrology yesterday. It suggests a person who would be a hardcore materialist.

If someone could provide examples of hardcore celebrity religionists, I'd be interested in checking them out.

Last edited by Moog on 28 Aug 2011, 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

That sounds like how people become racist.

I have never really understood why people want to convert one another - for some, yes, there is the motive of helping the blind man avoid the yawning pit, I can go there. For some there seems a touch of the fox who lost his tail trying to talk others into the operation. Can't go there.

Most atheists I actually know are not strident or activist - they are happily in the majority in our community and very aware of their own rightness.

Most of the serious Chriatians I have actually known are the same way - we might explain things if you asked, but we do not force it down your throat.

Friend Moog - this person negatively impacted by theists [and we know it can happen, I MET the Conservative Baptists in my satheist days]: is he motivated more by the desire to save other people trapped by the horrid cultists, or by the urge to hurt the horrid cultists for what they did to him?

WP stridently atheists [NOT all, I hasten to say] seem more anxious to spit at the portrait of Hitler than to talk people out of National Socialism.

it depends on the day. I can be an outspoken atheist, or one that merely minds her own business. with my uncle, for instance, I am outspoken, because he is delusional thanks to religion.

Ay - me - I was and am MUCH more inclined to be outspoken with the serious and reasonable. With the strident and the cocksure and the partisan and the delusional I more often keep my mouth shut. Who wants to talk to them?

There could well be a bit of that in it too.

Atheism is a bit overrepresented on the internet.


Probably by someone's standards. I hate being considered a zealot, but I don't mind being considered to be a person of strong opinions.


Without question.


Religions are perceived as wrong, harmful, and often easy to show to be wrong. So, really, a lot of people will jump on board to correct any intellectual error. Additionally, the atheist subculture defines itself against religion, partly because that's the only unifying trait to it.(If religion were less prominent and common, I imagine the cultural group would tend to die down a lot)


There are no similarities. Liking chicken vs beef isn't even a factual matter.

Web forums are different in that people post here because they like giving their opinions. It isn't even uncommon where people will give their opinions on issues unrelated to the thread.

Honestly, Moog, I don't know what you mean by "understand mysticism". Atheists don't BELIEVE in the possibility of genuine mysticism(that is oneness with a broader reality/transcendence). In this they are kind of like the people of religion who distrust mystics on grounds of demons pretending to be angels of light, however, instead of demons, the atheist will see neurons failing to function in informing people properly about reality.

I suppose one can argue that one who understands mysticism cannot disagree with the possibility, but I am unsure of that claim.

But why would it be incorrect to believe that religion and religious inferences ARE corruption? I mean, this isn't to say that a person cannot be psychologically healthy and pray, but rather that religious tendencies do not track truth but rather often militate people against truth, whether to minor degrees or to major degrees. I mean, atheists believe that the story told to us by naturalism is one that makes the religious claims outright absurd. The same being true even with our philosophy as well.


Well... but if all religions are wrong, then what import is the distinction? I mean, if someone insisted that Obama was born in Kenya, we'd militate against them, even though the overall effects of this belief would be miniscule in the larger schema. The issue is just that we recognize birthers as generally crazy. Religious people don't see their claims as crazy, but atheists think that religions are just absurd and ridiculous.


Well, that's going to be part of it. The other issue is that conservative theists are seen as more definite. Liberal theists are often seen as inconsistent atheists. What I mean by this is that the facts that liberal theists are perceived as accepting are often seen as sufficient for anybody committed to truth to disregard the belief. Also, liberal theists are just perceived as less concerned with clarity on what they believe and defending the truth.


They hate it too, and if Pentacostals or other groups were more common, they'd rail against that too. Dawkins has been clear that he perceives people who see "the divine" as under a cognitive illusion prone to cultural influences.(That is that people who see God would see Zeus, Thor, or whatever have you if they were in a different society)


And obviously astrology is known for its scientific precision, right? I'll have to get back to you after I go through with my peyote-caused trance, because maybe then we'll see the same thing. You might see that as overly mocking, but... if astrology were actually accurate, why then couldn't scientists notice this and start examining the idea? From what I understand, scientific examinations are negative, with the most likely reason for people to think it is accurate is due to astrology feeding into a number of cognitive illusions.(of which human beings have plenty)

How to notice you have entitlement problems

You believe people voicing their own opinions in the internet through the use of evidence and facts are "trying to convert you" just because you don't have that opinion.

You think that your belief is worth more than 1 cent.



News flash: You live in the "materia"l world. Fairies don't exist, astrology is bull. Calling people that live in reality "materialists" is an easy way to broadcast that you believe in crap that doesn't exist.


What is beneficial religion? Virtue based on lies is worse than lack of virtue. It is fake and doomed to corrupt people.

Religion is intrinsically corrupt. It is intrinsically a way in which people get corrupted. Once you think that to be good you have to obey the arbitrary commands from other people about what is good rather than follow your own morality, you are letting them corrupt you. Because suddenly, you cannot be a good person. You are a hypocrite which does 'good' only for your own convenience so that you are saved. You are more of a coward than a good person.