Why are atheists so strident?

Post Reply New Topic

Indeed I said a belief system, and even without one people will still do these things. In most societies, organisations that enable such acts are called into question, unless they are subject to special rules, and with today's more rational approach to things "Doing God's work" doesn't hold enough weight. Now to survive, these organisations change, but this isn't possible with most religions with a "holy" book, and when it does happen it shows inconsistency when it happens (so God doesn't hate gays now? But he did before? But he didn't send a message? We're making this up as we go along? etc.)


We're currently in the 21st century. Free speech and transparency are paramount, and enable us to learn and develop. What is "nice" simply is not more important than this.

No, you did not attack religion in the part of your post I quoted, you did in the part that came before, what you did in that part was to blame theism for all the harm caused by religion, because religion could not exist without it, without justifying it by naming any harm that could be done by a non-religious theist. I would agree with you that many (if not most) religious people are intellectually lazy, however I do not agree that it applies to all theists or that some atheists are not equally guilty.

There are also other posts you have made that suggest that your opposition to the divine is based on religion:

I am also an ex-catholic so I know where you are coming from. They do discourage people from thinking about the doctrine they teach and the accusation of intellectual laziness does apply to many (and many of other dominations) but not all. When I rejected the picture of God that was painted for me, I rejected just that, their image of God. I was an agnostic for about a decade but never an atheist.

I do not believe that God wants your life or your will. I have heard the opinion that it was a left-handed offer (we were supposed to say “no, thank you") but I reject it. Any god who created man and did not want him to have a life and will of his own would be pretty stupid to give them to him.

Believe it or not, I put a lot of thought into developing my own personal image and I rarely share it; I use it to guide my own choices but never to influence anyone else's. How is that a threat?

First I will say my "experiential opposition" goes against religion.
My philosophical opposition goes against theism.
(I have practical respect for theism... it can make you happier, even if wrong. I have philisophical respect for religion, in that it can create a more coherent society... but it would not be a desirable society, unless you think everyone should be clones of each other)

And, I did indeed name a specific harm that comes of even non-religious theism.

mother tells father "god did it" son hears it, and the lie is perpetuated to his children and so forth.

To believe that theology is a personal and private matter. Give your head a shake.
Do you believe political beliefs are private and personal matters best kept to onself? Why do you think a theological opinion deserves any more PC-ness than other kind of opinion?

I myself also went through many stages, agnostic, not a decade, but i'd say 5 or more years.
In reality i am still an agnostic. However, if there is a god, any god that could possibly exist, then I reject it. (I've also said why in other threads, essentially a capital G God is impossible, and a small-g god is not worth worship, let alone even mentioning or changing our lives as a result of) So I may as well live as an atheist, and the label means nothing one way or another to me, because I am more than either word.

As to how your theistic harms the world.
well, how are those black shoes white?
nonsensical statement, right?
well, that's because what you say shows your a deist, not a theist.

I won't generally speak negative about deism, though I do fundamentally disagree with it.
It has a VERY VERY strong tendency to "personify" nature or the universe. To bestow upon it a false "consciousness" or a "soul" or a "spirit" call it what you will, but it bestows upon it the ability to act as a conduit of "intent"
Any attempt to bestow upon a "higher power" (I use that term VERY lightly, as i can't think of a better term) the ability to have "intent" fuzzies every understanding we have come to have of the universe. The universe does NOT need intent to function, and by Occam's Razor, we must reject it.

The personification from a deist point of view, though far less than that of a theist point of view is harmful in that it prevents adequate understanding of the universe, because it introduces something that doesn't exit.

The child of a deist or theist grows up never having gotten an answer to a question that is intent-free. Thus they are unable to understand an intent-free principle (which you must be able to understand if you want even the briefest understanding of evolution or memetics). It is not because it is impossible for a theist or deist to answer that way, rather it is because it is so much easier to describe things using the construct we call intent, which is a construct borne of intellectual laziness, every bit as much as the concept of god or religion.

Even at 36 years old... It is an extreme push to make myself drop all preconceptions of intent, so that I can properly understand evolution and memetics. When i start speaking of the principles, intent-based words, metaphors, symbols, etc get used, which destroy my ability to get the point across, and for the listener to actually understand the concept. This is because I was brainwashed theism AND religion.

So, in conclusion.. theism creates an illusion of intent. Intent becomes a foundational understanding, and it makes itself appear to be present in all causal situations. We cannot properly describe those events if we hold onto that concept of intent, let alone allow it to get to the deepest level of our paradigm or "world view"

I think a lot of it has to do with there being a contest to see who's the most strident atheist and all the publicity that's generated here. That's the reason behind the stridency.

Kinda like electioneering.

But then there's a few others that are too new to be on the ballot, who are trying to be strident too.... I'd be more strident too, if i wasn't interested in a lot of other things too. I'm just not dedicated enough I guess...

As one who seems to have acquired the reputation for at least some stridency (and who finds little worth in competing in that area) I should indicate I decry all ignorance and stupidity and religion in general partakes generously of those two attitudes in a way that creates terrible unnecessary miseries. Some argumentative force in that area seems to me to be particularly appropriate and demands no apology whatsoever.

I agree with Moog. The zealous ones (oxymoron?) are usually instigators as well as Athiests, so it might be that kind of personality is drawn to atheism. I think a lot of atheists are naive in a sense- they think that anybody with any kind of relationship with the spiritual must be bigoted and stupid like some religious people. I think they're the same kind of person as the religious nut jobs of the world- just blindly believing what they want to, absolutely certain they're right.

Atheists do not have many TV stations like christians, where we claim that your soul will burn in hell if you do not believe what we tell you. Only religious zealots do that... but of course, that's not strident, is it? They're just trying to help you, unlike those mean nasty atheists who think that they should speak their mind just because they want their voice heard.

I know sarcasm is hard to catch for us aspies, but but that is dripping in it!

Oil and water topic

In Canada, there are no religious parties holding federal/provincial/municiple government seats. Both atheists, theists, religious persons and agnostics can hold office. In this way, religious belief or none is indeed a private matter. It may influence decision, but the plurality and diversity of issues in Canada means that this is not a major decision making factor.

I think for this reason, atheistic/religious stridency is not a issue here in my country, therefore I find it irrelevant from my perspective, but for a discussion here, it is interesting.

that is an excellent way to explain it.

that, and the inability for people to accept that "i don't know" is often the only right answer.

exactly! The same goes for religious types (unless their religion includes external symbols e.g. headscarfs or crosses).

Hey, just because people do a lot of squawking doesn't make them unreasonable. Rather, it just makes them vociferous.

vociferous ignorance and the squawking of a parrot can be, at times, indistinguishable.

while i have no doubts that the parrot has reasoned, in it's own way, what to squawk, it is foolish to pretend that the squawking is reasonable discourse. the parrot hears, the parrot imitates. more importance is put on the fidelity of the mimicry than the accuracy of the mimicked statement.

when such mimicry is touted as reasonable thought, reasonable thinkers are rightly offended.





what was the topic again? "why are atheists so strident?"


jesusandmo.net

Need is the mother of all invention. People needed an explanation for why we're here and what it's all about, so they've come up with various religions. And I do NOT understand how religion and the various Gods behind them are separate.

Considering all of mankind's history and especially current events I am not particularly attracted to being human. I don't and never have needed an explanation as to why I'm here. That I'm here and that it's very temporary is sufficient to keep me interested in looking around and finding out whatever I can. How is a useful word. Why is a doorway to delusion.

I think some atheists hate religious people for the same reason some religious people hate atheists. People still want to try and mix science and faith when they really aren't alike at all. People want their world to make sense and when someone else's way of life interferes with it, they get aggravated. I personally just accepted a long time ago that faith isn't science and that science just can't replace faith. I believe in God. Why? I have been asking myself that question for many years. It makes no logical sense whatsoever and history shows a lot of loopholes in God's existance. One of my closest friends is a staunch atheist and he gave me everything he needed to disprove God. And I listened, and it made sense. So why do I believe in God? Are you ready for the answer (drumroll please)

I don't know.

I have no idea why I believe in God but it is something that is just buried so deep in my mind that it just won't leave, it feels natural to me even though I know that it doesn't make any scientific sense. So for all you raging atheists out there, when you call faith and religion stupid, you're absolutely right. There is no intelligent study or knowledge behind it at all. Its instinct. Is there a flying spaghetti monster? Someone might believe so but he won't be able to tell you why. I'm sorry but faith just doesn't work like that.