Why are atheists so strident?

Post Reply New Topic

For me, discussion and debate are means by which to challenge my thinking and introduce new lines of thought.

The radicals of either side hinder that; the godmoding Christians who can't apply reason or logic to their claims, and the stridently* atheist who make statements like, "stupid thoughts are stupid and people addicted to these silly things have exaggerated emotional reactions". Neither promote discussion.

I have read statements like, "you don't have to prove a negative claim", and to be honest I think it's ridiculous that either side would say, "Prove it!", because there is absolutely no proof either way. However, if you feel a claim is stupid, simply show why you believe the claim to be stupid. If you want to base an opinion on "Because the Bible says so", expect people to challenge the validity of your source.

There are only two logical reasons for debate; 1) to challenge your own thinking, or 2) to challenge another's thinking.
Anything else is just mudslinging and provocation.


* Not referring to SA's per se, but the definition of strident as being:
–adjective
1. making or having a harsh sound; grating; creaking: strident insects; strident hinges.
2. having a shrill, irritating quality or character: a strident tone in his writings.
3. Linguistics . (in distinctive feature analysis) characterized acoustically by noise of relatively high intensity, as sibilants, labiodental and uvular fricatives, and most affricates.

Atheists aren't (generally) anti-God. That would be stupid - there is no God.
Atheists are anti-religion. That definitely exists, and is designed to control how people act and think. One of the major problems is that religions are supposed to be the perfect word of a deity and don't adapt - so Christians, for instance, are still operating with "laws" that are two thousand years old and take no account of technology, democracy, modern medicine, multiculturalism, the environment, space travel, global economy, the internet...

Private, silent, and individual, in other words, only in one's mind can one pray at a government run schools. However, exceptions can be made for "cultural minorities". Catholicism may be annoying, especially when Catholics or their clone of Anglicans have control of governments, but I doubt a Catholic or Anglican state can be any worse than a secular state.

No! Don't put fairies in a matrix! GIGO; Only use the reals, quotients, or complexes!



well said

The US constitution does not date from 1990.

Not like your Christian elites wouldn't say "Screw the constitution" every once in a while and violate it throughly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer

I just don't think all religions are bad or wrong. It's an assumption that many make. Possibly because so many are bad/wrong. What's the rule about 99% of things being s**t? Well it applies to secular influences as well.

Technology changes but human nature doesn't. As for the application of the moral Torah, it is the same. The situation in most western nations now is only slightly better than it was in Rome during Rome's heyday, and it's headed back down there.

As for application to technological issues, like driving a car, the general principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can be applied specifically. Economic situations, "differing weights are abhorrent" as per having items in different units so as to confuse a buyer, etc.

Oh yes, and having an optional and voluntary time of prayer is in violation of the principle of not allowing the Anglican church to control the state or the state to control the churches?

Prayer is protected under free speech; American kids can pray in the cafeteria, halls, or even in groups. State-scheduled prayer isn't, as it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

What would be wrong with a Secular State? People of all faiths would be legally allowed, by free speech, to practice their faith as they wish, so long as they don't impose it on other.

Are mudslinging and provocation illogical?

Smart ass!
Not illogical if your purpose is self gratification!

Free speech? America has that in anything other than name only? And a secular state is not nonsectarian if they regulate which religious groups are more free than others. For as much as it sounds nice to allow freedom for people to do what is right in their own eyes and all that sort, that doesn't really exist.

A hyperbolic response to the existence of free speech in the US does not change the fact that people are legally entitled to pray whenever they wish.

A Secular state wouldn't regulate Religion, but it would prosecute criminal action. If a person practiced human sacrifice, pedophilia (as is sometimes the case with cults), or any other action that an ordinary citizen would be prosecuted for, that person would be jailed, like any other citizen.

Ironically, the current US Government does play the role of regulating the freedom of religion; it decides which religion is a religion, in order to grant them tax-exemption. It's an awkward fit.

Yes, and private schools, if they receive any federal or state funding, have to allow the federal or state governments to select their curricula.

Seems fair; "our money, our rules". Although frankly state education sucks in all forms.

Yeah, it does. Government control of education is like having the efficiency of the Social Security Administration combined with the essence of political correctness along with myriad games of musical chairs, show-and-tell, and boxing. It's about as effective at educating children as putting them in a box and droning on for a few hours about stuff that they'd know if they read the textbook but wont be able to remember since "education" essentially is treated as paying one's time in a box rather than learning. It tends to do the opposite of encouraging anyone's desire to learn, since "learning" consists of being treated like cattle rather than human beings.