Psychology of Atheists (not what you think)

[INRM]

I've noticed many things about the atheists I've encountered...

----------------PART TWO: OBSERVATIONS

The only atheists I've encountered who have been a trouble to deal with, have been ones that had started out as Theists, or religious in one method or another, or spiritual in one way or another. Then they became unreligious or anti-religious through one way or another...

-Exceptions are James Randi, (I don't know about Richard Dawkins) who was an atheist from the get-go (from day one) The guess here is that Randi is just a pompous person who gets a thrill out of exposing people-- whether they are guilty or not...

-There are always arrogant people in any society religion or not.


----------------Part One

Observations
There are two kinds of atheists I've seen...

1.) Never Religious: These kind never were religious and usually display no animus towards religious people; they may see their fellow people's views as backward or silly, but usually make no fuss of it or make no stink about it. If they do, they usually simply learn to deal with it. They are usually easy-going despite their atheism, as it is never apparent (i.e. nobody knows about it). They simply have no interest in religion.

2.) Once Religious Twice Shy: These kind were once religious, often deeply, and then something happened which caused them to deviate away from faith.

Speculations
A.) It could either be intelligence which causes them to question their religious leaders, which often results in clash... or a love of science or nature (or both) which explains everything they need to know and replaces the need for God.

-Science becomes their "religion" (I know it's not a religion, but it's a figure of speach, and some atheists DO treat Science as if it were a religion), so to speak.

B.) Their faith or religion could be shattered: It could be through mass-persecution (such as holocaust), particularly in case of the Jews who believed through their entrance into the Covenant, would protect them from harm through Divine Intervention. Or it could be through something which is simply so horrible it makes them cease to believe, such as horrible events happening to them or their family.

---Part One

Hypothesis

The Non-Religious Types rarely cause any trouble with little exception. My guess is that they are just pompous, arrogant people who like to shove their beliefs down everybody elses through and feel superior to them...

When it comes to the second type "Once religious, Twice Shy"- It is usually the Type-B that become the most aggressive. The first type are usually less-aggressive... but not always. Sometimes they can be pretty bad themselves. But it's the one's who've had something horrible happen to them that become the most hardened, aggressive-atheists....

THE REASONING:

-They feal betrayed by their God: How could he do this to me
-They then believe there is no God: There can't be a god for (XYZ) to happen
-They then feel ashamed: Like, how could I have believed this nonsense?
-They then feel shocked: All these people around me believe this sham, and it's not true!
-They then feel overwhelmed: And all these people before me, my grandparents, and uncles who've all died, believed there was a God, all this nonsense, they believed in, and it was wrong. How can this have happened? All my relatives ceased to exist without even knowing they'd be going to oblivion rather than Heaven!
-Then they feel ANGER!: THIS RELIGION BETRAYED ME!!! I hate it!
-Then they want to make sure other people don't fall for this nonsense ever again: I SHALL DESTROY THIS RELIGION FOR PREACHING NONSENSE AND MAKE SURE NOBODY EVER BELIEVES IN IT AGAIN!!!

They First Try to advise people of their erroneous ways; telling them that their beliefs are not true- their superstitions are nonsense, their religion is phony.

They figure they will be praised for their ingenuity or clever thinking, and wise ways

They instead are told-off! Remember: Religion is the Opiate of the Masses: It is a colorless, odorless drug taken audibly, which make one feel loved and filled with warm, fuzzy-feelings, even in extremely adverse situations, and is extremely addictive in some people, significantly in most, and in some cases, useless.

These People do not wish to be talked out of their beliefs!-- after all they are tantamount to drug-addicts! Addicted to their warm-fuzzy feelings and happy-beliefs which make them feel loved inside. Without them, they feel cold, barren, unloved and afraid... and they are being forced to go cold-turkey! They will refuse!

1.)The Atheist then gets frustrated! These people are believing back-ward, delusional beliefs which are nonsensical nonsense! (As opposed to sensible nonsense :rolleyes: )

2.) The Atheist feels like he MUST save these people! After all they are being fooled! Deceived! Deluded!

3.) He tries forcefully to free them of their beliefs. Those which imprison the mind!

4.) They repulse his attempts!

5.) He gets angry

6.) He joins other atheists and tells them of his troubles; they take him in... (With the World-Wide Web this is quite easy)

7.) They teach him all kinds of knowledge to make his atheism even more justified...

8.) He then employs his new-found knowledge to de-religiofy-religious people...

8a.) ... which fails.

9.) After numerous attempts, the atheist realizes that they won't ever change.

10.) He begins to get embittered, and takes pot-shots at atheists, opening fire at will, and ripping into theists in verbal matches. May all theists be shaved by occam's razor!!!

11.) He now only associates with atheists who believe in his beliefs... in Atheist-Chat rooms where they enjoy ripping into believers who join those rooms to try and get them to embrace their lord and Savior.

This can be a woman too.



-------------- PART TWO

Observations
1.) Atheists in America are more belligerent and aggressive than atheists in other countries.

-I've talked to atheists in other countries and they've rarely been as abusive as american atheists...

-Exceptions are Richard Dawkins, and James Randi. Richard Dawkins was from Nairobi, Kenya, and James Randi was from Canada.

-Obnoxious and Arrogant people exist in any society regardless of religion. However the number of arrogant atheists seem to be disproportionate in America.

HYPOTHESIS
----------------

Atheists are obnoxious and arrogant because of the high percentage of religious people in America. They either feel overwhelmed at the "backward" beliefs of their American companions or their influence... meaning force. They feel as if they'll be forced to live under Christian Morality for the rest of their life; they feel as if they'll always be criticized for having sex outside of marriage; they'll always be criticized for being atheists; that religion will never be pushed out of the public sphere, which it should... since America after all, is the nation of religious freedom... Isn't it?

-INRM

[Fade]

Atheists are obnoxious and arrogant because of the high percentage of religious people in America.

Wrong.

You hear the obnoxious and arrogant atheists because they are the ones talking. Same goes for christianity, and islam, and every other religion / philosophy / thought process / whatever out there.

[Dymanic]

I've been examining my own attitudes as an atheist lately, and while I do not agree with everything you said, I do find some of your observations insightful. In fact, I am forced to agree with much of what you said, and plead guilty to several of the charges you make.

Maybe atheists aren't really all that different from anyone else when it comes to wanting others to share one's beliefs (or lack thereof). Maybe believers and unbelievers alike are all pompous, arrogant people who like to shove their beliefs down everybody elses throat and feel superior to them...just to varying degrees, and employing various styles and techniques--some perhaps less obvious, but still similarly motivated.

[c4ts]

I was a theist until I saw Franko's posts, followed by Jedi Knight's, Muscleman's... and now yours.

I pretty much hate religion nowadays. I owe it all to you guys. All I see is stupid people defending stupid things, stupidly. And, of course, the word "stupid" three times in the same sentence.

[synaesthesia]

The contumely, the cynicism at strong ideological presuppositions are not unique to debates over theism. Humor is an angry art, and in such an absurd context as debate over God, the humorist can no more be expected to employ restraint at all times than to cease breathing.

But when people engage you sincerely, it's only right to return the favour. Besides, do we not aim to influence people in subtle ways that do not necessarily urge them away from belief in God? No, attack the underlying conceptual flaws WITHOUT necessarily issuing a direct and especially not a mocking challenge.

That's how you ultimately get people to drop superstition. Help them use the critical mindset, give them the tools each person needs to really deconstruct God in their life.

The instillation of the poison tree of knowlege of naturalism is far more valuble than eradicating the plaque of viral religious memes. Who knows, in the long run it may, but by then even better things will result from a more critical populous.

Originally posted by c4ts
I was a theist until I saw Franko's posts, followed by Jedi Knight's, Muscleman's... and now yours.

I pretty much hate religion nowadays. I owe it all to you guys. All I see is stupid people defending stupid things, stupidly. And, of course, the word "stupid" three times in the same sentence.

Yes it is strangly eludicating to see aspects of religosity distorted and magnified in such individuals. Their confusion allows them to be more open about accepting the contradictions most theists tend to tactfully paper over.

[arcticpenguin]

I think there's some truth to what you say, try looking up "fervor of the convert" and related phrases.

This applies to religious people, not just atheists. Those who converted to a position are often more enthusiastic than those who always held it.

St. Paul would be one of your prime examples.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by INRM
Atheists are obnoxious and arrogant because of the high percentage of religious people in America.

So what's your excuse then?

Originally posted by INRM
It could either be intelligence which causes them to question their religious leaders, which often results in clash... or a love of science or nature (or both) which explains everything they need to know and replaces the need for God.

I don't know of ANY mainstream scientist who would suggest that science "explains everything they need to know", can you name any scientist who holds this view? If you truly need to have answers to ALL of life's questions, then I'm afraid the only place you'll be satisfied is in a Religion.

Originally posted by INRM
Science becomes their "religion" (I know it's not a religion, but it's a figure of speach, and some atheists DO treat Science as if it were a religion), so to speak.

Sure. And some religious people consider every word of the bible to be literally true. What's your point?

Originally posted by INRM
The Atheist feels like he MUST save these people! After all they are being fooled! Deceived! Deluded!

No, no, no, you're thinking of Missionaries.


Originally posted by INRM
HYPOTHESIS
----------------

Atheists are obnoxious and arrogant because of the high percentage of religious people in America. They either feel overwhelmed at the "backward" beliefs of their American companions or their influence... meaning force. They feel as if they'll be forced to live under Christian Morality for the rest of their life; they feel as if they'll always be criticized for having sex outside of marriage; they'll always be criticized for being atheists; that religion will never be pushed out of the public sphere, which it should... since America after all, is the nation of religious freedom... Isn't it?

-INRM
If that's your idea of a hypothesis, then you'd make a pretty crappy scientist.

[Yahzi]

INRM
Science becomes their "religion" (I know it's not a religion, but it's a figure of speach, and some atheists DO treat Science as if it were a religion), so to speak.
Science becomes their world-view. Religions are also world-views. Both science and religion are world-views, even though science is not a religion and religion is not a science.

It helps ever so much when you use the right word.

Atheists are obnoxious and arrogant because of the high percentage of religious people in America.
Athiests are obnoxious and arrogant because they want to change what people don't want to bother changing, and they are right, and pretty much everybody knows it.

We make it hard for you to enjoy your fantasy world. Truth and justice are always unwelcome guests in a well-fed household.

[Finella]

INRM....

I generally agree with your observations, given the reaction I've had to my posts thus far in this forum. I might have tried a softer approach, however. :) Have you read Scott Peck's Further Along the Road Less Traveled, and specifically the chapter on stages of Spiritual Development? Or perhaps any of Ken Wilber's work on the same topic? If not, I suggest both -- Peck's is a little simpler and easier to apply to your "hypotheses." I find it helpful when reading posts here and it keeps the whole athiest thing in perspective for me.

---,---'--{@

[INRM]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Science becomes their world-view. Religions are also world-views. Both science and religion are world-views, even though science is not a religion and religion is not a science.

It helps ever so much when you use the right word.

You're right!

I couldn't think of a fitting word, I'm sorry.

Yahzi
Athiests are obnoxious and arrogant because they want to change what people don't want to bother changing

That is a good point, people don't like change.

, and they are right, and pretty much everybody knows it.

Now that's not arrogant... is it Yahzi?

Atheists appear to be right on most points... I'll concede that, let's let time determine whether you're totally right on all points.

Yahzi, again
We make it hard for you to enjoy your fantasy world. Truth and justice are always unwelcome guests in a well-fed household.

My fantasy world? I don't have one. My fantasy world died years ago.

As for Truth and Justice being unwelcome guests, I don't say that. I like the truth, just tell it to me as it is without lying to me. I just don't like it when people preach beliefs to be facts.

Some atheists preach speculation to be truth. That's no different than a fundie doing it. Except Atheists tend to have more weight to their arguments and make better points.


Originally posted by Iconoclast
So what's your excuse then?

Because I'm a jerk. I'm guessing you were looking for a more lengthly, deeper responce however.

Originally posted by Iconoclast
I don't know of ANY mainstream scientist who would suggest that science "explains everything they need to know", can you name any scientist who holds this view? If you truly need to have answers to ALL of life's questions, then I'm afraid the only place you'll be satisfied is in a Religion.

It's a figure of speach. I didn't mean EVERYTHING they needed to know. I meant it explains a lot, so they then make the false assumption that it means that it can explain anything. I'm sorry.

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Sure. And some religious people consider every word of the bible to be literally true. What's your point?

That was my point... Atheists come off like fundies.

Originally posted by Iconoclast
No, no, no, you're thinking of Missionaries.

Hehehe, you haven't encountered atheists online have you? (In chat-rooms I mean)

Originally posted by Iconoclast
If that's your idea of a hypothesis, then you'd make a pretty crappy scientist.

It's more like a loose-draft. But, yes you're probably right. But I never professed to be a scientist.


Originally posted by arcticpenguin
This applies to religious people, not just atheists. Those who converted to a position are often more enthusiastic than those who always held it.

True! That was the point I was trying to make...

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
St. Paul would be one of your prime examples.

True.


Originally posted by Synaesthesia
The contumely, the cynicism at strong ideological presuppositions are not unique to debates over theism. Humor is an angry art, and in such an absurd context as debate over God, the humorist can no more be expected to employ restraint at all times than to cease breathing.

But when people engage you sincerely, it's only right to return the favour. Besides, do we not aim to influence people in subtle ways that do not necessarily urge them away from belief in God? No, attack the underlying conceptual flaws WITHOUT necessarily issuing a direct and especially not a mocking challenge.

I'm sorry, I cannot allow that second paragraph to go unpunished...

Attack them and they will attack back. It's that simple

They will not perceive your attempts as "teaching them the errors of their ways", they will perceive it as open-agression, which they will reply in kind. It will turn into a pitched verbal battle which the Atheist will ultimately win, but the war is lost, as the Theist does not abandon his beliefs, but he simply goes to his Theist friends who all verbally bash the Atheist behind his back.

Originally posted by Synaesthesia
That's how you ultimately get people to drop superstition. Help them use the critical mindset, give them the tools each person needs to really deconstruct God in their life.

What you described in the previous paragraph was an open-attack. That doesn't work.

Whine all you want about the "Who the f**k cares how I say it, I'm telling you the truth!" thing. It doesn't work. Theists will not listen.

You can make a point without being a jerk. Giving them nothing but utter-contempt and bitter-abuse will not make them want to listen to their point of views; it'll make them angry at you, and the whole issue will be "He was nasty and mean to me" not "He tried to show me a new method of thinking".

Originally posted by Synaesthesia
The instillation of the poison tree of knowlege of naturalism is far more valuble than eradicating the plaque of viral religious memes. Who knows, in the long run it may, but by then even better things will result from a more critical populous.

Instillation of poision, that's what you want to do.

No... you tell them the truth. That's all you're supposed to do. That's all you're EVER supposed to do.


Originally posted by Dynamic
I've been examining my own attitudes as an atheist lately, and while I do not agree with everything you said, I do find some of your observations insightful. In fact, I am forced to agree with much of what you said, and plead guilty to several of the charges you make.

Thank you...

I threw it together as a loosely-arranged hypothesis with data to support.

I know it isn't the most organized, and it comes off as a rambling, and I'm sorry for that.

I shall try to clarify it some-day.

Any questions or clarifications you want answered (now) just ask. I shall answer as soon as I'm available... (which is pretty often, since I got fired from my previous job)

-INRM

[PogoPedant]

They are usually easy-going despite their atheism
:p
HappyFace : Atheist special ability, gained at fifth level. Gives the user the ability to appear happy despite lack of divine intervention.

[Martin]

Originally posted by INRM
Hehehe, you haven't encountered atheists online have you? (In chat-rooms I mean)Oh, I get it. You've been talking to the PalTalk atheists, haven't you?

[BillyTK]

Abstract
Researchers investigating the beliefs of a group of American atheists (n=3) discovered that the only connection between the group (other than a lack of belief in the existence of dieties) was the availability of genetically modified (GM) products in their native country. Using a one-factor ANOVA, researchers discovered that not only did consumption of GM food significantly correlate with having atheist beliefs (p=0) but also that the development and spread of atheisism also matched the spread of GM products.
The researchers concluded that religious people are protected from this effect because of god's love.

[Rat]

The only atheists I've encountered who have been a trouble to deal with, have been ones that had started out as Theists, or religious in one method or another, or spiritual in one way or another. Then they became unreligious or anti-religious through one way or another...

I find, incidentally, much the same is true of smokers. The most vehement anti-smokers are almost without exception the ex-smokers. Just thought I'd mention it.

[INRM]

Originally posted by ratcomp1974


I find, incidentally, much the same is true of smokers. The most vehement anti-smokers are almost without exception the ex-smokers. Just thought I'd mention it.

True!

-INRM

[jimlintott]

They are usually easy-going despite their atheism

He was quite intelligent despite being black.

She was a decent driver despite being Chinese and a woman.

He was a hard worker despite being Mexican.

She was warm and freindly despite being British.

He was a good basketball player despite being white.

Ever wonder why atheists might become obnoxious sometimes?

editted to add: Oops, I just posted to R&P. I hope I don't regret it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jimlintott

Oops, I just posted to R&P. I hope I don't regret it. You're first post on R&P AND it was insightful?! How dare you, sir?!? Get thee back to Banter! We need no insight HERE, thankyouverymuch!:D

[jimmygun]

I would like to point out that if there are more obnoxious atheists in America it may be because there are laws preventing the religious from cutting atheist's heads off in public stadiums.

[Upchurch]

I'm sure it makes theists long for the good ol' days when they could do such things in America. ;)

[INRM]

Originally posted by jimmygun
I would like to point out that if there are more obnoxious atheists in America it may be because there are laws preventing the religious from cutting atheist's heads off in public stadiums.

You were right on laws existing that make it illegal to harm Atheists, as for the comment about other countries.

Not True!

Other nations are much more tolerant towards atheism than we are. Such as England...

-INRM

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by INRM
I'm sorry, I cannot allow that second paragraph to go unpunished.

Attack them and they will attack back. It's that simple

They will not perceive your attempts as "teaching them the errors of their ways", they will perceive it as open-agression, which they will reply in kind. It will turn into a pitched verbal battle...

Yikes, a pitched battle. Well, I don't know whether or not your prognosticationing for such tactics are correct, but I'm glad you misunderstood those to be mine; they are not. Let me rephrase, I would say that you misunderstood me, and I am glad that both of us are too wise to hold such a view.

My hypotheses of what caused your error is twofold.
1)Smug, self-rigteous bastards like me are the topic.
2)You mistakenly believed that the approach described in the second paragraph occurs in the context of mocking theists.

I never excused cruelty, 'humorists' ask for no excuse. I only advocated making an effort to engage people in mutually sincere or mutually jesting dialogue.

Pursuasion to me is a secondary module of communication embedded to obtain some interesting joint-cognition between people. You seem to be indicating (something to the effect that) I would attack people and then go on to try to manipulate them.

You've got me all wrong, friend. I try to be courteous. I do appreciate the value of anyone's willingness to reflect upon their own belief system. I won't promise to moddly coddle their mistakes, but for God's sake, give me some credit. Tact is not totally beyond me at all times.

Instillation of poision, that's what you want to do.

No... you tell them the truth. That's all you're supposed to do. That's all you're EVER supposed to do.

Didn't catch the "tree of knowledge" metaphor? :rolleyes:
This is inserted as a service to posters on this thread to mark the point where the thread went zombie. The post above is more than four years old. Do not expect any response if you reply to this post or any posts above it.

[yrreg]

No mention here of "Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism" by ex-atheist, Paul C. Vitz.

I guess that work has not yet come out at the time of this thread which did not see much activity, or more probably the contributors to the thread did not know about such a work.


If I may, I like to pursue further the psychology of atheists, using the book by Vitz.


I was supposed to start two new threads, one on The God Discovered by Antony Flew, and the other on To Atheists, Are Inferences Experiences of the Brain? Yes No," but I don't think I will continue with the plan, not for now, because I have come to a better idea, my recurring love for the study of motivations by which people become atheists.



If this is highjacking a thread, then I will start a new one, entitling it The Psychology of Atheists -- Take Two, and use the work of Paul C. Vitz as a source of reference.





Yrreg

[Hokulele]

Aaaaaggghhh!

Zombie! Run!

[Foster Zygote]

Sorry Gerry (and Vitz), but Freud has absolutely nothing to do with my atheism.

[RoboTimbo]

...motivations by which people become atheists.

...


The complete lack of compelling evidence that there are any gods.

Got any?

[Foster Zygote]

Vitz's problem is that, while he points out some bad arguments made by Freud that attempted to explain the existence of theism, he turns around and makes equally bad arguments attempting to explain the existence of atheism.

[Hokulele]

Vitz's problem is that, while he points out some bad arguments made by Freud that attempted to explain the existence of theism, he turns around and makes equally bad arguments attempting to explain the existence of atheism.


Such as?

I haven't read the book, so please do share.

Zombie thread be damned.

[legne]

motivations by which people become atheists.


Because I've heard that hell is full of sex, drugs, rock'n roll, sodomy, s&m and booze. So if believing in God means giving up that, I'd rather stay on the safe side.

Paper: The psychology of atheism by Vitz: leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html

Adler confirms this impression in his autobiography, Philosopher at Large (1976). There, while investigating his reasons for twice stopping short of a full religious commitment, he writes that the answer "lies in the state of one's will, not in the state of one's mind." Adler goes on to comment that to become seriously religious "would require a radical change in my way of life . . ." and "The simple truth of the matter is that I did not wish to live up to being a genuinely religious person" (Graddy, p. 24).

There you have it! A remarkably honest and conscious admission that being "a genuinely religious person" would be too much trouble, too inconvenient. I can't but assume that such are the shallow reasons behind many an unbeliever's position.


Lol what.

He's also published a book called "Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship". Fascinating

[Foster Zygote]

Such as?

I haven't read the book, so please do share.

Zombie thread be damned.

Legne's already demonstrated Vitz's propensity to draw broad conclusions from very limited data. The main argument in the book that Gerry's on about boils down to "Some famous atheists had poor relationships with their fathers, therefor, atheists are people who are angry with their fathers and have transfered their anger at father figures to their attitudes about God". Seriously, it really is that lame.

[Hokulele]

Thanks to the both of you.

Seriously, it really is that lame.


Sounds like Vitz and Geisler should do a joint project...

[joobz]

Thanks to the both of you.


Sounds like Vitz and Geisler should do a joint project...
I don't have enough faith to hate my father?

[jj]

I must admit that being spited, insulted, etc, is what made me a much more militant atheist.

Those theists who can agree to disagree get along fine with me. Those who shudder and shout 'god bless' when they find out I don't go to church don't fare so well.

[Hokulele]

Do theists hate their mothers?

[joobz]

Do atheist Strawmen dream of electric Cigars?

[Foster Zygote]

Do theists hate their mothers?

That's one thing that really gets me about Vitz's argument: It assumes that the only concept of god available to theists is a paternalistic interpretation.

[Foster Zygote]

Do atheist Strawmen dream of electric Cigars?

Now you're just going to confuse Gerry because you forgot to preface your post with the "humorous content spoiler tag".

[RoboTimbo]

For all of yrreG's attempts at understanding the psychology of atheists, I think we're seeing more of the psychology of one seriously deluded theist.

Maybe he thinks he's turning atheist?

[Hex]

I think the title of this thread is misleading. Particularly the part that says "Not what you think) because it was Exactly what I thought it was.

Where do those people get that Richard Dawkins is obnoxious from? I should be so lucky as to have a tiff with someone so polite. Even at his best level of anti religiousness he's so reasonable, and polite. He'd be the best (worst?) enemy ever.

The reason atheist are so much more aggressive in this country is because there is an aggressive religious majority in this country and it's culturally less acceptable to be an atheist, without there being a death penalty for being an atheist.

I don't see the number of arrogant atheists being disproportionate. Look at all those creationists that are so arrogant that they tell you how everything happens in the universe without knowing anything about any branch of science.

There's many obnoxious, arrogant, and religious people in the U.S. I would wager in a study they would be the ones in disproportion.

[DeusPhasmatis]

Sorry Gerry (and Vitz), but Freud has absolutely nothing to do with my atheism.

I'm going to disagree with that. I'm sure there's a Freudian explanation of why you're an atheist. I find a lot so-called Freudian explanations miss the point, which is basically that why you think one way is related to why you think other ways about other things.

As such, disliking one's father, seeing God as a father figure, and thus being an atheist, is one of many different Freudian explanations. There's one for you, but I have no idea what it is.

[slingblade]

I've met Mr. Randi. He's hardly pompous.

The word is spelled "speech." Not "speach."

There was nothing else in the OP worth responding to.

[badnewsBH]

Welcome to the boards, Hex. That, by the way, was a helluva first post. Well said. :)

Now, to the OP. Are there obnoxious or arrogant atheists? Of course, just as there are obnoxious or arrogant theists. Why? Because we're human.

Most of the atheists I've seen comment here aren't being very arrogant or obnoxious. They do, on occasion, seem a little unpleasant, but guess what? The subject matter being discussed in these threads is sometimes emotionally charged. People react like that at times.

Also, most of the posts I've read wherein atheists are getting upset seem to reflect opinions of the manner in which theists are conducting themselves, and not on the opinions of the theists in question. Gerry, for instance, has given people great cause for frustration, because his posts are often shambling mountains of incoherency. His posts have contained little substance, and many poorly formed arguments; they have been chock full of demands on response length and content, standards to which Gerry does not himself adhere. He isn't the first (or likely the last) theist who has done his position injustice by his choice of tactics, but those who've responded to him are attacking his methods, for the most part.

Personally, I would like to see more people look for evidentiary reasons to believe things, but I don't mock spiritual beliefs, nor do I expect religious people to change their minds for my sake. I certainly don't see myself as superior to those folks because my beliefs are different, so I don't think I qualify as arrogant. In fact, I question why you seem to place all atheists, regardless of their individual stripes, into the "pompous and arrogant" category, when there's little reason to believe that it's true. There are plenty of posters here who are both atheist and very much not pompous or arrogant, in my experience.

[Louisthe13th]

I find, incidentally, much the same is true of smokers. The most vehement anti-smokers are almost without exception the ex-smokers. Just thought I'd mention it.


I'm going to have a smoke. Be right back.

[Louisthe13th]

Now you're just going to confuse Gerry because you forgot to preface your post with the "humorous content spoiler tag".

Mr. Zygote- a banjo! Do you also play mandolin (cafe)?

I'm getting tired of the "angry atheist" label. I am not angry by rote. I don't think I have ever responded angrily to theist's. Case in point: At work today a co-worker's partner was killed in a car crash. I worked with some clients to deal with their emotions. When a co-worker made a comment about needing to pray, I did not respond "your belief system is stupid, you are stupid" I simply remained silent. My obvious lack of support for this proposal was met with indignant looks and a comment about my belief system. See, I didn't attack them I merely refused to drink the kool-aid with them. They are still angry with me whilst I remain calm. Also, my daughter has had to deal with classmates that have asked her "why are atheists so angry?". She has also remained calm and tried to point out that she really doubtls any of them have ever met an angry atheist. I think this is all cherry picking and one comment is seen as a complete sample and that ALL atheists are angry regardless of the context in which a particular comment or such was made. Theists get far angrier that I don't share their viewpoint.

It's all a bunch of poppycock.

[devnull]

I'm going to have a smoke. Be right back.

I wish I could join you, but I gave up a few months back.

I sure do envy you tho :)

[Louisthe13th]

Meh, don't too much!

In all honesty this is my last chance to sneek one! I'm moving off of graveyards and only smoke one a day when I'm starting to get sleepy.

Really looking forward to getting back to days!
...and I'm still not angry damn it!

[Ysidro]

OPs like this make me want to be more obnoxious in my atheism. I mean, if we're going to be accused of it we might as well be nice and act the way they think we do.

[Foster Zygote]

Mr. Zygote- a banjo! Do you also play mandolin (cafe)?

That's actually on of these.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105741

But I do love me some good pickin'.

[articulett]

I think that believers are prone to hear atheists as arrogant to keep from having to realize that the atheist feels the same way about their sacred "truths" that the believer feels about the supposed "sacred truths" they don't believe in--say, Scientology.

If you weren't so busy hearing the atheist as arrogant, you might actually have to cede that they have a point. Your woo is no more supportable than all the woo you don't believe in.

"Arrogance" is your perception, INRM... it's happening in your head. It has no bearing on what is true.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by yrreg
motivations by which people become atheists.
Because I've heard that hell is full of sex, drugs, rock'n roll, sodomy, s&m and booze. So if believing in God means giving up that, I'd rather stay on the safe side.

Paper: The psychology of atheism by Vitz: leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html

[...]




Thanks, legne, for bringing up what is in effect a shorer version of the book by Paul C. Vitz, ex-atheists, on psychology of atheism -- but I wished he had entitled it instead as psychology of atheists.

For guys here who want to know more about the book and the thoughts of Vitz, I am giving you the following references:
The Psychology of Atheism
Professor Paul C. Vitz (web article).

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html


Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism
Paul C. Vitz (print book) (Spence: October 15, 1999), 200 pages.

http://afterall.net/books/490645


As far as I have learned from interacting with atheists in the net, atheists are like theists: from human psychology they are after benefits from the embrace of atheism as theists from the embrace of theism.

At the minimum atheists derive some kinds of good or satisfaction from being atheist, predominantly and generically as Foster puts it: rational consistency and guiltless masturbation, and everything connected with and/or consequent from atheists' sense and understanding of rational consistency and guiltless masturbation.

With theists it is also rational consistency and -- no, not guiltless masturbation -- but the assurance of a super father in and over the world, the creator and in charge of the whole universe of existence as distinct from and opposed to non-existence.


What about myself?

For myself I am a theist and I have empirical evidence of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That is for me a certitude as far as my human brain can be certain about if it can be certain of anything at all.

I being a human in my conscious brain or in my conscious experience of intelligent inferences, from the information my brain has from its access to the realities of existence, again as distinct from and opposed to non-existence, I being a human cannot otherwise than come and I do have come to the certainty of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

As regards the assurance of having a super father in and over the world, the creator and in charge of the whole universe of existence as distinct from and opposed to non-existence, there are things which to my brain does not seem to be fatherly from the part of God.

And that is the discussion I am going to have with God if ever I get to meet Him and have some words with Him.


I am out of this thread.

Do not make personal attacks.


Yrreg

[Silentknight]

Psst, Yrreg, I'm pretty sure Legne was joking in that part of his post you quoted.

To use your own words, my regrets if some of you find his words too long or too difficult to grasp, the fault is altogether from your limited brain capacity and command of vocabulary.

I'm sure you said something else after that, but I can't find anything worth repeating.

Legne's already demonstrated Vitz's propensity to draw broad conclusions from very limited data. The main argument in the book that Gerry's on about boils down to "Some famous atheists had poor relationships with their fathers, therefor, atheists are people who are angry with their fathers and have transfered their anger at father figures to their attitudes about God". Seriously, it really is that lame.

My mother and father are agnostic and deist respectively, but since we tend to get into arguments from time to time, my atheism is an obvious rebellion against their beliefs. :rolleyes:

[zooterkin]

For myself I am a theist and I have empirical evidence of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.
You do? That's wonderful. Would you care to share it?



I am out of this thread.


Already? What was your purpose in resurrecting it, then?

[billydkid]

Sorry, couldn't bother to read all of this, but I can't help but ask who the not guilty people are that Randi has exposed.

[billydkid]

Or "The psychology of not believing in baseless fantasies" might be another way of putting it. Not believing in things that have no basis clearly must indicate a disfunctional "psychology" of some sort.

[joobz]

What about myself?

For myself I am a theist and I have empirical evidence of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.
One would think that if you had such evidence, you would have provided it.

That is for me a certitude as far as my human brain can be certain about if it can be certain of anything at all.
really. You are less certain about gravity than you are about a being that you've never seen, heard, felt or smelled?


I being a human in my conscious brain or in my conscious experience of intelligent inferences, from the information my brain has from its access to the realities of existence, again as distinct from and opposed to non-existence, I being a human cannot otherwise than come and I do have come to the certainty of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.In other words:
"I think thefore god is."

As regards the assurance of having a super father in and over the world, the creator and in charge of the whole universe of existence as distinct from and opposed to non-existence, there are things which to my brain does not seem to be fatherly from the part of God.
In other words:
"I'm aware that god's kind of a jerk"
And that is the discussion I am going to have with God if ever I get to meet Him and have some words with Him.

In other words:
"I hope I get a chance to ask him, "what's up with you being a jerk?""


I am out of this thread.
IN other words:
"I'm inserting my firgers back into my ears"

Do not make personal attacks, even in response to personal attacks. Just report them.

[Blackadder]

I've met Mr. Randi. He's hardly pompous.

The word is spelled "speech." Not "speach."

There was nothing else in the OP worth responding to.

This is what I wanted to say, except that I never had the honour to meet Mr Randi


....


WHEN will I ever learn to check the date on threads before responding?

Blackadder, when a thread is on the active list, it doesn't mean it was started yesterday.
Oh Ok .. excuse me

[Foster Zygote]

WHEN will I ever learn to check the date on threads before responding?

Blackadder, when a thread is on the active list, it doesn't mean it was started yesterday.
Oh Ok .. excuse me

Are you sure you're not Baldrick?

[Blackadder]

Are you sure you're not Baldrick?

Yes, I put on new underpants every Sunday, and Baldrick only changes them every Christmas when Santa brings him a new pair.

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, I put on new underpants every Sunday, and Baldrick only changes them every Christmas when Santa brings him a new pair.

:)

[Paulhoff]

The guess here is that Randi is just a pompous person who gets a thrill out of exposing people-- whether they are guilty or not...
I know and see Randi often, the man is anything but pompous, I do not like your remark.

And as for the thrill of exposing people, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Paul

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Psychology of Atheism: The Theory of Defective Father

Wait, I thought that was the Christian theory for the psychology of gays...

OMG, all atheists are gay, you heard it here first!!!

[Foster Zygote]

Wait, I thought that was the Christian theory for the psychology of gays...

OMG, all atheists are gay, you heard it here first!!!

I am quite happy, thank you. Now if you'll excuse me I have to fill my Stutz Bearcat with petroleum distillate and have the tires re-vulcanized post haste.

[Louisthe13th]

That's actually on of these.


But I do love me some good pickin'.

My bad, with all the inlay I thought it was a banjo. There was a poster on the Mandolin Cafe forum that mentioned JREF and the audio cable debacle and the worthiness of skepticism. It was cool to see the two worlds collide!

I'm an eight stringer myself.

Sorry for the derail.

[Louisthe13th]

For myself I am a theist and I have empirical evidence of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

No.You.Don't.

[yrreg]

First, I want to apologize for my lack of regard for the sensibility of atheists here.

And I want to give credit to Moderator Tricky for bringing that to my notice.

Thanks, Tricky, for your reminder.


Haha, got myself in a fix! No excuse now, what I need to do is to avoid, to abstain from remarks that do not contribute to the exchange of ideas but to exacerbate fellow discussants.

Thanks everyone here for your patience.



About the psychology of atheists as also the psychology of theists, they are essentially the same in the big picture, namely: both atheists and theists seek what they see to be of any use to themselves.

If nothing else, to feel that they are respectively more rationally consistent than other people who don't have their kind of isms whatever, then the more biological satisfactions of their physiological nature, like sex and everything connected with sex for atheists.

As for theists, the assurance as I said of a super father who is creator of heaven and earth and everything.


This is the impasse between atheists and theists, and I am inclined to see it as essentially one of psychology, not of gnoseology.

What is gnoseology?


That word comes to mind in my quick search for the best term in my brain cupboard of vocabulary.

Let me look it up in the net dictionaries, to check if I have gotten indeed the most appropriate term.

gnoseology
the philosophy of knowledge and the human faculties for learning
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gnoseology


I guess that says exactly what I want to tell you about what is gnoseology, no need to consult other net dictionaries.


You see our intellect is in a way ironically and paradoxically a blind faculty, meaning it is neutral; but it is our nerves, our neurology that is moving us to action, and that is our psychology as distinct from our gnoseology the realm of our intellect.


Think about that, as we can debate forever on whether God exists or not.


Now, if it is up to Gallup the counter (not the predictor though), I guess the answer is obvious, God exists.

That is the judgment of the natural man as distinct from and opposed to the unnatural man, which natural man is the foundation of democracy, the last state and almost certainly the final one of the governance of man by man.


Think about that! Okay?


While you are thinking about things I am asking you guys to think about, see what kind of a God you would like to imagine knowing if you were a theist.

For myself, I see this description of God, maker of heaven and earth and everything, to be pretty acceptable to anyone and everyone who does use his brain to answer the question whether there is a God.


In my own analysis, even atheists are closet theists, they do have a God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything, only they call their God chaos and His methodology chance.





Yrreg

[PixyMisa]

Argumentum ad populum. You lose.

[RoboTimbo]

As for theists, the assurance as I said of a super father who is creator of heaven and earth and everything.


So, you believe just because it brings you comfort? I'm ok with that.

[Paulhoff]

For myself, I see this description of God, maker of heaven and earth and everything, to be pretty acceptable to anyone and everyone who does use his brain to answer the question whether there is a God.

In my own analysis, even atheists are closet theists, they do have a God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything, only they call their God chaos and His methodology chance.

Yrreg
Which so-called god, yours, your father's or mother's, your neighbors, kid down the block. I'm sure that since there is no proof of a so-called god, everyone's idea of one will be a little to a lot different from one person to other's idea of a so-called god.

My own analysis is that many theists are closet atheists, most seem to run to the doctor's at the drop of a hat when sick, they don't seem to trust to this so-called god when that happens. And there is a lot of crying when someone dies, I thought this person went to heaven and they would meet again and after a few billions years of being together, let alone forever, get sick to hell of each other.

And this heaven thing, what makes you think this so-called god of yours will get that right, things are going wrong for it down here all the time, what is so different about this heaven. And since you have never been there, please tell me all about it.

Also, what would be so-called god's job in heaven, no mircles are needed there, right.

Paul

:) :) :)

[SnuffSnuff]

My own analysis is that many theists are closet atheists, most seem to run to the doctor's at the drop of a hat when sick, they don't seem to trust to this so-called god when that happens. And there is a lot of crying when someone dies, I thought this person went to heaven and they would meet again and after a few billions years of being together, let alone forever, get sick to hell of each other.


I agree with this analysis, although I don't think the theists have atheism in mind when their loved ones die. I think it's mostly because they miss the one that passed away.

[Paulhoff]

I agree with this analysis, although I don't think the theists have atheism in mind when their loved ones die. I think it's mostly because they miss the one that passed away.
But they are going to see one another again, and that person is happy now. If one REALLY BELIEVED it all, there would be a lot less missing.

Paul

:) :) :)

[fls]

I just finished reading a book called "Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers", by Bruce Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer. It answers many of the questions brought up in this thread.

For example, as to whether or not people choose atheism in order to have guilt-free sex or masturbation? No. The biggest reasons that people became atheists was because religious teachings were unbelievable and contradictory, and the behaviour of religious people turned them off. The lowest influences on atheism were the religious teachings about sex.

Only about 10% came from non-believer households, but the extent to which religion is emphasized in the home/community strongly correlates with the extent to whether someone is religious. Most atheists went through a period of belief and it was their attempts to understand and resolve their doubts that eventually led them to atheism.

Most suffered negative consequences from their lack/loss of belief. It wasn't the easier route to take.

What is interesting to me, though, is the psychology of the anti-atheist that shows up in these various threads on theism, atheism and agnosticism. I read this book because it was referred to by a militant agnostic as a scientific study that showed atheists were less happy and more angry than the average individual. Yet there is no mention anywhere in the book of whether or not atheists are angry. And the only reference to 'happy' comes when comparing the sense of happiness religious fundamentalists receive from religion with the sense of happiness atheists receive from science and logic. The bulk of the book discusses the discoveries that as a group atheists are less prejudiced, less hypocritical, and less zealous than people with any other level of belief from agnosticism to fundamentalism. And yet, all that the anti-atheist 'remembered' about the results were two things that weren't even studied and were negative characteristics, in contradistinction to the bulk of the findings - that positive characteristics were most likely to be found in atheists (even more than in agnostics).

Just so you know, neither author is an atheist.

Linda

[Foster Zygote]

My bad, with all the inlay I thought it was a banjo. There was a poster on the Mandolin Cafe forum that mentioned JREF and the audio cable debacle and the worthiness of skepticism. It was cool to see the two worlds collide!

I'm an eight stringer myself.
Michael Kelly makes some lovely Mandolins too. My Guitar teacher has one that he quite likes.

Sorry for the derail.
Pffft! This thread has been commandeered by Yrreg and is thus destined for a spectacular train wreck anyway.

[JFrankA]

I was brought up Catholic, and, until I went to that college, I considered myself Christian. Little did I know that the college had a "born-again Christian" movement there. The college was a very religious and at the time I was still figuring out my beliefs. So I was brought to the awakening that I not only was I not a Christian, I was also a heathen. So they tried to convert me.

That confused me at the time, because I always thought "whoever isn't against us is for us" (wasn't that in the bible?) so I had these long, long arguments with Christians about it. My roommate (and good friend) was Jewish, and he never tried to convince me to convert, and I never tried to convince him. We had talks and debates about it, but that's all it ever was. I figured, he's showing his love for god, being a good person, doing no harm to anyone, so it's a different way to worship, so what?

But some (not all) of these particular Christians were so arrogant, so bullying to anyone who did not believe what they believed, that they made me question my own beliefs. But not the way they wanted me to question them. I questioned all religion at that time. I was thinking: What possessed them them to be jerks? Was it because they were jerks to begin with and just used religion to further their "jerkiness"? Or is there something that happens to some people that makes "non-jerky" people turn jerky when they "find god"?

The point I'm trying to make is this: People are going to be jerks. Some are already jerks, some need a little push, some need an excuse. Religion or lack thereof isn't going to make a jerk not a jerk and may quite possibly cause a "potential jerk" to become one. Both conditions give people a reason to judge others.

As an atheist, this is what I believe: I try not to be a hypocrite. I try not to judge. I don't care if someone believes that the moon sneezed out the Earth and thinks that someday we're going to be swallowed by a tissue. I try not to judge. It gives you guidance, it makes you happy, it makes you a better person, you're not hurting or imposing beliefs on anyone else, fine. Enjoy. I will respect your beliefs. I would enjoy a debate, but that's all it is, a debate. I don't expect to sway you, you're not going to sway me, but it's fun just to talk and get into each other's thoughts.

However, if you are going to try to convert me to your religion, or demand that I follow your rules, beliefs, or moralities by either making them a law or something. Or by making something sound like it's bad when the only reason why you think something is bad is because "god told you it was" then I will judge you back and I will be a jerk.

And you know, honestly, one way I attack back is to sit back and let the theist be the jerk. Show the crowd how jerky she or he's being because her or his beliefs are twisting her or his thoughts. You won't believe how often and easily that can be done.

But anyway, that's my line in the sand. And honestly, on a personal level, I find that most religious people accept my atheism. It seems to me that in "real personal life" as it were, people are pretty accepting. However, I do also realize, (and if this comes off as cocky, I'm sorry), that in some cases with the people I meet in real life, that simply claiming to be an atheist may make others see it as a threat to what they believe, so they go on the defensive.

This forum, though, I think is special. As with anything else on the web, it allows people to let loose and vent some frustration with some anonymity. So people tend to be more aggressive (and maybe jerky) on both sides while on this forum than in real life. But here, we atheists have are banded together. We have peer & intellectual support here.

As to the people trying to push their morals (e.g. no same sex marriage) and beliefs (e.g. ID being considered a science) as government law, then I stand up to them because they are really trying to convert everyone.

Sorry for the rambling, just giving my opinion of this topic.

[joobz]

I'm going to use my small, athiest brain to understand your post. Let me know if I misinterpreted something.


About the psychology of atheists as also the psychology of theists, they are essentially the same in the big picture, namely: both atheists and theists seek what they see to be of any use to themselves.
Atheists and theists are alike.


If nothing else, to feel that they are respectively more rationally consistent than other people who don't have their kind of isms whatever, then the more biological satisfactions of their physiological nature, like sex and everything connected with sex for atheists.
Both think they are more rational than the other. Something about sex.

As for theists, the assurance as I said of a super father who is creator of heaven and earth and everything.
Theists need a daddy figure to feel safe.


This is the impasse between atheists and theists, and I am inclined to see it as essentially one of psychology, not of gnoseology.
atheists don't need this daddy figure.


What is gnoseology?

That word comes to mind in my quick search for the best term in my brain cupboard of vocabulary.
I just used a big word that doesn't relate to my argument.


Let me look it up in the net dictionaries, to check if I have gotten indeed the most appropriate term.
gnoseology
the philosophy of knowledge and the human faculties for learning
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gnoseology
I guess that says exactly what I want to tell you about what is gnoseology, no need to consult other net dictionaries.
I assume you don't know words. so i'll explain this one's meaning. Isn't it smart sounding?



You see our intellect is in a way ironically and paradoxically a blind faculty, meaning it is neutral; but it is our nerves, our neurology that is moving us to action, and that is our psychology as distinct from our gnoseology the realm of our intellect.
Our mind is crazy neutral. It's Switzerland! But it actually isn't becuase it makes us do stuff. And that's why I use words like psychology and gnoseology.



Think about that, as we can debate forever on whether God exists or not.

I don't have emprical evidence for god, so look at the words I used and know that I can use more words.


Now, if it is up to Gallup the counter (not the predictor though), I guess the answer is obvious, God exists.God is real for the same reason that this is considered the best channel on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Fred


That is the judgment of the natural man as distinct from and opposed to the unnatural man, which natural man is the foundation of democracy, the last state and almost certainly the final one of the governance of man by man.
Things that are popular must be good and true.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Fred


Think about that! Okay?


While you are thinking about things I am asking you guys to think about, see what kind of a God you would like to imagine knowing if you were a theist.
Create god in your image, athiests. That's what theists do all the time!


For myself, I see this description of God, maker of heaven and earth and everything, to be pretty acceptable to anyone and everyone who does use his brain to answer the question whether there is a God.
I'm christian and it just so happens that I define god in the exact same way as christians define god.


In my own analysis, even atheists are closet theists, they do have a God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything, only they call their God chaos and His methodology chance.
atheists have the god, ath. Ath is a merciless cruel beast who is ruled by chance. That god doesn't intervene, doesn't do anything to help anyone. His existence is completely indistiguishable from his non-existance.

However, my god does nothing by chance. If a child has leukemia, god wanted that child to have it and suffer. If a flood hits a town drowning and destroying thier lives, that was god's will. For every child born with any deformity, that too is god's will. He leaves nothing to chance. Doesn't God sound so much better than ath?

[Stout]

About the psychology of atheists as also the psychology of theists, they are essentially the same in the big picture,



I don't buy that at all. Atheism is the default psychological position with theism being introduced as a learned behaviour that arose from people wanting explanations for natural phenemona right here and now.

I know I butchered your sentence, that was intentional as I'm still thinking about the second part and probably will be for the rest of the day.

This is the impasse between atheists and theists, and I am inclined to see it as essentially one of psychology

Yes, I agree, one group is more prone to being credulous. Is this innate ? As far as i can tell it is.

[Stout]

My own analysis is that many theists are closet atheists, most seem to run to the doctor's at the drop of a hat when sick, they don't seem to trust to this so-called god when that happens.


I've often wondered about that too. One would figure that believers wouldn't be getting sick in the first place, seeing as how God's supposed to care about them. So would that make running to the doctor a violation of God's will where God designed that you should be sick and die and running to the doctor to extend your stay in this earthly plane *should* only serve to piss God off and land you an eternity of fire and brimstone.

I do like entertaining the idea that God's a total jerk though. Some theists will indulge me in this, some refuse to.

[Stout]

This forum, though, I think is special. As with anything else on the web, it allows people to let loose and vent some frustration with some anonymity. So people tend to be more aggressive (and maybe jerky) on both sides while on this forum than in real life. But here, we atheists have are banded together. We have peer & intellectual support here.

As to the people trying to push their morals (e.g. no same sex marriage) and beliefs (e.g. ID being considered a science) as government law, then I stand up to them because they are really trying to convert everyone.

.


Well said. I tend to think that this is THE place for running into angry atheists. I've never met an angry atheist IRL, most of them are pretty mellow, like me only unleashing the tirade when confronted by issues you've detailed above.

In fact, I've only been calling myself an atheist for the past two years or so, preferring instead to hide behind the term agnostic so I'd bee seen as 'doubting" rather than "anti". Yep..I was being a wuss.

[quarky]

Some people are arrogant and obnoxious.
I doubt that it correlates to their theism or lack thereof.

[Paul W]

As usual, I picked up this thread by accident, but it looks fun!

I am somewhat mystified by all the talk of "I decided to become an atheist because ... " with some kind of (dubious?) reason attached.

I am an atheist. I didn't decide to become one: religion simply stopped making any kind of sense at some point in my mid-late teens. I was brought up in a church/chapel going household and when I left home for university I simply stopped going. No great Pauline-like conversion - I just didn't bother, except for the inevitable hatched, matched and dispatched events. I go along, because it's easier than arguing. And I can ignore the mumbo-jumbo as I wish.

I have no desire to argue my point with anyone, and on the occasions the LDS or Witnesses (or others) turn up on my doorstep or I meet them in the street, I'm usually polite simply because it would be bad manners not to be. As a matter of interest, one of the few times I made a point of being an atheist was in a school classroom (where I support Muslim Afghani students) when the Humanities topic happened to be about religion. They couldn't understand my point, and actually got quite upset.

One thing which I do find entertaining, though, is that because I went to church as a child, I have a much better grasp of the Bible that most of those teaching RE! I find myself having to correct them on simple facts quite often.

Envoi: At a local secondary school, GCSE and A-level RE is taught by an atheist.

[MG1962]

Some people are arrogant and obnoxious.
I doubt that it correlates to their theism or lack thereof.

I think you are spot on with your observation. Some people seem to have the overriding need to poke other people with a stick. The vast majority of theists and atheists go through their lives doing what ever is important to them. The very small minority seems to feel the need to brow beat the other into believing whatever it is they believe

The world could use a lot fewer Fred Phelps and Richard Dawkings right now

[fls]

Well said. I tend to think that this is THE place for running into angry atheists. I've never met an angry atheist IRL, most of them are pretty mellow, like me only unleashing the tirade when confronted by issues you've detailed above.

Can you give me some examples of angry atheists here?

And what sort of behaviour would you characterize as 'angry'? Tirades against how awful God is, as an example?

Linda

[fls]

The world could use a lot fewer Fred Phelps and Richard Dawkings right now

Do you have some specific examples of Richard Dawkins being arrogant and obnoxious? I ask because I have little experience of Dawkins - I have read two of his books, but they were strictly about scientific topics, rather than religion, and I have seen some video clips of him talking and debating about various subjects including religion. I wouldn't have characterized his as obnoxious and arrogant based on what I've seen, but I've obviously missed a lot. Since you've seen this from him, can you show me where I can find it?

Linda

[joobz]

The world could use a lot fewer Fred Phelps and Richard Dawkings right now
Do you really see

Oj7bxbwCtOU
"What if you're wrong about the great JuJu"-Dawkins

As equivalent to

iU0_T42U29M
"[George Bush]Fag Pimp"-Fred Phelps.


BTW, I selected a video intentionally biased against Dawkins and a video made by Phelps. The Video of Dawkins is actually guilty of omitting a very important lead in question, that put into context Dawkins response.

[MG1962]

Do you have some specific examples of Richard Dawkins being arrogant and obnoxious? I ask because I have little experience of Dawkins - I have read two of his books, but they were strictly about scientific topics, rather than religion, and I have seen some video clips of him talking and debating about various subjects including religion. I wouldn't have characterized his as obnoxious and arrogant based on what I've seen, but I've obviously missed a lot. Since you've seen this from him, can you show me where I can find it?

Linda

"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."


Carries as much weight as claiming all athiests are mass murderes because Stalin an Chairman Mao were athiests

'Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests".'

Neatly ignores (For the sake of a quotable quote) that a Catholic Priest did the first mathematical model of the Big Bang. Or that Newton and Copernicus were both theists

It is this broad pigeon holing I find arrogant. Because someone believes/disbelieves in God, then the following must be true

[fls]

It is this broad pigeon holing I find arrogant. Because someone believes/disbelieves in God, then the following must be true

Thank you. That was helpful.

Linda

[Stout]

Can you give me some examples of angry atheists here?

And what sort of behaviour would you characterize as 'angry'? Tirades against how awful God is, as an example?

Linda

No, when it comes right down to it.

In retrospect what i was probably describing when I said that was atheists expressing their frustration with theistic viewpoints which, also in retrospect I'd be hesitant to categorize as angry just for the sake of using the word.

A better way to rephrase what i said would be, This is THE place to encounter those less tolerant of religious viewpoints when compared to other boards I visit and in real life.

In other words, the "I'm offended by your anti-religious viewpoints" gets no mileage here, which is one of the reasons I come here.

[fls]

No, when it comes right down to it.

In retrospect what i was probably describing when I said that was atheists expressing their frustration with theistic viewpoints which, also in retrospect I'd be hesitant to categorize as angry just for the sake of using the word.

A better way to rephrase what i said would be, This is THE place to encounter those less tolerant of religious viewpoints when compared to other boards I visit and in real life.

In other words, the "I'm offended by your anti-religious viewpoints" gets no mileage here, which is one of the reasons I come here.

Ah, okay. That makes sense.

Linda

[legne]

I have empirical evidence of God

:confused:

[yrreg]

So, you believe just because it brings you comfort? I'm ok with that.


The inherited belief becomes knowledge with examination.


And that kind of an examined knowledge of the existence of God, maker of heaven and earth and everything, is for myself as certain as I am with my knowledge of the existence of my nose.





Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

The inherited belief becomes knowledge with examination.
So this goes for Buddhists who inherit their belief, but come to a certainty of its truth through examination, yes?

And that kind of an examined knowledge of the existence of God, maker of heaven and earth and everything, is for myself as certain as I am with my knowledge of the existence of my nose.
God is up your nose?

[articulett]

Real evidence regarding the psychology of atheists: http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/

Myself, I find apologists far more arrogant than atheists-- and those who claim to know what god thinks the most arrogant of all.

I think Richard Dawkins has added a wealth of information to humanity--so has Randi. This is evident with the number of people eager to hear more of what these men have to say--not through fear, but through curiosity. I see no comparison between the two of them and those claiming access to "divine knowledge" like Fred Phelps or the Pope. Lies disguised as higher truths, are still lies. They still are not adding verifiable useful knowledge to the world--just divisiveness, delusion, self-righteousness, and unwarranted fear. I think it's manipulative and cruel.

When it comes to honesty, integrity, and intelligence the atheists I know have a clear edge over the theists as a whole, but each believer imagines that those that believe like they do are the humblest and most moral of all. The evidence appears to be mostly in their head as far as I can tell.

I think people like Randi make this world better; I don't think the same of most of his critics. I usually find the critics of atheists far more arrogant than the atheists they are complaining about. I wonder if they are jealous because people would rather hear the words of the "arrogant atheists" than those who imagine themselves superior?

[articulett]

So this goes for Buddhists who inherit their belief, but come to a certainty of its truth through examination, yes?


God is up your nose?

Haven't you heard... god is everywhere-- and you thought it was gas!

[joobz]

God is up your nose?
You can pick your god and you can pick your nose...

[shawmutt]

I've noticed many things about the atheists I've encountered...

The only atheists I've encountered who have been a trouble to deal with...

There are two kinds of atheists I've seen...

Well, you started out your entire experiment with a false premise. You are using your own cognitive bias, and self-selection, to come to a rationalized conclusion. This leaves the rest of your argument useless. Try to figure out a way to randomize your selection of atheists, and then try again.

[yrreg]

Which so-called god, yours, your father's or mother's, your neighbors, kid down the block. I'm sure that since there is no proof of a so-called god, everyone's idea of one will be a little to a lot different from one person to other's idea of a so-called god.




My idea of God is that of the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That idea I can see to be a common denominator among theists who believe in one God, even though with Christians that God exists in three persons -- that is peculiar with the Christian conception of God which is not accepted by Judaists and Muslims.

About proof, for myself I have proof of the existence of God from intelligent inferences with my brain; for you there is no proof, and that is the impasse between you as an atheist and myself as a theist.

Your position is not new and not unique, but many like yourself have changed their position and come to profess that they do on re-examination have come to the proof of the existence of God, maker of heaven and earth and everything, though not necessarily the more detailed God of the Judaists, Christians, and Muslims.




My own analysis is that many theists are closet atheists, most seem to run to the doctor's at the drop of a hat when sick, they don't seem to trust to this so-called god when that happens. And there is a lot of crying when someone dies, I thought this person went to heaven and they would meet again and after a few billions years of being together, let alone forever, get sick to hell of each other.




Judaists, Christians, and Muslims have a lot of explanation for their behavior, which seems to not be in consonance with their belief that in effect God is a father -- and so they should be glad to get to their father pronto.

Their explanation appears to work for them, but it might seems all so maudlin for you.

And what is the explanation for seeing doctors?

One of them is so that doctors can earn a living (haha, gotcha!), another one more important is because God does not intervene except in most most most exceptional instances.

In almost every other case of need He has given man resources which man must use to his best interest.

You are a person I assume who have grown up or at least lived in a Christian society, that explanation is already a part of common knowledge and even value.

As for crying when someone dies, I think that is a terrific evidence of humanity in action, the opposite like laughing would be considered bad taste at least if not outright insensitive, irreverent, uncivilized comportment.

If you want some explanation of a more maudlin character, it's like seeing your loved one departing for a scholarship abroad in a prestigious university.


Let's not dwell in these I would call unsubstantial issues, they are not worth our attention.

The #1 concern of atheists in a way as for theists in a most crucial way is the existence of God, maker of heaven and earth and everything.

So if people here atheists bring up such matters again, I will not attend to them anymore.

There is the fact and there is the script. God is a fact, the script people play out in their relationship with God, that is a script.

There are as many scripts as there are peoples and there are individuals, who have come to the knowledge of the existence of God, maker of heaven and earth and everything.


And I am not here to defend or to explain the peculiar particular script beliefs and observances of specific theist groups and personalities.

I am after the God Who is the maker of heaven and earth and everything, and how I know for certain His existence from intelligent inference with my brain.

And I am curious to examine the mindset of atheists.




And this heaven thing, what makes you think this so-called god of yours will get that right, things are going wrong for it down here all the time, what is so different about this heaven. And since you have never been there, please tell me all about it.

Also, what would be so-called god's job in heaven, no mircles are needed there, right.

Paul

:) :) :)


Sorry, but as I said, such issues are not for me crucial ones in this thread and generally in all my posts on God in discussions with atheists, I will let you have all the last words in this respect.




Yrreg

[joobz]

My idea of God is that of the maker of heaven and earth and everything.
we know.


About proof, for myself I have proof of the existence of God from intelligent inferences with my brain; for you there is no proof, and that is the impasse between you as an atheist and myself as a theist.
You think, therefore god is.
We've heard this from you before.

Your position is not new and not unique, but many like yourself have changed their position and come to profess that they do on re-examination have come to the proof of the existence of God, maker of heaven and earth and everything, though not necessarily the more detailed God of the Judaists, Christians, and Muslims.This is extremely self-contradictory point.

Why do you mention that atheism isn't unique? Would it matter if it was or wasn't? You levee this charge against atheism as though it weakens it's position. As though, popularity would diminish its validity. You then go on to argue that some atheists have decided to believe. Why do you mention this? Didn't you just infer that popularity weakens it's validity? Wouldn't that mean that the popularity of switching to theism prove that such a switch was invalid?



And what is the explanation for seeing doctors?
God is quite happy to let children/people die. Doctors aren't.


One of them is so that doctors can earn a living (haha, gotcha!), another one more important is because God does not intervene except in most most most exceptional instances.
Childhood cancer isn't a most most most exceptional instance to god? really?



In almost every other case of need He has given man resources which man must use to his best interest.
Prove it.



Let's not dwell in these I would call unsubstantial issues, they are not worth our attention.
Death of children is not unsubstantial. It's a rather large indictment of god's character, were he to exist.

[cyborg]

I am after the God Who is the maker of heaven and earth and everything, and how I know for certain His existence from intelligent inference with my brain.

Intelligence is no substitute for being right.

[legne]

About proof, for myself I have proof of the existence of God from intelligent inferences with my brain


You said "empirical evidence". Now where is it?

[yrreg]

I just finished reading a book called "Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers", by Bruce Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer. It answers many of the questions brought up in this thread.

For example, as to whether or not people choose atheism in order to have guilt-free sex or masturbation? No. The biggest reasons that people became atheists was because religious teachings were unbelievable and contradictory, and the behaviour of religious people turned them off. The lowest influences on atheism were the religious teachings about sex.




You have got to have good brain and good aesthetics and good joie de vivre and a hearty dosage of spirit of magnanimity as opposed to pettiness, to know God and take Him for maker of heaven and earth and everything. (Just being humorous but no less witty -- haha, gotcha!)

About sexual liberation for example gay and lesbian sex, and reproductive ethic in particular abortion, I think Gallup can do a survey of atheists who do feel more at ease with being atheist in that domain.

Of course Gallup can also make a survey of theists in regard to sexual liberation and reproductive ethic.


May I just say that whatever sexual liberation and reproductive ethic atheists and theists are concerned with in their each respective stance, I am focused predominantly on God as maker of heaven and earth and everything; so I will not go into God as moralistic super arbiter.


Only about 10% came from non-believer households, but the extent to which religion is emphasized in the home/community strongly correlates with the extent to whether someone is religious. Most atheists went through a period of belief and it was their attempts to understand and resolve their doubts that eventually led them to atheism.

Most suffered negative consequences from their lack/loss of belief. It wasn't the easier route to take.




That is what also I keep reading from atheists' accounts that they really don't go for benefits coming their way in taking up with atheism, or to satisfy grudges against God and theists: it is all intellectual grounds for their becoming atheist.

But that having been said, they can be very conspicuous in their words indicative of specially grudges against God and theists, and also evidencing self-hubris for having made the decision and determination to be atheist because it is good, convenient for themselves.



What is interesting to me, though, is the psychology of the anti-atheist that shows up in these various threads on theism, atheism and agnosticism. I read this book because it was referred to by a militant agnostic as a scientific study that showed atheists were less happy and more angry than the average individual. Yet there is no mention anywhere in the book of whether or not atheists are angry. And the only reference to 'happy' comes when comparing the sense of happiness religious fundamentalists receive from religion with the sense of happiness atheists receive from science and logic. The bulk of the book discusses the discoveries that as a group atheists are less prejudiced, less hypocritical, and less zealous than people with any other level of belief from agnosticism to fundamentalism. And yet, all that the anti-atheist 'remembered' about the results were two things that weren't even studied and were negative characteristics, in contradistinction to the bulk of the findings - that positive characteristics were most likely to be found in atheists (even more than in agnostics).

Just so you know, neither author is an atheist.

Linda


Books and books have been written by observers or students on who are happier, less violent, more congenial, better citizens, etc., atheists or theists.

For that I think Gallup can do a decently more dependable job than many others.


I will just say that before anything else, my overwhelming interest here is with the existence of God, maker of heaven and earth and everything, and how the brain by inferences can arrive at the certitude of His existence.


So, I will let you have the last words.


On a more camaraderie note, if you can laugh at your being atheist, then I think we are both in contact with reality as we would want to know reality as it genuinely is the case.

I can laugh at my being theist.




Yrreg

[Paulhoff]

Sorry, but as I said, such issues are not for me crucial ones in this thread and generally in all my posts on God in discussions with atheists, I will let you have all the last words in this respect.

Yrreg
You will let me have the last word, you have no choice there.


The word pompous has been thrown out by the starter of this thread; there is nothing more pompous then the so-called god of the bible. The most self-centered so-called god, one that the religious just love to say “LOVES YOU”. If it isn’t its way, it is hell forever, how arrogant can you get.

Paul


:) :) :)

[yrreg]

As usual, I picked up this thread by accident, but it looks fun!

If you are having fun, good for us both.

I am not answering to every post here, but please don't stop writing because it is good for everyone to have a fun time.

If you really want me to react to you thoughts, please send me a PM.

I usually just answer to posts which come immediately after my last post here from my last session.


Then I don't go further with answering every post, because at the end of the day, people will still keep to their own views and but hopefully they have good fun -- and that's the whole point of my writing here, aside from some rare increment to my brain culture.



I am somewhat mystified by all the talk of "I decided to become an atheist because ... " with some kind of (dubious?) reason attached.

I am an atheist. I didn't decide to become one: religion simply stopped making any kind of sense at some point in my mid-late teens. I was brought up in a church/chapel going household and when I left home for university I simply stopped going. No great Pauline-like conversion - I just didn't bother, except for the inevitable hatched, matched and dispatched events. I go along, because it's easier than arguing. And I can ignore the mumbo-jumbo as I wish.

I have no desire to argue my point with anyone, and on the occasions the LDS or Witnesses (or others) turn up on my doorstep or I meet them in the street, I'm usually polite simply because it would be bad manners not to be. As a matter of interest, one of the few times I made a point of being an atheist was in a school classroom (where I support Muslim Afghani students) when the Humanities topic happened to be about religion. They couldn't understand my point, and actually got quite upset.

One thing which I do find entertaining, though, is that because I went to church as a child, I have a much better grasp of the Bible that most of those teaching RE! I find myself having to correct them on simple facts quite often.

Envoi: At a local secondary school, GCSE and A-level RE is taught by an atheist.


Envoi: At a local secondary school, GCSE and A-level RE is taught by an atheist.

Which goes to show that the brain is a very self-censoring organ, but not with some other organs of the human animal.




Yrreg

[GeeMack]

About proof, for myself I have proof of the existence of God from intelligent inferences with my brain; for you there is no proof, and that is the impasse between you as an atheist and myself as a theist.


You and I could share the proof of the existence of a tennis ball, but your proof of the existence of magical beings exists only in your imagination. Yet you claimed to have empirical evidence of a supernatural being. You either don't have that evidence, in which case you were lying, or you are unable to share that evidence, in which case it's not empirical. Either way, you've proven yourself wrong... again. Thanks, yrreg!

[yrreg]

Let's go now to the God discovered by Antony Flew.


Even though the study of human motivations is more exciting than purely rational concepts and inferences, which then also are subject to human motivations.

But it takes a very self-disciplined brain to keep to rational concepts and inferences, notwithstanding psychological grounds for adhering to and advocating a particular set of concepts and inferences for a worldview most comfortable to oneself.



And I will also now start the other thread I mentioned some days back about, "To atheists, are inferences experiences of the brain? yes no."





Yrreg

[Stout]

I suppose the psychology of theism and atheism do share a common trait as both systems have and regularly play their trump cards.

On the theist side, we have the certainty that God exists driven by personal experiences that can only be explained or understood as "divine". The atheists, OTOH have those same experiences and explain them as chance, or coincidence and use those as their trump card.

Ending, of course, in a trump vs trump stalemate.

Where i don't see any similarities is in the psychology, or mindset, that feels the need for God to exist and that that doesn't.

yrreg, I don't know you, but you seem rather famous around here. I have a friend like you, who believes in God because when he was a depressed teenager, God talked him out of some "harmful" things and he feels a debit of gratitude to God for that. Are you one of those "God exists, that's the ultimate truth and everything else, like those lessons in the bible are just gravy " kind of people ?

[arthwollipot]

And I will also now start the other thread I mentioned some days back about, "To atheists, are inferences experiences of the brain? yes no."I shall be nailing myself to my chair for that one.

[MG1962]

I think people like Randi make this world better; I don't think the same of most of his critics. I usually find the critics of atheists far more arrogant than the atheists they are complaining about. I wonder if they are jealous because people would rather hear the words of the "arrogant atheists" than those who imagine themselves superior?

As a theist speaking, I find those theists who scream the loudest are those who feel most threatened by what athiests say. The part I dont get is why they feel threatened.

If someone has an honest and heartfelt belief in God, why should they care what athiests think or say....how can it possibly affect their outlook. I do draw the line when ridicule is employed. Because it is not an attempt at intelligent debate or discussion, but a simple attempt to make themselves feel superior

[GeeMack]

yrreg, I don't know you, but you seem rather famous around here. I have a friend like you, who believes in God because when he was a depressed teenager, God talked him out of some "harmful" things and he feels a debit of gratitude to God for that. Are you one of those "God exists, that's the ultimate truth and everything else, like those lessons in the bible are just gravy " kind of people ?


One reason for his believing, as yrreg has previously discussed at some length, is that his belief allows him to masturbate without guilt.

[Stout]

I've never been able to get a handle on why God would even give a rip if you masturbated. There's far worse things, like raping children that God could have put his empathises on. sheesh.

but noooo, He's got to go for the masturbation and fornication, which, when it comes right down to it is a pretty bright code if you're some guy writing in what you hope might become the bible in order to encourage your people to breed.

[billydkid]

Ok, this "God is the maker of everything" idea is fine if you want to have it, but it means nothing. It tell us nothing of the nature or character of this maker and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the God of any of the religions I know of so that makes it your own made up God. If it feels better to believe someone intended the universe into existence rather having it just happen, that's fine, but it just doesn't add anything to our understanding of it.

[Hokulele]

Yrreg, why is your god a father figure? Did you have a bad relationship with your mother?

Why would a single god have any kind of gender in the first place?

[Paulhoff]

Bh1iZCLfCGY

Paul

:) :) :)

[Foster Zygote]

Yrreg, why is your god a father figure? Did you have a bad relationship with your mother?

Why would a single god have any kind of gender in the first place?

Yeah, gender is a feature of sexual reproduction. Why would a single being be male? Why wouldn't we call a genderless being "it", or "she" as in the case of water fleas and the like? It's almost as if a desert dwelling bronze age tribe with a male dominated social hierarchy invented an authority figure in the image of their own social prejudices.

[Safe-Keeper]

Why would a single god have any kind of gender in the first place? Well, there did use to be two of them back before the Jews figured out women were sinful, evil wretches.

NOVA: Did God have a Wife? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sw-NFvueK8)
5sw-NFvueK8

[yrreg]

I suppose the psychology of theism and atheism do share a common trait as both systems have and regularly play their trump cards.

On the theist side, we have the certainty that God exists driven by personal experiences that can only be explained or understood as "divine". The atheists, OTOH have those same experiences and explain them as chance, or coincidence and use those as their trump card.

Ending, of course, in a trump vs trump stalemate.

Where i don't see any similarities is in the psychology, or mindset, that feels the need for God to exist and that that doesn't.

yrreg, I don't know you, but you seem rather famous around here. I have a friend like you, who believes in God because when he was a depressed teenager, God talked him out of some "harmful" things and he feels a debit of gratitude to God for that. Are you one of those "God exists, that's the ultimate truth and everything else, like those lessons in the bible are just gravy " kind of people ?


I like to hear you guys talk about me and my psychology for being theist.

That thing about guiltless masturbation is not from me but from Foster, later he says he was being funny and also others earlier say the same for him.

I just dropped in to say that I have again changed my mind about writing on the God discovered by Antony Flew and also about inferences are experiences of the brain, and that I am considering starting a new thread about engaged atheism as in engaged Buddhism.


Talking with Buddhists of the West or converts to Buddhism in the West is by a thousand li (that's Chinese for a measure of distance, as in "The journey of a thousand li starts with the first step") more conducive to inner peace than with you guys here.

Good for myself I have realized my drift into the same almost the same but not quite yet as you atheist guys here, and put a good check on it before I go further and further until I am no different from atheists here in my words.



Coming back to engaged atheism, what do you guys here say about that, I mean the atheists guys here?


And no, I don't think I will go into those two threads anymore: The God Discovered by Antony Flew, and To Atheists: Are Inferences Experiences of the Brain? Yes No.

Why? Because it's no longer fun and any enrichment of my brain culture.


What I want to search on now is engaged atheism, what have atheists done and are still doing to bring mankind to a higher level of goodness and civilization.

In the process I came across this article from an atheist:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece


I can only imagine what reactions I am going to get from you guys here if I tell you that I have found so far practically nothing about engaged atheism in the web, the kind that might compare with engaged theism and also to a much smaller degree and extent with engaged Buddhism.

I will not go into the seizure by atheists-communists of half of mankind trying to impose their version of utopia on them, but their good intention did not last more than at most less than half a century.

Yes, you will tell me that atheists-communists failed most miserably not because of their atheism but because of their totalitarianism.



What do I say?

Haha, gotcha!




Yrreg

[articulett]

Yrreg, do you think you come across as less arrogant than the atheists here?

[PixyMisa]

If someone has an honest and heartfelt belief in God, why should they care what athiests think or say....how can it possibly affect their outlook.
I don't know - maybe they could be swayed by logic and evidence.

I do draw the line when ridicule is employed. Because it is not an attempt at intelligent debate or discussion, but a simple attempt to make themselves feel superior
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Thomas Jefferson

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. Thomas Aquinas

[Mashuna]

Yrreg, do you think you come across as less arrogant than the atheists here?

If Yrreg did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Then point and laugh.

[PixyMisa]

What I want to search on now is engaged atheism, what have atheists done and are still doing to bring mankind to a higher level of goodness and civilization.

In the process I came across this article from an atheist:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece

The suggestion is that we should lie to people for their own good. When has that ever turned out well?

I can only imagine what reactions I am going to get from you guys here if I tell you that I have found so far practically nothing about engaged atheism in the web, the kind that might compare with engaged theism and also to a much smaller degree and extent with engaged Buddhism.
What is this "engaged atheism"? Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That's all it is. What's a lack of belief in fictional beings supposed to be enaged with?

Yes, you will tell me that atheists-communists failed most miserably not because of their atheism but because of their totalitarianism.
Neither. Their totalitarianism was secondary to, and a result of, their economic policies. So too was atheism. Communism is fundamentally unworkable due to scaling issues, and huge countries like Russia and China are the absolute worst places to implement it. Totalitarianism and enforced atheism arose to eliminate opposition to the one true faith - until the system collapsed under its own weight.

[zooterkin]

I am not answering to every post here, but please don't stop writing because it is good for everyone to have a fun time.

If you really want me to react to you thoughts, please send me a PM.

I usually just answer to posts which come immediately after my last post here from my last session.

Well, apart from being rude and condescending, you're not even doing what you claim.

You have ignored the question, asked several times by several people, immediately after some of your posts, to supply this empirical evidence you claim to have for the existence of god.


Then I don't go further with answering every post, because at the end of the day, people will still keep to their own views and but hopefully they have good fun -- and that's the whole point of my writing here, aside from some rare increment to my brain culture.

Exceedingly rare, I would hazard.

[six7s]

I've noticed many things about the atheists I've encountered...

----------------PART TWO: OBSERVATIONS

The only atheists I've encountered who have been a trouble to deal with, have been ones that had started out as Theists, or religious in one method or another, or spiritual in one way or another. Then they became unreligious or anti-religious through one way or another...

-Exceptions are James Randi, (I don't know about Richard Dawkins) who was an atheist from the get-go (from day one) The guess here is that Randi is just a pompous person who gets a thrill out of exposing people-- whether they are guilty or not...

-There are always arrogant people in any society religion or not.


----------------Part One

Observations
There are two kinds of atheists I've seen...

1.) Never Religious: These kind never were religious and usually display no animus towards religious people; they may see their fellow people's views as backward or silly, but usually make no fuss of it or make no stink about it. If they do, they usually simply learn to deal with it. They are usually easy-going despite their atheism, as it is never apparent (i.e. nobody knows about it). They simply have no interest in religion.

2.) Once Religious Twice Shy: These kind were once religious, often deeply, and then something happened which caused them to deviate away from faith.

Speculations
A.) It could either be intelligence which causes them to question their religious leaders, which often results in clash... or a love of science or nature (or both) which explains everything they need to know and replaces the need for God.

-Science becomes their "religion" (I know it's not a religion, but it's a figure of speach, and some atheists DO treat Science as if it were a religion), so to speak.

B.) Their faith or religion could be shattered: It could be through mass-persecution (such as holocaust), particularly in case of the Jews who believed through their entrance into the Covenant, would protect them from harm through Divine Intervention. Or it could be through something which is simply so horrible it makes them cease to believe, such as horrible events happening to them or their family.

---Part One

Hypothesis

The Non-Religious Types rarely cause any trouble with little exception. My guess is that they are just pompous, arrogant people who like to shove their beliefs down everybody elses through and feel superior to them...

When it comes to the second type "Once religious, Twice Shy"- It is usually the Type-B that become the most aggressive. The first type are usually less-aggressive... but not always. Sometimes they can be pretty bad themselves. But it's the one's who've had something horrible happen to them that become the most hardened, aggressive-atheists....

THE REASONING:

-They feal betrayed by their God: How could he do this to me
-They then believe there is no God: There can't be a god for (XYZ) to happen
-They then feel ashamed: Like, how could I have believed this nonsense?
-They then feel shocked: All these people around me believe this sham, and it's not true!
-They then feel overwhelmed: And all these people before me, my grandparents, and uncles who've all died, believed there was a God, all this nonsense, they believed in, and it was wrong. How can this have happened? All my relatives ceased to exist without even knowing they'd be going to oblivion rather than Heaven!
-Then they feel ANGER!: THIS RELIGION BETRAYED ME!!! I hate it!
-Then they want to make sure other people don't fall for this nonsense ever again: I SHALL DESTROY THIS RELIGION FOR PREACHING NONSENSE AND MAKE SURE NOBODY EVER BELIEVES IN IT AGAIN!!!

They First Try to advise people of their erroneous ways; telling them that their beliefs are not true- their superstitions are nonsense, their religion is phony.

They figure they will be praised for their ingenuity or clever thinking, and wise ways

They instead are told-off! Remember: Religion is the Opiate of the Masses: It is a colorless, odorless drug taken audibly, which make one feel loved and filled with warm, fuzzy-feelings, even in extremely adverse situations, and is extremely addictive in some people, significantly in most, and in some cases, useless.

These People do not wish to be talked out of their beliefs!-- after all they are tantamount to drug-addicts! Addicted to their warm-fuzzy feelings and happy-beliefs which make them feel loved inside. Without them, they feel cold, barren, unloved and afraid... and they are being forced to go cold-turkey! They will refuse!

1.)The Atheist then gets frustrated! These people are believing back-ward, delusional beliefs which are nonsensical nonsense! (As opposed to sensible nonsense :rolleyes: )

2.) The Atheist feels like he MUST save these people! After all they are being fooled! Deceived! Deluded!

3.) He tries forcefully to free them of their beliefs. Those which imprison the mind!

4.) They repulse his attempts!

5.) He gets angry

6.) He joins other atheists and tells them of his troubles; they take him in... (With the World-Wide Web this is quite easy)

7.) They teach him all kinds of knowledge to make his atheism even more justified...

8.) He then employs his new-found knowledge to de-religiofy-religious people...

8a.) ... which fails.

9.) After numerous attempts, the atheist realizes that they won't ever change.

10.) He begins to get embittered, and takes pot-shots at atheists, opening fire at will, and ripping into theists in verbal matches. May all theists be shaved by occam's razor!!!

11.) He now only associates with atheists who believe in his beliefs... in Atheist-Chat rooms where they enjoy ripping into believers who join those rooms to try and get them to embrace their lord and Savior.

This can be a woman too.



-------------- PART TWO

Observations
1.) Atheists in America are more belligerent and aggressive than atheists in other countries.

-I've talked to atheists in other countries and they've rarely been as abusive as american atheists...

-Exceptions are Richard Dawkins, and James Randi. Richard Dawkins was from Nairobi, Kenya, and James Randi was from Canada.

-Obnoxious and Arrogant people exist in any society regardless of religion. However the number of arrogant atheists seem to be disproportionate in America.

HYPOTHESIS
----------------

Atheists are obnoxious and arrogant because of the high percentage of religious people in America. They either feel overwhelmed at the "backward" beliefs of their American companions or their influence... meaning force. They feel as if they'll be forced to live under Christian Morality for the rest of their life; they feel as if they'll always be criticized for having sex outside of marriage; they'll always be criticized for being atheists; that religion will never be pushed out of the public sphere, which it should... since America after all, is the nation of religious freedom... Isn't it?

-INRMNo

[yrreg]

Yrreg, do you think you come across as less arrogant than the atheists here?


Thanks, articulett, and I thought you were also some kind of playing naive atheist.

Just continue to keep me informed about any possible infringement against civil speech from my exuberant heart and mind in the pursuit of fun in writing about my observations of atheists.





Yrreg

[yrreg]

Posted by MG1962
If someone has an honest and heartfelt belief in God, why should they care what athiests think or say....how can it possibly affect their outlook.

I don't know - maybe they could be swayed by logic and evidence.


Quote:
I do draw the line when ridicule is employed. Because it is not an attempt at intelligent debate or discussion, but a simple attempt to make themselves feel superior



Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Thomas Jefferson

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. Thomas Aquinas


How can anyone be intelligent who does not start from cosmos but from chaos?


And that is the first operating principle of atheists in everything: start from chaos and wait for something to occur by chance that makes sense as they have borrowed sense from theists.

They don't know about reverse engineering, if that is their operating first principle in everything, and they are immune to any so much as a suspicion on how to do things by reverse engineering of what is obvious to a keen brain, the cosmos in the universe.

That's how those guys who manufacture artificial satellites do, imitate the production of the moon by God and make use of the laws of nature and physics already put there by God in order for the heavenly bodies to operate for His toys like the moon, the sun, and even whole galaxies by the millions, nay billions.





Yrreg

[Mashuna]

Just continue to keep me informed about any possible infringement against civil speech from my exuberant heart and mind in the pursuit of fun in writing about my observations of atheists.

Yrreg

Well, that would cover the majority of your posts. Do you mean you really thought your posts were civil?

[yrreg]

Posted by articulett
Yrreg, do you think you come across as less arrogant than the atheists here?



If Yrreg did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Then point and laugh.

Remember medieval court jesters.


There were an institution before kings to keep them (kings) grounded in reality with their feet on earth and their brain level-headed, by presenting themselves as the king's alter ego.





Yrreg

[politas]

Remember medieval court jesters.

There were an institution before kings to keep them (kings) grounded in reality with their feet on earth and their brain level-headed, by presenting themselves as the king's alter ego.
Ah, so Gerrry is acting like an idiot on purpose!

[yrreg]

The suggestion is that we should lie to people for their own good. When has that ever turned out well?


What is this "engaged atheism"? Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That's all it is. What's a lack of belief in fictional beings supposed to be enaged with?


Neither. Their totalitarianism was secondary to, and a result of, their economic policies. So too was atheism. Communism is fundamentally unworkable due to scaling issues, and huge countries like Russia and China are the absolute worst places to implement it. Totalitarianism and enforced atheism arose to eliminate opposition to the one true faith - until the system collapsed under its own weight.


Their atheism did not check their totalitarian despotism.


What is there to prevent you atheists once you get to power to degrade civilization into a continuous unrelenting total debauchery of all that is good and noble?


What is the use of talking to you guys about engaged atheism when you don't even understand and appreciate what is engaged Buddhism and engaged theism.

You are incapable by self-evisceration of engaging in anything original that is good and noble, even those things you claim to do to be good and noble you borrow from theists.



And never have I come to so much accusation of lying until I hope to attempt exchange of ideas with atheists, they must have had very good and very endemic experience and thus acquired finesse in that deceitful knavery.





Yrreg

[yrreg]

Well, apart from being rude and condescending, you're not even doing what you claim.

You have ignored the question, asked several times by several people, immediately after some of your posts, to supply this empirical evidence you claim to have for the existence of god.


Exceedingly rare, I would hazard.


Please pm me when you want me to react to your posts.


When you pm me you must give me permission to correspond in public forum.

In that way people will get to know the great insight into the issue that you are adept in.




Yrreg

[PixyMisa]

Their atheism did not check their totalitarian despotism.
... And?

What is there to prevent you atheists once you get to power to degrade civilization into a continuous unrelenting total debauchery of all that is good and noble?
What is there to prevent you theists once you get to power to degrade civilization into a continuous unrelenting total debauchery of all that is good and noble? And why doesn't it work?

What is the use of talking to you guys about engaged atheism when you don't even understand and appreciate what is engaged Buddhism and engaged theism.
Engaged theism? Like, oh, Torquemada and Tamurlane?

You are incapable by self-evisceration of engaging in anything original that is good and noble, even those things you claim to do to be good and noble you borrow from theists.
What, exactly, do you claim is good and noble that originated with theists?

And never have I come to so much accusation of lying until I hope to attempt exchange of ideas with atheists, they must have had very good and very endemic experience and thus acquired finesse in that deceitful knavery.
What are you talking about? Who accused you of lying? Of being deeply and thoroughly bewildered about pretty much everything, sure, but I've always considered you sincere in your utter befuddlement.

[Mashuna]

Remember medieval court jesters.


There were an institution before kings to keep them (kings) grounded in reality with their feet on earth and their brain level-headed, by presenting themselves as the king's alter ego.


Yrreg

But they did this by being funny and telling the truth, neither of which you are doing.

[zooterkin]

Please pm me when you want me to react to your posts.



Please take the fact that I've taken the time to reply to your posts here as notice that I would like the favour returned. I suspect that will apply to most of the other members here; that is, after all, how a discussion board tends to work.

[arthwollipot]

Yrreg, do you think you come across as less arrogant than the atheists here?


Thanks, articulett, and I thought you were also some kind of playing naive atheist.

Just continue to keep me informed about any possible infringement against civil speech from my exuberant heart and mind in the pursuit of fun in writing about my observations of atheists.





YrregYou didn't answer the question. Do you think you come across as less arrogant than the atheists here?

[cyborg]

They don't know about reverse engineering

I wouldn't be much good at my job if I didn't.

How can anyone be intelligent who does not start from cosmos but from chaos?

You don't understand what chaos is do you?

[Stout]

I like to hear you guys talk about me and my psychology for being theist.



Well, the topic is psychology..

That thing about guiltless masturbation is not from me but from Foster, later he says he was being funny and also others earlier say the same for him.

OK, we can drop that then if it's a non sequitur.

Talking with Buddhists of the West or converts to Buddhism in the West is by a thousand li (that's Chinese for a measure of distance, as in "The journey of a thousand li starts with the first step") more conducive to inner peace than with you guys here.

Interesting that you qualified that with the term "western" I fully agree but I must state the obvious. When talking with western Buddhists, you're talking to people who *believe* that belief in the existence of God is immaterial whereas here, you're talking with people who *believe* that the existence of God is unnecessary.

Coming back to engaged atheism, what do you guys here say about that, I mean the atheists guys here

I/We are still waiting for a definition of the term engaged atheism, without that, this line of conversation can't continue.

In the process I came across this article from an atheist:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5400568.ece

Based on what I've seen of the actions of missionaries in third world countries, I'm not about to even start being critical about their actions. As a group, atheists are far behind theists in this type of work IMO.

The theists however, did have a head start, give us a couple of thousand years. ;)

Yes, you will tell me that atheists-communists failed most miserably not because of their atheism but because of their totalitarianism.

PixyMisa already addressed this, but this is a situation where politics replaced religion with the strict demand that everybody adhere to those politics with *dissenters* being sent to the gulag, rather than Hell.

Same mindset, different vehicle. Control is/was the mane of the game.

[Paulhoff]

I like how people who believe in a so-called god think that they think so much more deeply, when in fact children can be talked into the same BS. But remember I said "talked into", most likely they wouldn't believe it if their parents and people around them didn't.

Paul

:) :) :)

[RoboTimbo]

Please pm me when you want me to react to your posts.

No, I'm not going to PM you.

When you pm me you must give me permission to correspond in public forum.

Silly, you don't need permission to correspond in a public forum.

In that way people will get to know the great insight into the issue that you are adept in.

How would they get that insight from a PM to you?

Yrreg


I would only ask that you start making sense and defending your position.

[RoboTimbo]

What is the use of talking to you guys about engaged atheism when you don't even understand and appreciate what is engaged Buddhism and engaged theism.


How many threads has it been and you still don't get it? There isn't any engaged atheism. There is definitely engaged theism. There is no embracing atheism as if it were just another religion. Don't confuse it with a belief system.

[MG1962]

I like how people who believe in a so-called god think that they think so much more deeply, when in fact children can be talked into the same BS. But remember I said "talked into", most likely they wouldn't believe it if their parents and people around them didn't.

Paul

:) :) :)

Conversely I have know a few athiests who have formally studied philosophy and believe they think more deeply than everyone else

[Paulhoff]

Conversely I have know a few athiests who have formally studied philosophy and believe they think more deeply than everyone else

Really,

Philosophy "The branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom"
"A set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge"
"A precept, or set of precepts, beliefs, principles, or aims, underlying somebody's practice or conduct"

So learning about something that does not need to be based a so-called god that has not be shown to exist, a so-called god that can be based on anything. Philosophy helps them to think more deeply, I'm for it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[MG1962]

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. Thomas Aquinas

Great quote. To bad you dont understand it

The word science did not come to mean what we define it as until the 2nd half of the 17th century

Scrutiny - When Thomas Aquinas was alive it didn't mean to search or investigate.

[MG1962]

Really,

Philosophy "The branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom"
"A set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge"
"A precept, or set of precepts, beliefs, principles, or aims, underlying somebody's practice or conduct"

So learning about something that does not need to be based a so-called god that has not be shown to exist, a so-called god that can be based on anything. Philosophy helps them to think more deeply, I'm for it.

Paul

:) :) :)

Should probably read what I wrote a little more closely. I said those that I have met believe they think more deeply than "Everybody else" I did not draw a distininction between athiest or theists, yet you still attempted to

Why is that do you think?

[Foster Zygote]

Their atheism did not check their totalitarian despotism.
Of course not, Gerry. But their atheism was not the reason for their actions. The reason for their actions was something called "Communism". If a lack of theism is a source of oppression then we would expect Sweden to be a Hell-holes of suffering and the FATA region of Pakistan to be a paradise of freedom and enlightenment.

Atheism is not "equal but opposite" from theism. It is simply a lack of belief in supernatural deities. It is not a code of conduct. Many atheists have a code of conduct that is derived from respect for human life.

What is there to prevent you atheists once you get to power to degrade civilization into a continuous unrelenting total debauchery of all that is good and noble?
Respect for human life.

What is the use of talking to you guys about engaged atheism when you don't even understand and appreciate what is engaged Buddhism and engaged theism.
What are atheists supposed to be engaging, Gerry?

You are incapable by self-evisceration of engaging in anything original that is good and noble, even those things you claim to do to be good and noble you borrow from theists.
Why is self-evisceration a good thing? Literal self-evisceration would be the self-removal of my internal organs. Even metaphorical self-evisceration would mean the removal of a vital or essential part of myself. What benefit would I gain by doing such a thing? Is your behavior the result of self evisceration?

As to your baseless and remarkably arrogant accusation regarding my lack of any qualities that are good or noble: Your words mean nothing to me. I am satisfied with my level of compassion and concern for others. I only see personal attacks delivered by a petty, ignorant little man. The difference between you and me is that I would never make such a rude blanket statement about theists. I know many atheists whom I find to be noble and good. I also know many theists whom I find to be noble and good. Your statement exposes your bigotry for what it is.

And never have I come to so much accusation of lying until I hope to attempt exchange of ideas with atheists, they must have had very good and very endemic experience and thus acquired finesse in that deceitful knavery.
Exchange goes both ways. You have stated that you wish to ask us questions that you might learn about us, yet you have ignored what we have stated in favor of the simplistic and convenient strawmen that you prefer to denigrate. It can be argued that your claim to want to exchange ideas is therefor a lie.

[Paulhoff]

Why is that do you think?
Because I think.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

What is there to prevent you atheists once you get to power to degrade civilization into a continuous unrelenting total debauchery of all that is good and noble?

Yrreg

So, are you saying that the only thing that keeps you from doing anything wrong is going to your so-called hell. That doesn't make me think much of you.

Paul

:) :) :)

[PixyMisa]

Great quote. To bad you dont understand it
I understand it fine.

The word science did not come to mean what we define it as until the 2nd half of the 17th century
Maybe a little earlier, but sure.

Scrutiny - When Thomas Aquinas was alive it didn't mean to search or investigate.
It doesn't now.

[JFrankA]

You know, I've been scanning this thread, (haven't had time to fully read it all, sorry), but it seems to me that Yrreg is just looking for reactions. For example, every point he's making about himself is the ability to laugh at his own beliefs, something us atheists do too, honestly, and then says something that could inspire anger then says "gotcha". And even his avatar says "Resident Buddist critic studying hate speech". *shrugs* Seems to me he's just stirring the pot, so to speak.

Personally, I think that if someone says "That person is arrogant because she/he is a theist/an atheist", they are pointing at a causailty. That is, a person is going to be arrogant no matter what the person's stance on god is. That's what I was trying to say my rather lengthy post.

That's why this whole "the psychology of being an atheist" and "the psychology of being a theist" seems to be so simular. It's because it's NOT that, it's just the psychology of being a certain kind of human who then chooses what they believe or not. It's not "because you are an atheist you are this" or "you are a theist you are that".

Seems to me, and this is just my humble opinion again, that anyone who does that is putting the cart before the horse.....

[MG1962]

I understand it fine.


Maybe a little earlier, but sure.


It doesn't now.

So you have no issue using a quote, even knowing in todays language it does not represent the meaning intended by the author...very strange

[PixyMisa]

So you have no issue using a quote, even knowing in todays language it does not represent the meaning intended by the author...very strange
Well, hey, I'm surprised to find that Aquinas wrote in modern English!

Aquinas would have been using the word scientific (which comes from the Latin anyway) the way we would scholarly. How does this change the meaning?

[Hokulele]

So you have no issue using a quote, even knowing in todays language it does not represent the meaning intended by the author...very strange


To be fair, many U.S. fundamental Christians do the same with the Bible...

[arthwollipot]

Great quote. To bad you dont understand it

The word science did not come to mean what we define it as until the 2nd half of the 17th century

Scrutiny - When Thomas Aquinas was alive it didn't mean to search or investigate.What did it mean?

Give us something postive to work with here, MG. You're saying "it's not this" and "it's not that". Tell us what it is, not what it's not.

[Mister Agenda]

The OP was exactly what I thought it would be too, Hex. I'm a little disappointed.

I read Faith of the Fatherless back when, it was tripe, but you get that a lot in psychoanalysis.

[yrreg]

Thanks, arthwollipot, for your pm; yes, I will answer your question.





Originally Posted by yrreg
Originally Posted by articulett
Yrreg, do you think you come across as less arrogant than the atheists here?

Thanks, articulett, and I thought you were also some kind of playing naive atheist.

Just continue to keep me informed about any possible infringement against civil speech from my exuberant heart and mind in the pursuit of fun in writing about my observations of atheists.



You didn't answer the question. Do you think you come across as less arrogant than the atheists here?






I have observed that even in my contacts with people outside web forums my kind of speech does often stir up people's antagonism against me, that is why I have always told people that I should be writing a book on:

"How to Make Enemies and Antagonize People."



I would like to suppress this phrase now, but I can't, it's so delicious:


Haha, gotcha!



But I do sincerely apologize if I hurt your sensitivity here, folks, whoever: atheists or theists or anyone at all.


I am exasperated with atheists way of thinking and speaking, like repeating the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, Xenu, etc. argument against God which I understand to be:

"Maker of heaven and earth and everything."


But I am sure that I do not hate you, and if you see hatred in my words here against anyone, just tell me and I will rewrite those words so as to still convey the essential thoughts without any shade of hatred.



We are all in the same boat, we didn't ask to be here, but we are here and in the same boat.

I know for a certainty that it's God Who is doing the whole business of our being here and in the same boat.

You guys atheists like to or are equally of the same kind and degree of certitude as I am, but in the opposite direction.

That makes a pretty terrific mental jousting for all of us, but let's be civilized about it, just like good sportsmen.


Okay?


But I am serious, if you see any utterances wherein I show myself to exude hatred toward anyone, just let me know and show me the words, and I will rewrite them in a post of words makeover.


And for being in the same boat, you and I must make sure that we don't in our impasse about God or no God, rock the boat as to overturn it and sink it, that's going to be very bad for us all, atheists or theists; so we must work together willy-nilly to keep the boat sinkproof, and even improve it for our mutual safety and longevity and life enhancement.




Yrreg

[cyborg]

Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, Xenu, etc. argument against God

Pretending to know the face of God is arrogant.

[MG1962]

To be fair, many U.S. fundamental Christians do the same with the Bible...

And I would be the first to attempt to jump down their throats.

[Silentknight]

Their atheism did not check their totalitarian despotism.
Likewise, it's a proven historical fact that the ban on public smoking did not keep terrorist attacks at bay.

What is there to prevent you atheists once you get to power to degrade civilization into a continuous unrelenting total debauchery of all that is good and noble?
The fact that we'd be too busy burning Bibles, eating babies, and engaging in unrepentant autoeroticism.

What is the use of talking to you guys about engaged atheism when you don't even understand and appreciate what is engaged Buddhism and engaged theism.
Engaged theism? Ohhhh, I get it. Well, I hope you realize I was joking when I suggested that if you love Jesus so much, you ought to marry him. (Really, I was just joking. Cancel the invitations!)

You are incapable by self-evisceration of engaging in anything original that is good and noble, even those things you claim to do to be good and noble you borrow from theists.
Yeah, were it not for theism, I don't know where anyone could have gotten the idea that one should live a good life for its own sake, rather than to earn God's favor or avoid his wrath.*

And never have I come to so much accusation of lying until I hope to attempt exchange of ideas with atheists, they must have had very good and very endemic experience and thus acquired finesse in that deceitful knavery.
Given that your idea of an "exchange" is a strict one-way transfer while ignoring anything you receive in return, then would you perchance be interested in doing some exchange banking with us atheists?



* To be fair, there are some religious denominations that believe this.

[MG1962]

What did it mean?

Give us something postive to work with here, MG. You're saying "it's not this" and "it's not that". Tell us what it is, not what it's not.

Sure - fair comment

The orginal quote

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. Thomas Aquinas

Read in todays language the quote appears to say that any element of Catholic Faith that is not supported by scientific investigation is open to ridicule

However.... When written. Science meant gaining knowledge from what ever source. It wasn't till the 17th century that the word became associated with methodical, observation and theory etc etc

The word scrutiny in Aquina's time meant a consenus opinion delivered as canon law

So taking Aquinas quote back to its basic form....we get

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary knowledgable learning, presents as dogma what knowledgable consensus shows to be false. Thomas Aquinas

In essence Aquinas is warning Catholics, if you are going to mouth off, be sure you do so in line with the Church's teachings, and not your own opinion.

Given the two very recent examples of Christians shooting their mouth off about something they really dont know. I think Aquinas warning is as relevant today as it was over 1500 years ago

[PixyMisa]

So taking Aquinas quote back to its basic form....we get

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary knowledgable learning, presents as dogma what knowledgable consensus shows to be false. Thomas Aquinas
Hmm. I would take it to mean "scholarly inquiry" rather than "knowledgable consensus". But maybe I'm giving Aquinas too much credit.

[arthwollipot]

Thanks, arthwollipot, for your pm; yes, I will answer your question.Yrreg then proceeds to write a long statement which fails to answer the question.

You admit to annoying people. That's the closest you got to an answer.

Do you think you are less arrogant than atheists here? Yes or no? Don't tergivesate.

[arthwollipot]

Given the two very recent examples of Christians shooting their mouth off about something they really dont know. I think Aquinas warning is as relevant today as it was over 1500 years agoThank you for your explanation, but I disagree with your conclusion. Given your definition, I don't think that Aquinas' admonishment is particularly relevant today in any situation other than canon law and the authority of the Catholic church. If we expand the definition, then sure, it can be a warning against talking about stuff you don't know about.

[Mashuna]

I have observed that even in my contacts with people outside web forums my kind of speech does often stir up people's antagonism against me, that is why I have always told people that I should be writing a book on:

"How to Make Enemies and Antagonize People."



I would like to suppress this phrase now, but I can't, it's so delicious:


Haha, gotcha!


I'm afraid you're too late, there's now a book and a film called "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People."


But I do sincerely apologize if I hurt your sensitivity here, folks, whoever: atheists or theists or anyone at all.


Your insults didn't hurt my feelings, I just assumed you were doing it deliberately. I was amazed that you didn't realise how offensive most of your posts were.


I am exasperated with atheists way of thinking and speaking, like repeating the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, Xenu, etc. argument against God which I understand to be:

"Maker of heaven and earth and everything."




I've asked before, but I'll try again. Do you have a better definition of God, because that one's really terrible. I mean it's just no use to your argument at all.

[yrreg]

[...]

Posted by yrreg
I am exasperated with atheists way of thinking and speaking, like repeating the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, Xenu, etc. argument against God which I understand to be:

"Maker of heaven and earth and everything."



I've asked before, but I'll try again. Do you have a better definition of God, because that one's really terrible. I mean it's just no use to your argument at all.


What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.





Yrreg

[Paulhoff]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God?

as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg
Because it doesn't say anything, but that seems hard for you to understand.

Peter Pan, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That says the same thing.

Paul

:) :) :)

[arthwollipot]

This line of thought is continued in yrreg's newest thread: What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135293)

[Mashuna]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

Well, you've added in heaven. No evidence for the place. That leaves you with the maker of earth and everything (I don't know why you need to separate the two).

Your definition of God would cover anything from The Laws of Physics, to Zeus, to the IPU or FSM, the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu Gods or anything else you could think of. It tells us nothing about your God, just what you claim he has done.