Why are 'believes' (sic) angry at the unbelievers?

[evildave]

It seems to me that this is one of those little political things.

Polititians (and their kissing cousins, the clergy) stir up hatred against people because it unifies their power base. In this case, they demonize a whole segment of the population who (for reasons not understood by them) aren't in their religion. They do it because it works.

Of course, intolerance of religious practices is a big "no-no", since a a lot more people are not in your church than are in your church, so they have to be a little more selective.

So, that leaves people who don't belong to any church. They're good targets, and you know you won't piss off the people at other churches by pissing on them, because, well, they're pissing on them, too.

Then again, maybe it's a survival instinct. As a nice parable, if electric public transportation became prevalent, the car companies and petroleum companies would lose income, and wane in their power.

Like the car and oil companies, it pays to ensure as few people as possible ever think like that. No matter how many bodies lie burning on the highway, or how miserable life in the polluted, traffic tangled cities becomes, the power base must be protected, because they'd have to get another job, potentially with less prestige, if that happened.

[Upchurch]

I think it's partly due to a lack of understanding. As the lead post in this thread's opposite number (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21214) says:Originally posted by woodguard

Some atheist reject god, not his/her existence.The first line is rarely, if ever, the case that I am aware of. Most atheists do not "reject god, not his/her existence" However, if one assumes that at least some do, as woodguard does, then atheists could perhaps be seen as some sort of threat. What I mean is that the act of rejection is a deliberate act that is specifically against that which is being rejected.

Consider that Christians reject Satan. What, then, is a Christian's usual response to Satanists? Contempt, fear, and sometimes hatred. It is reasonable that they project those feelings, often rightly so, onto the Satanists, who have rejected God and Jesus.

Now, to the Christian who considers that atheists "reject god, not his/her existence," what is the difference between atheists and Satanists?

[evildave]

Hard to say, since to some of their clouded little minds, there's no difference between dismissing the whole cartoon versus being a Snidely Whiplish fan instead of a Dudley Doright fan.

[Samus]

Everyone has something they hold very close, and get upset if someone criticizes it. For some people, it's a sports team. Others, it's their work (artists, etc.) Still others have their faith. It is something very near and dear to them, they use their faith to give themselves strength.

Here comes along some A-theist that says their faith, the very core of all they believe, is bunk. How else are they to react, at least initially?

Believers don't like non-believers for two reasons:

1. They don't understand what the real non-believer position is most of the time. I would submit that your average atheist is not anti-God, but rather, has simply reached a different conclusion given the evidence presented to them.

2. Acknowledging the non-believer's position opens the door for someone's "world view" to be wholly incorrect from the ground up. It would rock some people to the core if ever God's non-existence was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

For those who rely on God to provide all the answers, the thought of a non-believer being right scares them. It's also a political maneuver; dating back to the days of "godless Commies". It's the old argument that those without faith are immoral heathens who wish to kill believers and eat their young.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by dwb
2. Acknowledging the non-believer's position opens the door for someone's "world view" to be wholly incorrect from the ground up. It would rock some people to the core if ever God's non-existence was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
This, I think, is what drives many believers to marginalize the skepticism of atheists so that it is "just another belief". If someone can use objective, critical thinking to arrive at the conclusion that God doesn't exist or even may not exist. Then, faith in God isn't necessarily the natural conclusion of reason. Instead, it becomes just another choice that has no more validity than any other choice about supernatural phenomena.

Marginalizing critical thought takes empthesis away from it's inherent value as a reality-seeking tool and thus levels the playing field.

Just my opinion though.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
This, I think, is what drives many believers to marginalize the skepticism of atheists so that it is "just another belief". If someone can use objective, critical thinking to arrive at the conclusion that God doesn't exist or even may not exist. Then, faith in God isn't necessarily the natural conclusion of reason. Instead, it becomes just another choice that has no more validity than any other choice about supernatural phenomena.

Marginalizing critical thought takes empthesis away from it's inherent value as a reality-seeking tool and thus levels the playing field. hmmm, interesting. Such is the case with those that paint atheists as just another cult. What they're trying to do is discount the skepticism element, making non-believers look like just another religious cult. Yeah, I can see your point.

I would imagine this goes a long way in lumping atheists in the same logical category as satanists: another group of people that don't embrace god(s). Hence, theists can easily write off the atheist viewpoint without feeling bad about it.

On another note, I can't but wonder though ...there are plenty of god-believing religions. How is subscribing to any given religion better than subscribing to none at all? Each flavor of organized religion has its own beliefs, with the grand picture of theists being painted by these many "morality fiefdoms".

I don't see how being an atheist, having morals instilled in me, and living a good life is any less noble than praying every day and witnessing. Then again, I'm not bound to one fundamental leap of faith for my world view. If there's no god(s), that's fine with me. If there are, hey, that's swell too. Unfortunately, such a docile perspective is often lost in the religious rhetoric.

Jumped around quite a bit, but I had a lot running through my mind.

[evildave]

Of course, lumping all "believers" together is as bad as lumping all "unbelievers" together and claiming they have the same motives and agendas. It's all about stereotypes.

Here we have the caricature of the angry gay/feminist/communist/(and worst of all)atheist, and there we have the caricature of the mindless/violent/wifebeating/zealot.

Naturally, there are plenty of religious people who tolerate atheists, otherwise we'd be blackening the sky burning on stakes right now (or being stoned or otherwise murdered), just as good 'traditional' religions used to do.

[Yahweh]

Theists are angry at atheists because they dont like to be told that they are wrong. When you present the same information to 2 people (The Bible) and 2 seperate conclusions arise (either there is a god or it is total s**t) then its obviously easy to see where the tension is going to come from.

The average theist tries to back up there belief by saying "give me definitive proof that there IS NO GOD." The atheist will usually say something along the lines of "Proof? Use common sense. There is no science that would suggest higher intelligence." That sounds reasonable to me.

But very commonly the atheist will say "give me definitive proof that there IS A GOD." There is around 1000 different answers for that one. Here is a conversation that I have had many times:
How about this, how about you give me some proof that God does exist
"The Bible."
What about the bible.
"Read it."
And then what, then I'll believe in God. Not likely. I've already read the bible and I say that story sucked. It just made my list of questions about the legitamacy of the bible just a little longer.

By then they'll probably try to give you some bible quote from Proverbs or something. I could care less if you have memorized the entire bible (actually I'd be impressed... you memorized a really big book). Bible quotes mean nothing the atheist... and that gets theists really really mad.

[Yahweh]

Here... I will give at least definitive proof that there is no God. The bible says that those who curse his name shall be smited. Well then God, I hate you, I HATE HATE HATE HATE YOU! Your're an imbecile. If you have any power then smite me. Make me die right here on my feet.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hmmm... I'm still here. Well then... you cant kill people then... at least never allow me to post on Randi.org again.

[Yahweh]

Here it is... another post...
.
.
What is this... Randi.org says I have to wait for 60 seconds before I can post again... thats not your doing God, thats Randi.org. You have no power over me, the bible makes you out to be the most powerful omnipotent thing in the universe. Thats one of the biggies in the bible, that you are super big and super powerful, but you prevent this post from being sent... I have to wait at least 10 more seconds... what does that say about the legitimacy of the bible.

I take no prisoners when people present me with tales of the paranormal. I accept no bulls**t.

[Samus]

Originally posted by evildave
Of course, lumping all "believers" together is as bad as lumping all "unbelievers" together and claiming they have the same motives and agendas. It's all about stereotypes. Absolutely. Just as I am quite tolerant of people that wish to practice a religion or, at the very least, believe in god(s).

However, I got the impression from the thread title you were referring specifically to the zealots, who denounce atheists as immoral and bound for hell. I think those types of people hate us types of people (in part) because of the reasons I stated above.

It's a good idea to keep your point in perspective, though. I'd venture to say the vast majority of theists are not like Pat Robertson and Jack Chick.

As for Yahweh's comment about "read the Bible" ...not every religion is founded on the Christian version of the bible, though it is true that many use some type of holy book as their justification for existence. If you tell them their holy book is bunk, again, that's a significant impact on someone's little corner of the world; expect them to react accordingly.

[Lord Emsworth]

Believers are more prone to getting utilized for the sake of their religion for it is some sort of collectivism. IMO. So if one or another of the more influetial leaders think it might be good to be angry about atheists a lot of the followers will be so also. Then, again, why are some of the more influential leaders angry at atheists?

Could it be that some of the believers think that their religion is the only real thing? That only their religion and it's teaching, for example Christianity and the Bible, has the answers and solutions to save them from evil. That, then, there must be something wrong with people who had the chance to get "enlightened" but didn't chose to get "enlightened." Of course not every believer thinks that way, but it would have a strong effect if one of the leaders held such opinions.

[evildave]

Well, when it's influential leaders, it's back to politics:

The economy is in the toilet, and due to 30+ years of the most criminally negligent and stupid policy about airport security, including warnings about just this sort of use of 1,000,000 pounds of metal and fuel, something really bad finally happens, it's better and easier to distract people with idiotic claims that "godlessness" caused the disaster.

A bit like distracting a cat with a dangly toy to get it to let go of your finger.

In addition, it's handy when you want to begin curtailing basic freedoms. When the government screws up badly, it gets more power. Hence our "USA Patriot Act", which is nothing more than giving the government back powers it had previously abused and been stripped of back in the old McCarthyist days.

The poorer the job the government does, the more power it gets.

When we have people:
A: Working to keep the masses ignorant by (for instance) encouraging "home schooling"
and
B: Working to keep the ignorant masses clamoring for a theocracy, so that
C: It will do a horrible job of governing, but all the problems can be blamed on "God".

There will be nothing but power for the annointed few whose families come to run the Holy States of God. (As opposed to the United States of America, that sinful, "godless" thing it replaced.)

[kerfer]

Originally posted by evildave
Hard to say, since to some of their clouded little minds, there's no difference between dismissing the whole cartoon versus being a Snidely Whiplish fan instead of a Dudley Doright fan.

Wow.

You have summed it all up exactly, precisely, and tersely, with a little hoomer thrown in for the folks in the cheap seats. :cool:

Wow.

Give that man a kewpie doll!

[evildave]

Ooh! A kewpie doll! Could I exchange that for a stuffed dinosaur one, please?

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by evildave
.

Of course, intolerance of religious practices is a big "no-no", since a a lot more people are not in your church than are in your church, so they have to be a little more selective.

So, that leaves people who don't belong to any church. They're good targets, and you know you won't piss off the people at other churches by pissing on them, because, well, they're pissing on them, too.



Good point!
Religions are protected not only by the first ammendment but also by hate crimes ordinances.
Freethinkers have no double protection, just the first ammendment.
When the courts rule in favor of freethought it merely affirms what the first ammendment is all about with regard to religion yet for religionists it's taken as an affront.
The easiest response is to apply the guilt by association projection on freethought. Since atheist governments in Europe and Asia sought to destroy all things religious the same threat is imminent anywhere.
I'll be among those who vote guily on a jury toward someone who desecrates a church,synagogue,mosque,etc.;however I affirm people's rights to think independently of religious persuasion.
Likewise I have no problem prosecuting religious militants.
It's the emotionalism brought to the argument that muddles clear lines of distinction.