What Are Your Impressions of Atheism

[Sethala]

I do see your point but that does not mean that disbelief is correct choice. You might think I am being illogical but that is your choice.

Disbelief is the correct choice in the absence of evidence.  If you had no evidence of something, then still believing it anyway would be foolish.  However...

It was as you said earlier I have had my own experiences in my life that to me say that there is something out there I a God and you are right  I can not use that to prove that he exist to someone else.

This statement here would count as evidence, at least to you.  If you can look at that and honestly say that a spiritual deity is more likely an explanation of this than mere coincidence, then yes, that's enough reason for you to believe in that deity's existence.  All I ask, then, is that if someone manages to take that evidence and disprove it, so that you no longer take it as evidence, that you reexamine your beliefs and change them accordingly.

[Chaosfox]

Disbelief is the correct choice in the absence of evidence.  If you had no evidence of something, then still believing it anyway would be foolish.  However...

This statement here would count as evidence, at least to you.  If you can look at that and honestly say that a spiritual deity is more likely an explanation of this than mere coincidence, then yes, that's enough reason for you to believe in that deity's existence.  All I ask, then, is that if someone manages to take that evidence and disprove it, so that you no longer take it as evidence, that you reexamine your beliefs and change them accordingly.

If someone one could then most likely I probably would but they would have to disprove them and that is not what this discussion is about

[BeeJay]

Best thing said in the entirety of this thread. :)

I'm going to disagree on the grounds that this statement doesn't actually connect to the discussion at all. No one in the thread claimed that someone wishing you 'merry Christmas' was anger-inspiring. It was an assumption that was later refuted.

[Ironwolf85]

I've had a number of positive religious experiences in my life.

My biggest impression of athiesim is what I'm often confronted with. Just as Christian fundies make the big impression for doing stupid shit, so to Atheist fundies. The guys who paint graffiti, sue hundreds of towns for the ten commandments being on public property or nearly bankrupting a school for having a picture of jesus in the hall belonging to the religious club. The guys who trash nativity scenes. and so forth.

These don't represent athiests anymore than ISIS represents muslims or Westbroro represents Christians.

But be aware nothing exists in a vacume, and the next time you dismiss a Christian or Muslim as an idiot for believing, you are being part of the problem.

Agnostics... well nobody hates Agnostics, and it's hard to be fanatically undecided so the don't do bad things very often.

[BeeJay]

I've had a number of positive religious experiences in my life.

My biggest impression of athiesim is what I'm often confronted with. Just as Christian fundies make the big impression for doing stupid shit, so to Atheist fundies. The guys who paint graffiti, sue hundreds of towns for the ten commandments being on public property or nearly bankrupting a school for having a picture of jesus in the hall belonging to the religious club. The guys who trash nativity scenes. and so forth.

These don't represent athiests anymore than ISIS represents muslims or Westbroro represents Christians.

But be aware nothing exists in a vacume, and the next time you dismiss a Christian or Muslim as an idiot for believing, you are being part of the problem.

Agnostics... well nobody hates Agnostics, and it's hard to be fanatically undecided so the don't do bad things very often.

Care to explain those experiences and what they mean to you? If you aren't prepared to be offended, then don't.

It seems to me you recognize that those kinds of atheists are rare and not the norm, so why is that your impression of atheism? Please explain your reasoning.

To my reckoning, dismissing idiots rarely happens because they are religious. Atheists want to convince people that belief isn't rational, so calling every religious person an idiot is a great way to make sure you don't convince them. When someone is dismissed, it's because they are an idiot and them being religious is a coincidence. You can't convince an idiot of anything using rationality, so atheists just give up on those folks. I hope my meaning here is clear.

I wouldn't go so far as hate, but I know atheists think poorly of agnostics. Agnostics are just atheists that haven't done their damn research. They claim to hold the intellectual high ground, even though their beliefs are just as wrong as theists, albeit less fantastic. We believe they have come to the wrong conclusion just like theists have, and they are just as, if not more, pompous about it.

[Oniya]

Care to explain those experiences and what they mean to you? If you aren't prepared to be offended, then don't.

Our civility policy is not a topic to be debated.  It is contingent on you to at least try to avoid offending people.  Starting a statement with 'No offense, but...' (or any logical equivalents) is a thin disguise for 'I'm going to say something offensive here.'

Advice from Staff:  Don't.

[BeeJay]

Our civility policy is not a topic to be debated.  It is contingent on you to at least try to avoid offending people.  Starting a statement with 'No offense, but...' (or any logical equivalents) is a thin disguise for 'I'm going to say something offensive here.'

Advice from Staff:  Don't.

During a debate or somewhat structured argument, it's hard to tell if something someone says is going to offend. That's why I lay the disclaimer down. Like I have said before, if someone agrees to the discussion where things like delusions, ignorance and bad judgement are the topic of discussion, they need to be prepared for someone to offend them. I am not going to yield arguments or not address them at all just because I might hurt someone's feelings. I will refrain from comment if I think a flame war is about to start (because my thread would be in danger of being locked), because if someone is at the point of flaming, they have already lost and I don't need to address their arguments. If "I am not delusional" is someone's argument, and I disagree, I will say so. If that offends them, and they agreed to this discussion, that's too bad. That person should bow out if they are just too offended to continue, but they don't get to make arguments that just can't be challenged because to challenge them would be to offend. If advice from staff is, "Don't have controversial discussions," I will abide, but why have this forum in the first place? In a divisive issue, opposing sides are likely to have opinions that offend the other's senses. Again I say, too bad.

And I want to clarify, that I will not being invoking "No offense". Even if my comments are going to be offensive, I mean them, offense included. For civility's sake I give people fair warning, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. No one has the right to not be offended.

[Formless]

During a debate or somewhat structured argument, it's hard to tell if something someone says is going to offend. That's why I lay the disclaimer down. Like I have said before, if someone agrees to the discussion where things like delusions, ignorance and bad judgement are the topic of discussion, they need to be prepared for someone to offend them. I am not going to yield arguments or not address them at all just because I might hurt someone's feelings. I will refrain from comment if I think a flame war is about to start (because my thread would be in danger of being locked), because if someone is at the point of flaming, they have already lost and I don't need to address their arguments. If "I am not delusional" is someone's argument, and I disagree, I will say so. If that offends them, and they agreed to this discussion, that's too bad. That person should bow out if they are just too offended to continue, but they don't get to make arguments that just can't be challenged because to challenge them would be to offend. If advice from staff is, "Don't have controversial discussions," I will abide, but why have this forum in the first place? In a divisive issue, opposing sides are likely to have opinions that offend the other's senses. Again I say, too bad.

And I want to clarify, that I will not being invoking "No offense". Even if my comments are going to be offensive, I mean them, offense included. For civility's sake I give people fair warning, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. No one has the right to not be offended.

Perhaps it is wise to remember not to consider one's faith and belief as ' delusional '.

If you choose to not believe in a certain religion or belief , that does not make you any better than someone who does , intellectually. It only means you have a different view of life.

Religion does not affect math , physics , chemistry , geology ... etc. Whoever think it does , be it religious or not , has forfeit their right to make a valid judgment upon science and religion.

As long as you remember that , you will not offend a rational , reasonable person , regardless of their take on religion.

[Avis habilis]

Even if my comments are going to be offensive, I mean them, offense included.

If you intentionally give offense you're breaking the civility rule.

Don't do that.

[BeeJay]

If you intentionally give offense you're breaking the civility rule.

Don't do that.

What I said is that if I say something that is offensive to someone, I still mean what I said. I never said my intention was to offend. I can't control what people are offended by, nor can I control what they argue in favor of. To reiterate, if someone claims something, and I disagree, I will say so. My language choices will be made in order to lend civility, but I'm not yielding arguments. If the civility rules ask me to do so, they are flawed and not conducive to true debate.

[Mathim]

There are clearly atheists who have poor moral character. I think Mathim was saying that secular morality is derived from logical and empiric conclusions, but not that everyone considers the same things logical, nor does everyone think of 'the best outcome' the same way. Secular morality can be wrong, but I would argue that it is less wrong more often than nonsecular morality, not in principle necessarily, but in practice. Am I representing you correctly Mathim?

I think it's interesting someone connected racism and misogyny to atheists when it's practically unheard of to practice those outside of a religious context (in response to the statement you had quoted, BeeJay). In fact only science has proven the ludicrousness of discrimination based on skin color because we're all human no matter how you slice it. But let me get back to responding to your comment.

In secular morality, as I understand it, a discussion can be had where pros and cons are determined and weighed and people can continue to add or change things and at the very least, a large majority can agree on a standard that is more or less acceptable to the general population. This can always be subject to change for reasons of new discovery, experimentation, etc. whereas something based on a rigid doctrine can either not change, or frivolous exceptions will be made to benefit whoever is in charge at the time. Secular ethics is flexible so as not to be dogmatic and intransigent (which would just be asking for trouble otherwise), freely questioned and discussed at length with logic and without exclusion of emotions, and is more likely to look at each person's opinion on it equally before making a decision on what the overall society would consider to be the ultimate decision.

In this sense, doing something because you think it's right based on a system derived from secular morality is less likely to lead to something like the institution of slavery than something where people blindly obey precepts carved into stone by some invisible man in the sky. If this is kind of what you thought I was saying, then yeah, you were representing me correctly.

[BeeJay]

Pretty much. Glad I didn't misrepresent you.

[Ironwolf85]

Care to explain those experiences and what they mean to you? If you aren't prepared to be offended, then don't.

It seems to me you recognize that those kinds of atheists are rare and not the norm, so why is that your impression of atheism? Please explain your reasoning.

To my reckoning, dismissing idiots rarely happens because they are religious. Atheists want to convince people that belief isn't rational, so calling every religious person an idiot is a great way to make sure you don't convince them. When someone is dismissed, it's because they are an idiot and them being religious is a coincidence. You can't convince an idiot of anything using rationality, so atheists just give up on those folks. I hope my meaning here is clear.

I wouldn't go so far as hate, but I know atheists think poorly of agnostics. Agnostics are just atheists that haven't done their damn research. They claim to hold the intellectual high ground, even though their beliefs are just as wrong as theists, albeit less fantastic. We believe they have come to the wrong conclusion just like theists have, and they are just as, if not more, pompous about it.

The problem is that these people make one hell of an insulting impression.
The biggest thing is rather than addressing the issue, they receive tacit support of mainstream athiests. In large part because there is a cultural disconnect. To an Athiest it's just a glass doll, so what's the big issue? So when the local Christian community gets pissed that someone took a baseball bat to the manger the night before Christmas, pro-Atheist political groups respond with the political equivalent of "So what?" rather than addressing the issue.
One of the biggest problems is they talk down, and when you discuss matters of faith with most of the self declared atheists, they respond almost entirely, with a smug sense of superiority and an unwillingness to discuss anything except how wrong religious folk are and how "All religion is bad."

I swear almost every self declared atheist I've talked to acted with the same self righteous "I am enlightened, all others are savages" tone that I see in some religious folk. It's left a bad impression,


It's not the fanatics, it's the inaction and unwilling to even discuss how they insult religious folk doing these things.

[Ephiral]

My biggest impression of athiesim is what I'm often confronted with. Just as Christian fundies make the big impression for doing stupid shit, so to Atheist fundies. The guys who paint graffiti, sue hundreds of towns for the ten commandments being on public property or nearly bankrupting a school for having a picture of jesus in the hall belonging to the religious club. The guys who trash nativity scenes. and so forth.

Of your three examples: One is actually far more widespread against atheists (and the police often won't take it seriously), one is fighting violations of the Constitution of the United States (and the treatment of atheists and religious minorities as second-class citizens), and one... well, citation needed, because the only sources I can find are right-wing publications that run on fear.

Maybe you should choose your examples more carefully.

The biggest thing is rather than addressing the issue, they receive tacit support of mainstream athiests. In large part because there is a cultural disconnect. To an Athiest it's just a glass doll, so what's the big issue? So when the local Christian community gets pissed that someone took a baseball bat to the manger the night before Christmas, pro-Atheist political groups respond with the political equivalent of "So what?" rather than addressing the issue.

Citation doubly needed. Please show me one of these "so what" responses.

One of the biggest problems is they talk down, and when you discuss matters of faith with most of the self declared atheists, they respond almost entirely, with a smug sense of superiority and an unwillingness to discuss anything except how wrong religious folk are and how "All religion is bad."

Um, you realise there are atheists right here, right? In this discussion of matters of faith? Ones who have been very careful to explicitly avoid anything that could be remotely construed as anything like what you're talking about?

Perhaps you need to choose your broad, highly insulting generalizations more carefully as well.

It's not the fanatics, it's the inaction and unwilling to even discuss how they insult religious folk doing these things.

So... there are a number of atheists in or facing jail in numerous places around the world right now just for being atheists. Should I be upset with all religious people for their "inaction" on and "tacit support" of blasphemy laws? Or should I recognize that they're a diverse group that has diverse interests and balances them in a variety of ways, all different from my own?

As for the "insulting" thing... frankly, you read pretty strongly like you assume all atheists are insulting by default. When your opening move is to demand an apology for punching you in the face while you're hitting the other person, it's small wonder you haven't had a productive discussion.

I think it's interesting someone connected racism and misogyny to atheists when it's practically unheard of to practice those outside of a religious context (in response to the statement you had quoted, BeeJay). In fact only science has proven the ludicrousness of discrimination based on skin color because we're all human no matter how you slice it.

That... would be me, except for the gross misrepresentation part. I merely noted that racist and misogynist atheists exist, which they inarguably do. I even went on to explicitly state that a) this was not a blanket condemnation, and b) I am an atheist myself.

As for "practically unheard of"... well, I don't want to derail the thread, but... it's really not. Google "human biodiversity" sometime, if you have a strong tolerance for vile bullshit tailor-made to fit preconceived notions.

[BeeJay]

Thank you Ephiral. I don't think I could have made those points better. Also thanks for lending a moderating hand to the atheists in the argument too. There are misogynists and racists on both sides, as you said, inarguably. A case may be able to be made for the institutionalization of misogyny and racism by religions, but claiming or implying that there are no atheists of questionable moral character is dishonest.

And Ironwolf85: It seems to me you haven't spent any time at all in the presence of atheists. It sounds like your experience with atheists is that of hearsay and negatively slanted news articles. If you'd like, you and I can discuss atheism in PM and I can help you understand our position better, and the offer is sincere. Let me know if you'd be interested in that.

[Alsheriam]

I'll speak as an atheist who used to be a Baptist youth pastor.

In not too many words, when I was a believer I was often described by peers as "one of the strongest Christians I know." My faith also gave me carte blanche to be a hideous racist and to kick over the religious altars of my neighbors', because I sincerely believed God wanted me to destroy all false idols. Everything I did, I did in the name of God and damn the consequences because the mortal world and its worldy things were temporary. Eternal life and the Kingdom of Heaven which Jesus promised was far more important than hurt feelings or offending other people.

It wasn't till I hit 20 when I began to realize that my past deeds were nothing short of evil, and additionally I began to undergo the realization that God isn't real. Despite being rebuked for reading what my fellow Christians considered to be "evil" and "deception of Satan", my forays into science and philosophy yielded far more plausible, convincing and ethical solutions and explanations for my daily life. That served to steadily erode my belief in God until I arrived at the conclusion that:

a) there is no God
b) I'd rather have my acts made accountable to myself and be embarrassed at myself than to be under the constant supervision of an invisible and omnipotent being. I want to be good because I care about other people; not because I will be thrown into the lake of fire by God.

I'm one of those "fuckwads" who speaks out against religion because I have personally experienced what it's like to be an evil person while convincing myself into thinking I'm a holy person. This doesn't mean that every religious person is evil because they use God as justification, but religion can drive well-meaning people into heinous acts of evil because they didn't know better.

[BeeJay]

I'll speak as an atheist who used to be a Baptist youth pastor.

In not too many words, when I was a believer I was often described by peers as "one of the strongest Christians I know." My faith also gave me carte blanche to be a hideous racist and to kick over the religious altars of my neighbors', because I sincerely believed God wanted me to destroy all false idols. Everything I did, I did in the name of God and damn the consequences because the mortal world and its worldy things were temporary. Eternal life and the Kingdom of Heaven which Jesus promised was far more important than hurt feelings or offending other people.

It wasn't till I hit 20 when I began to realize that my past deeds were nothing short of evil, and additionally I began to undergo the realization that God isn't real. Despite being rebuked for reading what my fellow Christians considered to be "evil" and "deception of Satan", my forays into science and philosophy yielded far more plausible, convincing and ethical solutions and explanations for my daily life. That served to steadily erode my belief in God until I arrived at the conclusion that:

a) there is no God
b) I'd rather have my acts made accountable to myself and be embarrassed at myself than to be under the constant supervision of an invisible and omnipotent being. I want to be good because I care about other people; not because I will be thrown into the lake of fire by God.

I'm one of those "fuckwads" who speaks out against religion because I have personally experienced what it's like to be an evil person while convincing myself to be a holy person. This doesn't mean that every religious person is evil because they use God as justification, but religion can drive well-meaning people into heinous acts of evil because they didn't know better.

Thank you for sharing. I don't know what it's like to be a serious believer, so your input is very valuable. I grew up in a house where 'God' was a vague concept no one really talked about. We never went to church or prayed, but I was aware of the idea of God early. I believed the way many young kids did; that is to say I used God in daily speech without even really knowing what I was talking about. Did coming out as atheist have any major effects on your life? If you care to talk about them, I'd love to hear it.

As Steven Weinberg once said: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

[Alsheriam]

Of course there were consequences. My entire family was displeased with my decision but thankfully enough, they chose not to disown me and throw me out of the house because I fell in with bad company at the time, and my shift in attitudes and mindsets RE: my personal morals and how I live my life resulted where I became a much more pleasant human being to live with, got my shit together, enlisted with the military and all that. I suspect that my parents had a humanistic streak in them because they were happy to see me pull myself out of the hole I dug myself into.

That's not all, though. Most, if not all of my childhood friends, I grew up with them in church. I was on the receiving end of Operation Guilt Trip from them where they'd visit my house (with the blessing of my parents) in order to persuade me to return to Jesus.

[Mathim]

I'll speak as an atheist who used to be a Baptist youth pastor.

In not too many words, when I was a believer I was often described by peers as "one of the strongest Christians I know." My faith also gave me carte blanche to be a hideous racist and to kick over the religious altars of my neighbors', because I sincerely believed God wanted me to destroy all false idols. Everything I did, I did in the name of God and damn the consequences because the mortal world and its worldy things were temporary. Eternal life and the Kingdom of Heaven which Jesus promised was far more important than hurt feelings or offending other people.

It wasn't till I hit 20 when I began to realize that my past deeds were nothing short of evil, and additionally I began to undergo the realization that God isn't real. Despite being rebuked for reading what my fellow Christians considered to be "evil" and "deception of Satan", my forays into science and philosophy yielded far more plausible, convincing and ethical solutions and explanations for my daily life. That served to steadily erode my belief in God until I arrived at the conclusion that:

a) there is no God
b) I'd rather have my acts made accountable to myself and be embarrassed at myself than to be under the constant supervision of an invisible and omnipotent being. I want to be good because I care about other people; not because I will be thrown into the lake of fire by God.

I'm one of those "fuckwads" who speaks out against religion because I have personally experienced what it's like to be an evil person while convincing myself into thinking I'm a holy person. This doesn't mean that every religious person is evil because they use God as justification, but religion can drive well-meaning people into heinous acts of evil because they didn't know better.

Since you've actually provided a perfect platform for my next post, I'll quote you rather than Ephiral.

I said 'practically unheard of' because the vast minority of racism and misogyny will be built from the GROUND UP by atheists. When I say atheists in this context, I'm specifically talking about rationalists and not those who are just too pissed off at religion to think critically about why they don't believe. Those who require rational justification to believe in things or behave in certain ways will be hard-pressed to defend institutions like misogyny, racism, homophobia and slavery. But as Alsheriam has just said, no such requirement for rational justification will exist in faith-based environments. In that sense, you're going to have a hell of a hard time finding an atheist who will not be putting their foot in their mouth defending such bullshit propositions, while a true believer will consider this a non-issue.

[BeeJay]

In other words, it's systemically easier to be a bigot if you live in a nonsecular society.

[Sabby]

I would have to disagree with that. I think it's more accurate to say that it's easier to justify bigotry if you live within a rigid society of any kind. So long as the society you are a part of resists rationality and discussion, they will be very slow to evaluate and change certain customs. So, any customs they hold that we would find immoral would be much harder to phase out then in a society that values rationalism and critical thinking.

The presence of a Religion doesn't make a society dogmatic and stagnant any more then a lack of one makes it progressive. I do think there is a heavy correlation between stagnation and Religion, but I don't consider this to be direct causation. It's just that such a society is much slower to get rid of the unnecessary practices and customs, so the Religions stick around in archaic forms a lot longer.

A progressive and critical society that condemns bigotry can still profess itself as a Religious place, just that Religion will typically be far more modernized then one you'd find in a more archaic area resistant to change. Religion is completely irrelevant when it comes to bigoted practices in society. Both Religion and bigotry are dictated by the peoples willingness to modernize.

[Ironwolf85]

Thank you Ephiral. I don't think I could have made those points better. Also thanks for lending a moderating hand to the atheists in the argument too. There are misogynists and racists on both sides, as you said, inarguably. A case may be able to be made for the institutionalization of misogyny and racism by religions, but claiming or implying that there are no atheists of questionable moral character is dishonest.

And Ironwolf85: It seems to me you haven't spent any time at all in the presence of atheists. It sounds like your experience with atheists is that of hearsay and negatively slanted news articles. If you'd like, you and I can discuss atheism in PM and I can help you understand our position better, and the offer is sincere. Let me know if you'd be interested in that.

Personal experiences then?
1. church getting egged as a kid.
2. baseball bat taken to all local nativity scenes, letter sent to local paper claiming it was done "to promote freedom from god"
3. being harassed by fellow university students later in life.
4. Not being taken seriously in scientific conversation about biology in collage because I wore a celtic cross.

Having to hear the stupid "manger battle" every year at Christmas with both sides playing the media for coverage, turning a 5X5 lot into some massive battleground for the soul of the nation, for 26 years, every year, having to do the city hall paper work for three years about it when I worked as a civil servant.

So yeah I'm a little sore.
I apologize if I flew off the handle and ranted.

[Sabby]

4. Not being taken seriously in scientific conversation about biology in collage because I wore a celtic cross.

Could you expound a bit on this point? I find it very difficult to believe that teacher would discriminate like that in a college and keep their job. Did you do or say anything that may have provoked that treatment? I'm not saying it would be justified, I'd just like to understand why you were outed and excluded like that.

[Ephiral]

Personal experiences then?
1. church getting egged as a kid.
2. baseball bat taken to all local nativity scenes, letter sent to local paper claiming it was done "to promote freedom from god"
3. being harassed by fellow university students later in life.
4. Not being taken seriously in scientific conversation about biology in collage because I wore a celtic cross.

Here's the problem: None of this is justification for blanket condemnation of atheists, unless you're claiming to be a vandal. (As an aside, the same five-minute Google that found those also found this . Perhaps you'd like to retract your "inaction" claim?)

Having to hear the stupid "manger battle" every year at Christmas with both sides playing the media for coverage, turning a 5X5 lot into some massive battleground for the soul of the nation, for 26 years, every year, having to do the city hall paper work for three years about it when I worked as a civil servant.

Um. Just a thought. Is it really the atheists causing the problem here, or the people who are putting up a blatantly illegal display?

[Mikem]

Agnostics are just atheists that haven't done their damn research. They claim to hold the intellectual high ground, even though their beliefs are just as wrong as theists, albeit less fantastic. We believe they have come to the wrong conclusion just like theists have, and they are just as, if not more, pompous about it.

Uhm... That's some generalizing right there. Am I pompous? I leave all of this out of my life. I just found myself as Agnostic because it makes the most logical sense and I have an answer when questioned about my stance.

And it'd be better if you didn't use words like "right" and "wrong" when talking about this. It's impossible to know any fact concerning Religion, hence, it's impossible to know who's right and who's wrong. Actually, everyone is wrong until proven right, and no one can prove anything.