What I glean from the postings of atheists on this forum is that atheists are generally angry. I can't imagine why they're angry. If they're truley atheists then there's nothing to be angry about. They're atheists, period, end of story. But the ones here seem to be especially perturbed with those that don't see things in the same light that they do. They seem to expect everyone to 'think like they do', Not a whole lot different than their arch enemies...(anyone that believes otherwise). They point to the mounting evidence presented by science (which, by their explaining, indicates that they don't actually fully understand themselves) as proof that their viewpoint is the only viewpoint and represents unbridled truth. They seem to live in a world of black and white. There are no greys. They are closed minds that labor under the belief that they are open. They are intolerant and tend to be bullys. They see themselves as being enlightened. They are entrenched in their opinion that the universe is pointless and merely a slave to physical laws brought into existence by chance and happenstance. I see a very fine, albeit virtually invisible line separating them from that that they abhor. Theism (in any way shape or form). I think that this is an 'objective' assessment. I myself have a profound respect for the sciences. They have provided a comprehension of the universe we never had before. However I simply don't 'deify' science. Science is a wondrous tool. I don't 'deify' a hammer or a wrench either. Science has provided us with many answers....but also with many more questions. It is yet to be qualified as a 'new religion' as atheists seem to need to make it. All is my opinion, of course. What's yours?
An atheist does not believe in a god, that's it. Not sure why you think atheists are angry, what makes you say atheists are angry?
For starters, I think we all need to consider the fact that not everything we see is an accurate description of the opinions we are discussing. Most atheists are generally not angry, but through a combination of careless wordings, selective descriptions (most atheists only make their atheism known when they are talking about a disagreement), selective material (the material that reaches religious people tends to be that which is aimed at them) and so called internet psychopathy (genuine concern and respectful language is often lost in writing because the lack of body language and voice inflections, ie people are harder to read over the internet than the readers assume) I can see how they come across as such. That being said, there are many things which an atheist might be angry about (and justifiably so to no lesser extent than any other opinion may be voiced in). For instance, it is not at all unreasonable for an atheist to be angry about, let's say Christian attitudes on same sex marriage. The fact that they do not believe the supposed source of the disagreement exists does not mean they no longer disagree. Surely, this both makes sense in itself and is a crippling counter example to the seemingly common idea that atheists couldn't have an opinion on questions which supposedly incorporate God? One should not confuse science with religion, not because it cannot act like one for some purposes, but because semantic drift of words like religion would make the debate harder than it already is. I've seen several debates derail completely because one side decided to make a humorous word switch and then the other side simply failed to understand the switch and suddenly the different sides couldn't even understand the arguments that were being made. Instead, one should write out the arguments in full. If you're worried about the proponents of science acting like religious people for some purposes, then write that instead of trying to redefine words which are going to be completely alien to anyone entering the conversation, which has connotations that have not been thought through and so on. Other than that, yes, often the non-religious are not seeing things the same way others are. I try to correct this personally by asking people, in fact, that's the very reason I ever started discussing religion on the internet. However, when discussing these kinds of questions, one has to be very careful not to be persuaded by bad ideas (this is part of the reason science never manages to say anything in absolute terms). When I and many with me try to assess religious claims from this standpoint, the arguments we are given could be used to argue for untrue statements, which by definition makes them bad arguments. In fact, it kind of boggles my mind how often I'm being presented with arguments which would sound simply stupid if I replaced "the Bible" with "spiderman comics" and still somehow, people seem to think they are valid when the Bible occurs in the argument. You are right in that us non-religious types limit our considerations, but the reason we do so is that if we did not, we would have to be persuaded by arguments like "the Hercules myth is really old, so it must be true", which would simply be preposterous. I probably have more comments on this, I might return later.
Speaking strictly for myself, I am not angry and do not take issue with those who follow God. I do however debate the validity of Scriptural information being referred to as Fact. As I note quite clearly the very many aspects of the Bible(s) that are physically impossible or obviously fictional, when these things are presented as truth by extreme Christians I point out the error. I do not hate God, that would be pointless...but I do enjoy pointing out ignorance.
You don't consider your view of atheists to be rather subjective and an over-generalization? One equally applicable to many of our fundamentalist Christian or even Christian posters??? And if equally applicable...how many of THEM have you "called out" as "intolerant bullies"?
I agree, however, there is a vast difference between "pointing out errors" or inconsistencies, or just plain inaccuracies, and referring to people as 'stupid, ignorant, and the plethora of derogatory adjectives used by atheists aimed at those folks that don't see things their way. I'm not a 'theist' but I have a belief that if one is incapable of civil discourse, one should simply keep ones mouth (fingers) inactive.
I suppose I might not be paying enough attention...but I have rarely noted such attitudes on this forum.
You may be correct and I may have missed the mark. But when a reply is made that takes this form; [people that still believe in the Spaghetti Monster are stupid], In other words, directing their comment at a 3rd party. Well, I think you get my drift. You can call a person a butthead without ever calling him a butthead directly.
An atheist is someone without a belief in any god or gods. That certainly doesn't mean that's all there is to that individual or that they necessarily share any further characteristics with other atheists. I suspect the common theme there is this forum, not atheism. Plenty of other people here seem to fit that description too, less so (somewhat!) out in the real world. I can't possibly imagine why you keep encountering angry atheists. In my opinion, labelling large and diverse groups of people on the basis of a singular characteristic and using it as a basis to attack and condemn them all is the definition of bigotry.
an atheist is one who comes to the illogical that there is no god simply because he has no direct evidence to support its existence. just as blind faith is rather illogical, denial is an equally illogical response. this lack of logic isn't a problem in itself, that's something we are all guilty of nearly every day. it is the use of logic to defend an illogical position that gets us into trouble.
Definitely subjective and generalized. I do write subjectively. Objectivity would make me a 'reporter'. Fundamentalist Christians are merely the other side of the same coin. (generally)
Most atheists are materialists. They assume, as does their science, that there is nothing but matter, and the laws that govern matter. So their philosophical beliefs about reality exclude god in the first act of accepting an assumption as truth. Nothing more than that. The militant atheists do the same thing the orthodox religious people do. They assume something, than state it is truth. The only honest, sane position is simply to say we do not, and perhaps can never know, for it is impossible for thought, which is of time, to know the timeless.
Ya know, I wonder just how many atheists in their last breath, with that last spark of electricity running through their brain, don't use it to say; "dam, I sure hope I was wrong".
The self-avowed atheists on forums often are very angry. It's like going to a Hellfire and Brimstone Evangelical church and coming away thinking that all Christians are nutjobs bent on killing gays and abortionists. - - - Updated - - - LOL. Funny, but dying is often peaceful. Death is oblivion. It's the journey getting there that can be a little painful depending on the circumstances.
I think I can answer that to a degree, at least from this atheist's experience. Twice now I have lost consciousness convinced I would not be waking up. The first time in my early twenties all I wanted was the physical pain to stop, in that micro second between consciousness and unconsciousness I can remember nothing but a sense of relief. The second occasion not so long ago I remember thinking just before I hit the wall, **** I am never going to see Norway now! Especially on the first occasion I was absolutely convinced I was going to die.
Even atheists admit to being angry. Google 'angry atheists'. Their poster boy Dawkins is very angry. I suppose that I would be angry too if I believed that soon, what I consider to be extremely enjoyable (being conscious and self aware and curious) would be simply snuffed out. The atoms that make me up would soon be returned to the remnants of the Big Bang from which they came..never more to reassemble as me. That I would/could never know the answers to all my questions. I may be deluding myself in thinking that there's something more to my existence beyond E=MC squared. and Quantum Mechanics and an inflating cosmos. But alas, I'm a deist..and I do.
I was being poetic...What's the last thing that goes through a bugs mind when it hits your windshield?..........his ass.
I'll try to come up with a mathematical formula for 'poetic' then. Don't tell me you don't do mathematical formulas. Or are you one of those atheists that are atheists simply for the sheer joy of being an atheist? A Hedonist Atheist
Joy! Joy! whats this joy stuff?, I sit in a darkened room all day (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing at the world, watching out the window to see if a theist comes by so I can rob them of their soul(which they haven't got) by making them watch endless reruns of Life of Brian. Spike Milligan is my John the Baptist
But is your subjective criticism dished out EQUALLY to those Fundamentalist Christians....or just atheists?
Doesn't sound like you're a 'pro-active' atheist. Put the 'Life of Brian' on your Smartphone or Tablet. Then go and hunt down some 'theists'. They're wandering around all over the place and are easily found, easily identified. They usually have giant crosses either around their necks or on staffs so that they stand out in a crowd. Or they'll just approach you asking if you have accepted their deity. Just say "no, come closer and tell me more"; then, providing you have a net, (I neglected to mention, you should have a net) throw the net over them and press 'play' on your Smartphone/tablet. Great fun for atheists...but requires some pro-activity on your part. Sitting in a darkened room waiting for a theist to inadvertently meandor by is way too passive. Also, that allusive 'joy' will wash over you.
A poster once asked why atheist post in the religion forum if they don't believe in a god. Here's a reason. To defend ourselves from the hateful rantings of someone who claims they are god because they know how all atheists think and feel. Since either anger or hate are the first words off their judgemental christian tongues I assume those two emotions are always in the forefront with them. """as proof that their viewpoint is the only viewpoint and represents unbridled truth. They seem to live in a world of black and white. There are no greys. They are closed minds that labor under the belief that they are open. They are intolerant and tend to be bullys. They see themselves as being enlightened. They are entrenched in their opinion that the universe is pointless and merely a slave to physical laws brought into existence by chance and happenstance. I see a very fine, albeit virtually invisible line separating them from that that they abhor. """ LOL! Didn't your Jesus tell you to look into a mirror before making such assinine hateful statements...????
I did mention in my post that you quoted that Fundamental Christians were the 'flip side' of the coin. I do spread my disdain around. I actually find little that I regard sacred.
