Atheist Evangelicalism

[David19]

I hope it's alright to post this here (and, this isn't meant as an attack on Non-Theists at all, I'd like to hear other opinions), but, I've noticed that there seems to have been a rise in aggressive Atheism, like, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others who seem to be on the attack and want to eliminate all religion. Hitchens also said that he can't respect any religious person, which I guess makes him a sad, lonely man (which may account for his bitterness), or a pathetic one, if his only friends are ones that share his philosophy (IMO, you should never just have friends with people from your circle, e.g. a Christian shouldn't just want to be friends with only Christians, a Pagan with only Pagans, Atheists with Atheists, etc). At first, I didn't agree with Dawkins, on 'The God Delusion', but, I did, at least, respect him, but, he just seems to have become very aggressive, same for some other Atheists (none of which are on this forum, as far as I'm aware, which is a good thing).

I've noticed that some Atheists just, basically, seem to say exactly the same things as the fundamentalists of Christianity and Islam (along with other religions), e.g. like they think they've got the "true" path, they seem to make fun of those who believe in God(s), or anything spiritual, in short, they just seem mean, and bitter. It makes me wonder if they have any friends who are part of a religion, 'cause the way some of them look upon Theists, or anyone Spiritual, I don't see how they could be friends (I also see religious Fundamentalists the same way, like, how many friends they may have, or if they're truly happy, 'cause, I don't think anyone can really be happy, unless they're just a natural born bully, by insulting, or making fun of others).

Anyway, I just wanted to get other Non-Theist opinions of what you think of certain Atheists who do seem to the fit the above pattern?, do you think that'll ever change, or, if they're simply a minority (that will hopefully die out, along with other Fundamentalists).

[winterelf86]

Yeah I get -very- tired of that " I'm right, you're wrong" attitude and they use science the way fundie Christians and Muslims use their scripture.

They twist things around and that doesn't lead to very rational thinking ;)

So when a fundie atheist tells a Christian " You're wrong, I'm right," I just lol...because they're doing the same thing they accuse Christians of doing.


Its really silly.

[DoktorSick]

I totally disagree Dawkins and Hitchens are nowhere close to being fundamentalist. Have you guys actually read any of there work or heard them speak? The present an alternative to religion and faith. Present that fact that there is no evidence to support the claims of religion.
I am big fan of there work and have been articles and books by dawkins way before he become like the mainstream face of modern atheism.
I really appreciate what they do and what others like them do. They present an alternative to mainstream religion and superstitions.And present the crazy idea that if you make claims about something it's a good idea to have some credible evidence.

[Infinite Grey]

I've noticed that there seems to have been a rise in aggressive Atheism, like, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens,

Aggressive Atheism is pretty damn passive if Dawkins and Hitchens are their representatives. Advocates of Free Speech, the free exchange of ideas, the sciences and other academia, human rights and equality... if only the so called "fundamentalists" of the theist side were so vicious.


and others who seem to be on the attack and want to eliminate all religion.

David, there is a difference between the actively trying to eliminate all religion and being happy to see all religion eliminated. They can not and will not take an active role in the elimination of any religious or political ideology, it would violate pretty much everything they stand for.

But I can understand why the religious and those of religious leanings would "push" Dawkins and Hitchens over that line in their own perceptions. The both say and do things that piss people off.


Hitchens also said that he can't respect any religious person, which I guess makes him a sad, lonely man (which may account for his bitterness), or a pathetic one, if his only friends are ones that share his philosophy

Why does that make him a sad, lonely man? There is little logic to your assumption there, do you really think so little of atheists that our little ragtag band of misfits to not possess the strength of character to provide amble social sustenance? Or do you mean there is so few atheists that it would be impossible to have a meaningful community consisting of only atheists?

There is no single atheistic philosophy, why is that so hard for people to understand? If the world's population were to become atheistic tomorrow, there would still be a cornacopia of philisophies rambling around - just minus the involvement of a diety.



I've noticed that some Atheists just, basically, seem to say exactly the same things as the fundamentalists of Christianity and Islam (along with other religions), e.g. like they think they've got the "true" path,

Or like "God hates fags", "Slaughter those that mock Islam"? At best (or worst) they are the carebears of the fundamentalist zone club.


they seem to make fun of those who believe in God(s) or anything spiritual,

Why shouldn't they? We can make fun of someone's political ideologies, their choice in clothes, the school they went to, the city they live in, their country. You can make fun of conspiracy theories, wacky inventions, sports, dance moves and so on... why not religion and anything spiritual?



in short, they just seem mean, and bitter.

So do their critics.


It makes me wonder if they have any friends who are part of a religion,

Yes they do. Just watch a few of their debates, they're often friends with their opponents.


'cause the way some of them look upon Theists, or anyone Spiritual, I don't see how they could be friends

Simple, avoid those topics.




Anyway, I just wanted to get other Non-Theist opinions of what you think of certain Atheists who do seem to the fit the above pattern?, do you think that'll ever change, or, if they're simply a minority (that will hopefully die out, along with other Fundamentalists).

I wish all fundamentalist were like atheist fundamentalists, we would have advocates of freedom of speech as opposed to prop 8, we would have humanitarian efforts instead of planes crashing into buildings... they may be rude, but you can not compare them to the likes of Phelps and Al-Jahiz.

[*~Amora~*]

I'm not familiar with Dawkins and Hitchens, so I can't comment on them in particular. However, there are extremists in every group and Atheists are no exception. One doesn't have to believe in anything spiritual to be so adamant about that belief (or disbelief if you prefer) to proselytize and show intolerance. But I think we’re in agreement that it’s important to individualize people and not lump them together for good or ill.

I wrote an article on this subject back in October Fundamentalist Atheists (http://helleneste.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/fundamentalist-atheists/)

[Twinkle]

David, not to be a butt, but you're using evangelical in the wrong way again.

Atheists cannot be evangelists because they do not believe in the Four Gospels or evangelical history as religious truth. They do not adhere to the Gospel, and they do not want to attempt to bring anyone to Christianity.

Wrong paradigm.

The correct work would be Fundamentalist, and possibly proselytizing - to convert people to one's opinion.

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine.

[Æon Flux]

You cannot be an "Evangelistic" Atheist, or a "fundamentalist" Atheist.

As Twinkle already explained the "Evangelistic" part, let me explain the other one.
To be a fundamentalist means you follow a certain set of ideas and principles strictly. And either all Atheists are Atheistic fundamentalists or there is no way you can put the two together.

Atheism means ONE thing and one effin' thing only.
THE LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD/A GOD/DEITIES.
All this is just like saying there are Fundamentalist or Evangelistic "lack-of-belief-in-fairies".

There are Atheists who believe in spirits, atheists who believe in fairies, atheists who believe in unicorns, atheists who are witches, atheists who only believe in what science can tell them is the most likely explanation, atheists who believe we ARE in the MATRIX, they all just happen to have a lack of belief in Deities.

What you are talking about is people who are very HARD in their DISBELIEF in DEITIES and the fact that they find it extremely hard to respect people who, in their view, worship an imaginary friend.
Just like people who are very HARD in their BELIEF in a DEITY will point fingers and rant and rave, threaten and screech.

The people you mention aren't disruptive, violent and are for free speech and freedom of religion even though they would love to live in a world without religion.

I have a hard time respecting certain levels of religiosity as well, and thus the people on said levels.

The rise of more "outspoken and aggressive" atheists most likely has something to do with the fact that coming out of the "skeptic" closet is getting more and more accepted, but there is still that common view that it doesn't matter which God or Goddess you believe in as long as you believe in one, because nothing is quite as bad as believing in no God at all.

[Herumetem]

To me, there's a difference between atheists and Atheists. I feel as though this article is about Atheists, and about those who organize to spread doubt, and (let's face it) to outwit faith. I'm not being paranoid. There've been Atheist clubs at both of my universities. And they're not pushy, usually. But they can be just as rude as any unreasonable believers. I thought that was the point of this thread: to see why Atheists display the same traits they condemn religion for.

[winterelf86]

I wish all fundamentalist were like atheist fundamentalists, we would have advocates of freedom of speech as opposed to prop 8, we would have humanitarian efforts instead of planes crashing into buildings... they may be rude, but you can not compare them to the likes of Phelps and Al-Jahiz.

You have a point there, then again I've mentioned before the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude of anyone...be it atheist, Christian, Muslim or pagan is enough for other people to walk away and not listen to their ideas.

I can respect the views of others but I do expect it in return.

[Nicholas]

I'm in agreement with Iggy on this issue.

"Atheist Evangelicalism" is probably a bad term more so because it just doesn't exist, so I'm going to assume that is means extremism.

Huge advocates for Atheism Hitchens, Dawkins, Hawking.. etc Have only ever contributed good to the world. Their opinions about religions and religious people are only a small spectrum of their work. And what about it, they are entitled to feel the way they do and the evidence they provide to back up their claims is solid.

The reality about these advocates is that they contribute to world freedoms and humanitarian efforts. If a few sensitive religious folks get their toes stepped on in sight of that goal so be it.

My fiancee describes me as a militant atheist especially when it comes to my field of study and science related fields. To me the evidence speaks for itself, and holding on to mythology and fairytale only hinders the collective. I'd much rather be subjected to militant atheism, over religion any day.

Atheism is not synonymous with anything but a lack of belief, so it seems the issue here isn't with Atheism but seems more directed at groups like Pearlists...

[TheWomanMonster]

I'm of the opinion that 'Aggressive Atheism' is manufactured by those of faith who are frightened of being given an alternative.

There's nothing aggressive about the way Dawkins, Hitchens or Hawking are presenting their viewpoints whatsoever. They are simply expressing what they (and others) feel in a thoughtful and educated manner.

Perhaps I am biased because I've actually read their work and watched them speak...

[David19]

You have a point there, then again I've mentioned before the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude of anyone...be it atheist, Christian, Muslim or pagan is enough for other people to walk away and not listen to their ideas.

I can respect the views of others but I do expect it in return.

That's what I'm talking about, whenever I see the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude, I just walk walk away. In school a lot of my friends were Atheists (and I was one too), but, religion wasn't an issue, I never saw people go on about the "evils" of religion the way people like Hitchens, Dawkins, etc do now. It just seems a small number of Atheists have been infected with a 100% anti-religion meme.

Also, something that just annoys me is I was on Dawkins site recently, and noticed he has a campaign going telling Atheists to "come out of the closet", maybe it's just me, but, that does get to me, it's like when I hear Pagans talking about "coming out of the Broom closet", it just tries to jump on the gay bandwagon, or making themselves seem like they have to deal with the same issues we do (they don't). That's just a personal gripe, though.

[David19]

David, not to be a butt, but you're using evangelical in the wrong way again.

Atheists cannot be evangelists because they do not believe in the Four Gospels or evangelical history as religious truth. They do not adhere to the Gospel, and they do not want to attempt to bring anyone to Christianity.

Wrong paradigm.

The correct work would be Fundamentalist, and possibly proselytizing - to convert people to one's opinion.

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine.

Thanks for correcting me, I'll remember that (I think I just used the word Evangelical, 'cause over here, evangelical has a connection with anyone who seeks to impose their ideas on others).

[David19]

The rise of more "outspoken and aggressive" atheists most likely has something to do with the fact that coming out of the "skeptic" closet is getting more and more accepted, but there is still that common view that it doesn't matter which God or Goddess you believe in as long as you believe in one, because nothing is quite as bad as believing in no God at all.

That's probably true, although, at least in the UK, or where I'm from anyway (London), I don't think being an Atheist is considered "bad" at all. It's probably different in other areas of the world, though.

The optimist in me likes to see the good in everybody, or most people anyway, and I don't like it when others are made fun of (for whatever reason - sexuality, "ethnicity", culture, religion, path, whatever, etc).

[*~Amora~*]

I'm of the opinion that 'Aggressive Atheism' is manufactured by those of faith who are frightened of being given an alternative.

IMHO "Aggressive Atheism" is about those who demonstrate intolerance for those of faith and their beliefs.

[winterelf86]

IMHO "Aggressive Atheism" is about those who demonstrate intolerance for those of faith and their beliefs.

Funny how people think tolerance only applies to them :thumbsup: And that disagreeing with someone means I'm frightened of their ideas. Honestly, I could care less about what someone believes as long as it isn't harming me or those beliefs aren't be shoved down my throat.

[*~Amora~*]

Funny how people think tolerance only applies to them :thumbsup:

What are you implying about me, personally?


Honestly, I could care less about what someone believes as long as it isn't harming me or those beliefs aren't be shoved down my throat.

If so, then you're not an "Aggressive Atheist".

[winterelf86]

What are you implying about me, personally?



If so, then you're not an "Aggressive Atheist".

I agree with your statement. I found it funny that there are atheists out there who whine and complain that they should be tolerated and thinking tolerance doesn't go both ways.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like I had attacked you. I agree with you :bigredgri

[*~Amora~*]

I agree with your statement. I found it funny that there are atheists out there who whine and complain that they should be tolerated and thinking tolerance doesn't go both ways.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like I had attacked you. I agree with you :bigredgri

Oooh, ok, I get it. Apology accepted, no harm done. These things happen. Yes, certainly agreed, tolerance goes both ways. :uhhuhuh:

[Shanti]

There are fundies and extremest and overly opinionated people in every single walk of life.

Makes life interesting!:spinner:

LOL, fundie atheist....give it time. :toofless:

[David19]

IMHO "Aggressive Atheism" is about those who demonstrate intolerance for those of faith and their beliefs.


Funny how people think tolerance only applies to them :thumbsup: And that disagreeing with someone means I'm frightened of their ideas. Honestly, I could care less about what someone believes as long as it isn't harming me or those beliefs aren't be shoved down my throat.


I agree with your statement. I found it funny that there are atheists out there who whine and complain that they should be tolerated and thinking tolerance doesn't go both ways.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like I had attacked you. I agree with you :bigredgri

QFT. People need to learn to respect others, you don't have to agree with people on every single issue, you don't even have to believe in what people say, but, you should respect them. If a path has made someone happy and complete, that's all that matters, IMO. People shouldn't constantly criticise others, going "that's a dumb belief", "how can anyone intelligent believe that", "religious people are idiots", "Atheists are immoral", "you'd be better off following my way", etc, that, again IMO, isn't a good way to build a better world, and, if that's how people want to act, then, I think we'd be better off when Nature decides she's had enough of our infestation of her, and wipes us out (I haven't started to read his books yet, but, apparantly, that's what James Lovelock has said - Gaia (the planet) is a living ecosystem, and like all living bodies, it will fight off any preceived threats to itself).

[BryonMorrigan]

I get what David was initially talking about by starting this thread.

For example, I love Bill Maher and think he's hilarious...but every so often he has to take a "dig" at _all_ religious people, or people who believe in any kind of spirituality...and it can be annoying.

Plus, there is also the fervency of the "newly-converted," which also applies to Atheists. A "new" Atheist is much more likely to act like a douche than someone who is secure in his/her beliefs, or in this case, a lack thereof.

In my opinion, it all boils down to that basic concept of Pluralism versus Exclusivism. And yes, for many, Atheism is an Exclusivist concept...and there are a lot of Atheists out there using Exclusivist language.

Example: An Exclusivist states that, "There is only One True Way. I know it. You are wrong." A Pluralist states that, "There may be many True Ways. I follow the one that seems most True to me." If your philosophy is, "I don't believe in any gods because I have examine the evidence and found no support for such a theory," then that is a perfectly reasonable philosophy. If your philosophy is, "I have examined the evidence and found no support for any gods. There are no gods. You are all wrong. I am right, and you are idiots"...well...it isn't really Fundamentalism or Evangelicalism...but it's still douchey...

As I've written many times, my personal motto is, "The only false path is the belief in the existence of false paths." It's not perfect...as someone could dream up a "path" that stated that the only way to the Divine was to molest children...(I'll keep the obvious joke to myself)...but it usually works most of the time. And it applies to Atheists as well.

[David19]

I get what David was initially talking about by starting this thread.

For example, I love Bill Maher and think he's hilarious...but every so often he has to take a "dig" at _all_ religious people, or people who believe in any kind of spirituality...and it can be annoying.

Plus, there is also the fervency of the "newly-converted," which also applies to Atheists. A "new" Atheist is much more likely to act like a douche than someone who is secure in his/her beliefs, or in this case, a lack thereof.

In my opinion, it all boils down to that basic concept of Pluralism versus Exclusivism. And yes, for many, Atheism is an Exclusivist concept...and there are a lot of Atheists out there using Exclusivist language.

Example: An Exclusivist states that, "There is only One True Way. I know it. You are wrong." A Pluralist states that, "There may be many True Ways. I follow the one that seems most True to me." If your philosophy is, "I don't believe in any gods because I have examine the evidence and found no support for such a theory," then that is a perfectly reasonable philosophy. If your philosophy is, "I have examined the evidence and found no support for any gods. There are no gods. You are all wrong. I am right, and you are idiots"...well...it isn't really Fundamentalism or Evangelicalism...but it's still douchey...

As I've written many times, my personal motto is, "The only false path is the belief in the existence of false paths." It's not perfect...as someone could dream up a "path" that stated that the only way to the Divine was to molest children...(I'll keep the obvious joke to myself)...but it usually works most of the time. And it applies to Atheists as well.

QFT, that's what I don't like, I don't understand why people have to put each other down, like, why is Dawkins so interested in bashing every religious person?, today, I even read that he says Agnostics "can't stay on the fence", that they have to "choose a side" (kind of like the language some gays, and straights, use against bi's, isn't it?). I'd also like to know why, in only the past few years have Atheists decided to get aggressive, is it just 'cause of the rise of religious extremism?.

I don't like it when you get people like Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, others, etc, who say "science will eventually, and must, destroy religion", it's BS. IMO, that's just an attempt by certain people to make everyone the "same", diversity should be celebrated - culturally, religiously, spiritually, etc. No differences should matter.

[Vampiel]

I've noticed that some Atheists just, basically, seem to say exactly the same things as the fundamentalists of Christianity and Islam (along with other religions), e.g. like they think they've got the "true" path, they seem to make fun of those who believe in God(s), or anything spiritual, in short, they just seem mean, and bitter. It makes me wonder if they have any friends who are part of a religion, 'cause the way some of them look upon Theists, or anyone Spiritual, I don't see how they could be friends (I also see religious Fundamentalists the same way, like, how many friends they may have, or if they're truly happy, 'cause, I don't think anyone can really be happy, unless they're just a natural born bully, by insulting, or making fun of others).

Anyway, I just wanted to get other Non-Theist opinions of what you think of certain Atheists who do seem to the fit the above pattern?, do you think that'll ever change, or, if they're simply a minority (that will hopefully die out, along with other Fundamentalists).


We question the belief of gods, thats all it is. Some attempt to more understanding and "nice" - other just call bullshit and are more up front about it.

The fact is people like Dawkins won't say well thats BS - but rather question why and present your evidence to back up your belief. I don't see that as a bad thing but a progressive point of view to move foward.

Question, inquire, critical, don't simply demand respect because you believe in whatever - back it up; I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

This type of thinking is also what brought western society to where it is today. It didn't come in the form of religous dogma - in came in the form of critical thinking and opposition from logical thought.

I don't understand why you would be against this - such as a religous dogma holding the belief that all gays are evil - ok, question that, why is that, use logical thought against it or for it.

Basic stuff here. Why should it be that a *religous* belief automatically have respect but the idea that its ridiculous, and question it, somehow shouldn't equate to that same type of respect?

Most religions are complete utter nonsense bullshit. Why do you think my view shouldn't demand automatic respect but religous views should?

It's hypocritical.

So say all views should demand respect - I say all views should be held to scrutiny, and respect is earned not given.

[Nox_Mortus]

We question the belief of gods, thats all it is. Some attempt to more understanding and "nice" - other just call bullshit and are more up front about it.

The fact is people like Dawkins won't say well thats BS - but rather question why and present your evidence to back up your belief. I don't see that as a bad thing but a progressive point of view to move foward.

Question, inquire, critical, don't simply demand respect because you believe in whatever - back it up; I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

This type of thinking is also what brought western society to where it is today. It didn't come in the form of religous dogma - in came in the form of critical thinking and opposition from logical thought.

I don't understand why you would be against this - such as a religous dogma holding the belief that all gays are evil - ok, question that, why is that, use logical thought against it or for it.

Basic stuff here. Why should it be that a *religous* belief automatically have respect but the idea that its ridiculous, and question it, somehow shouldn't equate to that same type of respect?

Most religions are complete utter nonsense bullshit. Why do you think my view shouldn't demand automatic respect but religous views should?

It's hypocritical.

So say all views should demand respect - I say all views should be held to scrutiny, and respect is earned not given.

It leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths because for most religious people, thier spirituality is a very personal thing and having people constantly question something that's an important part of their self image, especially when the apologists are smug jackasses about (which does happen more frequently than people here seem to want to admit).

Of course I take a pretty dim view on spiritual apologists anyway, since in addition to generally being pushy none of them absolute definite proof to back up their position on whatever higher power (or lack thereof) is being discussed. It's basically a con game, no matter who's doing it.

[Vampiel]

It leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths because for most religious people, thier spirituality is a very personal thing and having people constantly question something that's an important part of their self image.

Thats really what this thread boils down to - questioning their religion leads to a bad taste in their mouth and it can be offensive.

The ironic part is that many people here are Pagan - so did their questioning of Christians, when they just said they should should just shut up and keep it to themselves and even burned them at the stake for it, not any different from whats going on in here?

You just need to shut up and keep that shit to yourself.

[Nox_Mortus]

Thats really what this thread boils down to - questioning their religion leads to a bad taste in their mouth and it can be offensive.

The ironic part is that many people here are Pagan - so did their questioning of Christians, when they just said they should should just shut up and keep it to themselves and even burned them at the stake for it, not any different from whats going on in here?

You just need to shut up and keep that shit to yourself.


I will say that theirs a difference between questioning the belief in a deity on "logical" grounds and questioning the actions of religious groups on ethical grounds, if one groups actions is bringing harm to another group then it should obviously be questioned, the problem is that a lot of these apologists will go after people who are just keeping to themselves and have no desire to force their religious beliefs on anyone, and that's where a lot of the dislike comes from, that and the general smugness associated with this sort of thing.

[Cielamara]

Thats really what this thread boils down to - questioning their religion leads to a bad taste in their mouth and it can be offensive.

Yeah, I think that's why, despite agreeing with many of the statements made in some of the threads concerning atheism or atheists around here, I ultimately don't care for the idea of people being questioned about their beliefs. Because that shit is personal. And for many, faith is part of their identity, it's part of how they see themselves, how others see them. There's no particularly good reason that someone should have to "answer for" their beliefs.


The ironic part is that many people here are Pagan - so did their questioning of Christians, when they just said they should should just shut up and keep it to themselves and even burned them at the stake for it, not any different from whats going on in here?

You just need to shut up and keep that shit to yourself.

I personally don't think you need to shut up about your beliefs. You, or anyone else. Tell people what you believe. But I DO think that if part of your belief system involves harassing other people...well...you might need to step back and reevaluate. It's like that saying--your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins.


I will say that theirs a difference between questioning the belief in a deity on "logical" grounds and questioning the actions of religious groups on ethical grounds, if one groups actions is bringing harm to another group then it should obviously be questioned, the problem is that a lot of these apologists will go after people who are just keeping to themselves and have no desire to force their religious beliefs on anyone, and that's where a lot of the dislike comes from, that and the general smugness associated with this sort of thing.

Right, you summed up what I personally find distasteful about some of the comments that have been made around here. It's one thing to go after religious groups on ethical grounds. It's one thing even to question people who are being douchebags in the name of religion. It is another thing entirely to make blanket statements about ALL people of faith, and to attack people who've done nothing more than believe in a god.

[Æon Flux]

Here is what I find completely and utterly hilarious.
People are saying we shouldn’t criticize, laugh at or challenge other peoples believes because the believes are PERSONAL.
Not that would imply that it’s not something you would go about throwing in other people’s faces, yeah?

My relationship with my best friend is a personal thing. I don’t talk about it with just anyone, and more often than not, if I do it’s because I want advice on something that has happened or because it has something to do with what we’re talking about. Either way I am prepared that people might criticize me for being friends with said person because of age difference, gender difference, cultural reasons… whatever. I might not like it, and I might get shitty if someone says something I don’t want to hear, but unless it’s outright rude I have it coming. I’ve brought something personal into light and I am holding a public conversation about it.

Someone who runs around with a badge on their chest that says “Proud Pagan/Christian/Muslim/Hoodist/Pastafaraian” is not conducting a “personal religious belief” as in “private”. If you then start talking to me out of the blue about… let’s say… how Odin is such a misunderstood deity and that he’s really awesome and your personal teacher and he told you this and that I will laugh in your face.
1. Because he’s a cheating, gambling, stealing old man of a mythological and fictional nature
2. Because you just threw something in my face that has got nothing to do with me or anything I would be remotely interested in discussing.

If you do these things and expect me to not call you out on it because “belief” is something personal you’ve missed the effin’ point about what “personal” means in regards to this.
Most of us Atheists don’t call you out on things in your “Path” forums at all. Most of us don’t even go there. I do, every once in a while, and I am fairly sure that, unless it didn’t say so in my profile, if you’ve only seen me in… for example the Asatru path forum, you can’t really tell that I am an Atheist at all, because I tilt my head, smile and play frickin' nice. Because I might be discussing Odin's qualities in mythology.

Don’t expect us to sit quietly and watch everybody else talk just because you don’t agree with what we have to say. You make a public, positive claim, back it up, and yes… you can tell me I’m rude for asking, but I can also tell you you’re a hypocrite for barging into the “Non-Theistic” path section and telling us how rude, disrespectful, …. And yada, yada, yada effin’ yada we are. I don't care if you do this, but don't be an 'effing hypocrite about it.
If you want to keep it personal and unchallenged, talk about it in the Paths sections. If you can't handle someone questioning something you have to say, keep it to yourself and don't post it on a public discussion forum. Because as soon as you make it PUBLIC, it's not PERSONAL anymore.

[Nox_Mortus]

Here is what I find completely and utterly hilarious.
People are saying we shouldn’t criticize, laugh at or challenge other peoples believes because the believes are PERSONAL.
Not that would imply that it’s not something you would go about throwing in other people’s faces, yeah?


I wouldn't say you shouldn't, but you shouldn't expect to respected by those people either. Nor should you expect anyone to take you seriously. Especially if you laugh in thier face and whatnot, you can have the most reasonable argument in the world, but it wont matter if you've already pissed off the people you are arguing with.

[Æon Flux]

I wouldn't say you shouldn't, but you shouldn't expect to respected by those people either. Nor should you expect anyone to take you seriously. Especially if you laugh in thier face and whatnot, you can have the most reasonable argument in the world, but it wont matter if you've already pissed off the people you are arguing with.

If you throw God and all the purple and pink ponys in my face without reason I don't give a shite about respect from you, and if I chose the path of laughing in your face it's most likely because you're too absurd to even inspire sane discussions.
I don't laugh and then present logic arguments. I present logic arguments and then laugh.

[Nox_Mortus]

If you throw God and all the purple and pink ponys in my face without reason I don't give a shite about respect from you, and if I chose the path of laughing in your face it's most likely because you're too absurd to even inspire sane discussions.
I don't laugh and then present logic arguments. I present logic arguments and then laugh.

Either way, you've still lost...

[Infinite Grey]

I wouldn't say you shouldn't, but you shouldn't expect to respected by those people either.

In truth, the people we laugh at do not respect reason to begin with, so we lose little in laughing.

[Nox_Mortus]

In truth, the people we laugh at do not respect reason to begin with, so we lose little in laughing.


That's an awful big assumption, ever stop think that they just don't respect arguments form people who act like smug jackasses? I'm mean sure there's always going to be people who don't listen to reason, but there are also people who just aren't going to listen to people who act completely full of themselves, no matter how well reasons and logically sound their arguments are. I mean this is really basic PR skills here.

[Cielamara]

Here is what I find completely and utterly hilarious.
People are saying we shouldn’t criticize, laugh at or challenge other peoples believes because the believes are PERSONAL.
Not that would imply that it’s not something you would go about throwing in other people’s faces, yeah?

Yes, in general.


My relationship with my best friend is a personal thing. I don’t talk about it with just anyone, and more often than not, if I do it’s because I want advice on something that has happened or because it has something to do with what we’re talking about. Either way I am prepared that people might criticize me for being friends with said person because of age difference, gender difference, cultural reasons… whatever. I might not like it, and I might get pooperiffic if someone says something I don’t want to hear, but unless it’s outright rude I have it coming. I’ve brought something personal into light and I am holding a public conversation about it.

I disagree. I do not think that you mentioning your relationship with your best friend means that you've opened yourself up for people to say ANYTHING. There are social rules that we largely abide by. If you were telling me about this person, and I were not a very close friend...I'd not say anything to criticize him/her. Because, well, that'd just be rude as hell. And it would be wrong. Could I do it? Sure. But there would be a social price to pay for acting in such a way, and there would be no benefit for me. So, why would I?


Someone who runs around with a badge on their chest that says “Proud Pagan/Christian/Muslim/Hoodist/Pastafaraian” is not conducting a “personal religious belief” as in “private”. If you then start talking to me out of the blue about… let’s say… how Odin is such a misunderstood deity and that he’s really awesome and your personal teacher and he told you this and that I will laugh in your face.
1. Because he’s a cheating, gambling, stealing old man of a mythological and fictional nature
2. Because you just threw something in my face that has got nothing to do with me or anything I would be remotely interested in discussing.

Things can be personal without being private. They can be sources of great tenderness and sensitivity for people. For example...hmm, let me think. Okay. I have generalized anxiety disorder, as well as ADHD. These are things I'm fairly open about, because of the way they affect my life on a day-to-day basis, but they're still...personal. Meaning, it would not be okay to, say, do as my sister did recently and come in and start telling me that I didn't actually have these problems and really just needed to take more vitamins--it's something I'm open about, but something that does not belong in a round-table discussion, you know? You COULD do that, but what would it accomplish? I'd feel like SHIT and you'd LOOK like a shitty person.

Likewise, when I say that religion is personal for many people, I mean that, while it may not be a PRIVATE matter for some people, it's something that means a great deal to them, that has a lot of emotion tied up in it. Religious experiences are frequently very emotional experiences. And it is virtually impossible sometimes to separate the beliefs from the emotions.


If you do these things and expect me to not call you out on it because “belief” is something personal you’ve missed the effin’ point about what “personal” means in regards to this.
Most of us Atheists don’t call you out on things in your “Path” forums at all. Most of us don’t even go there. I do, every once in a while, and I am fairly sure that, unless it didn’t say so in my profile, if you’ve only seen me in… for example the Asatru path forum, you can’t really tell that I am an Atheist at all, because I tilt my head, smile and play frickin' nice. Because I might be discussing Odin's qualities in mythology.

I'm not calling you out, saying your beliefs are wrong. I never said that. I'm saying that deliberately and knowingly antagonizing people is generally a sucky thing to do.


Don’t expect us to sit quietly and watch everybody else talk just because you don’t agree with what we have to say. You make a public, positive claim, back it up, and yes… you can tell me I’m rude for asking, but I can also tell you you’re a hypocrite for barging into the “Non-Theistic” path section and telling us how rude, disrespectful, …. And yada, yada, yada effin’ yada we are. I don't care if you do this, but don't be an 'effing hypocrite about it.

Wow. I'm sorry my presence here has offended you so much.

I've never told you to sit quietly and watch everyone else talk. I've never told you that what you believe is wrong. I don't CARE what you believe in, or don't believe in. I just don't like seeing people upset. And when you [general you] insist on interrogating and harassing people about something that they feel very strongly about, that's very meaningful to them...that's what you get. People upset, and for no damn good reason.

[Æon Flux]

Either way, you've still lost...

I've lost nothing.

I really do fail to see what the heck you're getting at. I lose because I laugh? I lose because I laugh at ridiculous situations? What do I lose? The opportunity to again try and tell people that I don't care if their imaginary friend tells me I'm going to hell for all eternity calmly and logically?
Laughing saves time and usually gets me left alone quicker.
I think I win in that circumstance.

[Æon Flux]

Yes, in general.



I disagree. I do not think that you mentioning your relationship with your best friend means that you've opened yourself up for people to say ANYTHING. There are social rules that we largely abide by. If you were telling me about this person, and I were not a very close friend...I'd not say anything to criticize him/her. Because, well, that'd just be rude as hell. And it would be wrong. Could I do it? Sure. But there would be a social price to pay for acting in such a way, and there would be no benefit for me. So, why would I?


*shrugs* Well, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and the social rules we've both been raised into are obviously very different.



Things can be personal without being private. They can be sources of great tenderness and sensitivity for people. For example...hmm, let me think. Okay. I have generalized anxiety disorder, as well as ADHD. These are things I'm fairly open about, because of the way they affect my life on a day-to-day basis, but they're still...personal. Meaning, it would not be okay to, say, do as my sister did recently and come in and start telling me that I didn't actually have these problems and really just needed to take more vitamins--it's something I'm open about, but something that does not belong in a round-table discussion, you know? You COULD do that, but what would it accomplish? I'd feel like SHIT and you'd LOOK like a pooperrific person.


I come from a country where
1. If it's that damned personal, don't talk about it.
2. If you ARE willing to talk about it in a public venue, be prepared that you just might have some flack coming your way. Believe me, I've had that happen to me plenty of times.

AND I wouldn't compare wanting evidence for a claim and someone telling you that you don't have this and that is the same thing. IF you have those problems you have evidence for it, if you haven't been diagnosed with it that's a whole other thing. Right?
I laugh at people when they walk around saying that they suffer from Borderline but they've never been diagnosed or know exactly what it entails. It was an extremely "in" thing to have there for a while, goodness knows why.



Likewise, when I say that religion is personal for many people, I mean that, while it may not be a PRIVATE matter for some people, it's something that means a great deal to them, that has a lot of emotion tied up in it. Religious experiences are frequently very emotional experiences. And it is virtually impossible sometimes to separate the beliefs from the emotions.

I'm not calling you out, saying your beliefs are wrong. I never said that. I'm saying that deliberately and knowingly antagonizing people is generally a sucky thing to do.

I never deliberately and knowingly try to be hostile towards people or make enemies with them. I will stand in opposition to them, but I can't help what I "believe".

There are plenty of things that are emotional to me that people wouldn't think twice about shitting all over, and frequently don't care if it's got emotions tied up in it. If it's so extremely emotional then why isn't it discussed in the more personal and private areas of the public instead of from a soap box, because I do not go out of my way to disagree with people.




Wow. I'm sorry my presence here has offended you so much.

I've never told you to sit quietly and watch everyone else talk. I've never told you that what you believe is wrong. I don't CARE what you believe in, or don't believe in. I just don't like seeing people upset. And when you [general you] insist on interrogating and harassing people about something that they feel very strongly about, that's very meaningful to them...that's what you get. People upset, and for no damn good reason.

You haven't offended me. I didn't specefy this post towards anyone in particular, but if you feel like it was about you... then feel free to feel that way.
Hypocrisy has offended me, you as a person haven't.
By hypocrisy I mean the people who are coming into our path forum and being openly rude while criticizing us in general of being a rude group, while if we were to do anything remotely similar in their path forum they would try and get us off this site.
That's what I mean about hypocrisy.

I don't give a shit if people actually DO come in here and tell us that we're rude and bad people. But in such case they should be able to accept criticism back.

[Cielamara]

*shrugs* Well, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and the social rules we've both been raised into are obviously very different.

That thought has crossed my mind once or twice. ;) I like you, though, and have enjoyed debating with you.


I come from a country where
1. If it's that damned personal, don't talk about it.
2. If you ARE willing to talk about it in a public venue, be prepared that you just might have some flack coming your way. Believe me, I've had that happen to me plenty of times.

I wouldn't say our social rules on this are all that different. I just happen to feel differently about some things. Like, I accept that if you say something, you might have flack coming your way. I accept that shit happens like that. HOWEVER, I don't feel it's necessarily FAIR or RIGHT. And that "life isn't fair" thing has never been a valid excuse to me.


AND I wouldn't compare wanting evidence for a claim and someone telling you that you don't have this and that is the same thing. IF you have those problems you have evidence for it, if you haven't been diagnosed with it that's a whole other thing. Right?

Right. It was more a comparison for the appropriateness factor. Like, the two don't necessarily line up, but...there's a time for such things, you know? Like, if I were to mention, oh, you know, I take Lexapro to treat my anxiety problems, but I'm still having some problems, and my sister were to say, oh, you know, you could try doing this and this to help too--that would be a completely appropriate time and place for her comments. Likewise, with regards to religion...if we were talking about religion, and you asked me why I believed what I believe, then that'd be appropriate. But if it comes out of nowhere, and/or has any sort of hostility, condescension, etc, etc, in it...that's not appropriate, to me. And I'd be hurt.


I laugh at people when they walk around saying that they suffer from Borderline but they've never been diagnosed or know exactly what it entails. It was an extremely "in" thing to have there for a while, goodness knows why.

I've noticed that. They do it with ADHD and OCD as well. I tend to have to count to ten and entertain violent little fantasies when they do that around me.


I never deliberately and knowingly try to be hostile towards people or make enemies with them. I will stand in opposition to them, but I can't help what I "believe".

I didn't say you did. But there are some people who do. And it is mostly them that I take issue with, not you--if you're being a decent and polite sort, I'm cool with you. You just happen to be the one I'm debating with.


There are plenty of things that are emotional to me that people wouldn't think twice about shitting all over, and frequently don't care if it's got emotions tied up in it.

I defend anyone and everyone's touchy and sensitive spots. If someone were to shit all over you, I'd defend you. Just sayin'.


If it's so extremely emotional then why isn't it discussed in the more personal and private areas of the public instead of from a soap box, because I do not go out of my way to disagree with people.

Because people are weird. I don't even know. This is a hard topic to argue logically, because religion just isn't logical. It was never meant to be. No one has ever claimed it was. And if they did, they were balls-to-the-wall crazy.


You haven't offended me. I didn't specefy this post towards anyone in particular, but if you feel like it was about you... then feel free to feel that way.
Hypocrisy has offended me, you as a person haven't.
By hypocrisy I mean the people who are coming into our path forum and being openly rude while criticizing us in general of being a rude group, while if we were to do anything remotely similar in their path forum they would try and get us off this site.
That's what I mean about hypocrisy.

I don't give a shit if people actually DO come in here and tell us that we're rude and bad people. But in such case they should be able to accept criticism back.

Oh, okay. That's cool. I don't think you as a person or y'all as a group are rude. Like I've been saying, I just don't like seeing people upset. That may sound kind of stupid, but I'm a sensitive sort.

...

Wait, do you think I'm being hypocritical? I really don't mean to be.

(I apologize if I'm a bit muddled. I haven't slept yet.)

[Infinite Grey]

That's an awful big assumption, ever stop think that they just don't respect arguments form people who act like smug jackasses? I'm mean sure there's always going to be people who don't listen to reason, but there are also people who just aren't going to listen to people who act completely full of themselves, no matter how well reasons and logically sound their arguments are. I mean this is really basic PR skills here.


No shit Sherlock. In the realms of these debates you have your "calm, logical and polite" debaters and you have your "look how stupid you are" crowd. I wonder who gets through to more people? Hmmm?

I say we need both - nothing gets people talking more than someone that rocks the boat.

And before people go on the predictable lecture of "how does that make you better than the fundies" it's quite simple. We're not blowing people up, we're not advocating oppression and hate, we're not trying pollute the education systems... all we're doing is pointing and laughing. If all fundies were like us, the world would be a much better place :thumbsup:

[*~Amora~*]

...nothing gets people talking more than someone that rocks the boat [by pointing and laughing].

Ughhh, yeah, and repulses them away from your point of view.