"5 stupid things about atheists"

[arthwollipot]

In any case, no matter what you say about the atheist community, that says nothing about the existence of gods.

But that's not what we're arguing about. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that God exists. We're arguing the definition of atheism (again), and the thread was started to discuss the perception of atheism and atheists in the community. This article (and I'm aware that some people will dismiss it without reading it just because it's Cracked) and the video from the OP demonstrate that atheism has a PR problem. Regardless of what you think the definition of atheism is, atheism in the community is perceived - especially by those who aren't atheists - as arrogant and misogynistic. That's a problem, and we atheists aren't doing enough to deal with that problem.

It's a shame that pretty much all of the discussions on the subject degenerate into the old and tired definition argument instead of discussing what we as a community are going to do to correct the impression that the community has of us.

 

[Leumas]

If atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in god(s), what is the qualitative difference? Please explain.

The difference is that rocks do not have guts so as to have an unexamined atheistic stance based on gastrointestinal movements..... nor brains with which to think and examine and study and read theology and scriptures and literature on the subjects of religion and gods and thus arrive at a learned erudite atheism.

 

[The Greater Fool]

The difference is that rocks do not have guts so as to have an atheistic stance based on gastrointestinal movements..... nor brains with which to think and examine and study and read theology and scriptures and literature on the subjects of religion and gods and thus arrive at a learned erudite atheism.

Except, ONLY a lack of belief requires none of that: no thought, no study, no guts. Rocks possess all that is necessary for a lack of belief.

As I've said, you can claim any type of atheism you like, for any reason you like, I ask the same privilege. My atheism, like yours, is based on examination of evidence, study of scripture, study of theology, and life experience. My atheism, unlike yours, is an active belief.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

But that's not what we're arguing about. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that God exists. We're arguing the definition of atheism (again), and the thread was started to discuss the perception of atheism and atheists in the community. This article (and I'm aware that some people will dismiss it without reading it just because it's Cracked) and the video from the OP demonstrate that atheism has a PR problem.

The PR problem is the same PR problem atheists have had for centuries. It's called Christians.

Regardless of what you think the definition of atheism is, atheism in the community is perceived - especially by those who aren't atheists - as arrogant and misogynistic.

No matter what atheists do, Christians and other theists are going to find something to smear us with. We challenge their power; they don't like that.

That's a problem, and we atheists aren't doing enough to deal with that problem.

What do you think we should do?

It's a shame that pretty much all of the discussions on the subject degenerate into the old and tired definition argument instead of discussing what we as a community are going to do to correct the impression that the community has of us.

IMO we should do what the gays did: come out. When people find out that their friends, family, and neighbors are atheists, they'll start thinking "Oh, wow. These are good, decent people. Maybe they aren't all arrogant misogynists after all!" What we shouldn't be doing is in-fighting, because that's exactly what our enemies want.

 

[Leumas]

Except, ONLY a lack of belief requires none of that: no thought, no study, no guts. Rocks possess all that is necessary for a lack of belief.

As I've said, you can claim any type of atheism you like, for any reason you like, I ask the same privilege. My atheism, like yours, is based on examination of evidence, study of scripture, study of theology, and life experience. My atheism, unlike yours, is an active belief.

May I suggest you take up this line of unreasoning in this recent thread that dealt with this kind of illogic already.

 

[The Greater Fool]

May I suggest you take up this line of unreasoning in this recent thread that dealt with this kind of illogic already.

I'll stick with the dictionary.

You can go play 'No True Atheist.'

 

[arthwollipot]

The PR problem is the same PR problem atheists have had for centuries. It's called Christians.



No matter what atheists do, Christians and other theists are going to find something to smear us with. We challenge their power; they don't like that.

This is simply abdicating responsibility and blaming someone else for our own failings.

What do you think we should do?

For a start, we can begin to discuss the problem without devolving into the tired old definitions argument every time.

Second, we need those who are prominent in the community to start acting like reasonable people rather than petulant children.

IMO we should do what the gays did: come out. When people find out that their friends, family, and neighbors are atheists, they'll start thinking "Oh, wow. These are good, decent people. Maybe they aren't all arrogant misogynists after all!" What we shouldn't be doing is in-fighting, because that's exactly what our enemies want.

And this. Especially in places like America where there is a negative view of atheists in the community. Not so much here in Australia where most people don't view religion as a central part of one's identity.

More controversially perhaps, we need to begin actually talking to religious people without immediately dismissing or denigrating their sincerely held beliefs or constantly trying to prove them wrong. And we need to do so in a way that keeps them engaged in the conversation rather than giving them an excuse to dismiss us and turn away.

Yes, attacks on atheism by religious people are a problem, but turning around and attacking them back is not always going to be the right solution - especially when they outnumber us. And being constantly on the offensive against the horrors and evils of religion turns us into an enemy that they have a duty to fight.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

This is simply abdicating responsibility and blaming someone else for our own failings.

Which failings are those, now?

For a start, we can begin to discuss the problem without devolving into the tired old definitions argument every time.

Agreed.

Second, we need those who are prominent in the community to start acting like reasonable people rather than petulant children.

The people I've seen acting like "petulant children" are hardly prominent (cough PZ cough). Of course, who is and is not acting like a child is your opinion, and like any opinion, people are going to disagree with it, and we're back to arguing again.

More controversially perhaps, we need to begin actually talking to religious people without immediately dismissing or denigrating their sincerely held beliefs or constantly trying to prove them wrong. And we need to do so in a way that keeps them engaged in the conversation rather than giving them an excuse to dismiss us and turn away.

I don't understand why there's this idea that Christians are waiting for us to extend the olive branch, but we're too busy being angry and hateful to them. Don't kid yourself. Christians really can't afford to be nice to atheists, anyway. We are the enemy. In order for us not to be, we'd have to quit talking about the non-existence of God... Then the atheist movement is dead in the water, which is exactly where they want us.

Yes, attacks on atheism by religious people are a problem, but turning around and attacking them back is not always going to be the right solution - especially when they outnumber us.

I really haven't seen these "attacks" from atheists. Perhaps you could clue me in. The only "attacks" I've seen are putting up a billboard here, a sign there, that says something like "There's probably no God", or "You're not alone", or something like that, and Christians flipping out as a result. Or maybe you're talking about the "attacks" on the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, or a Nativity scene in a public place, or Intelligent Design and prayer in schools? Naturally, we would have to ignore that nasty First Amendment if we don't want our Christian brothers and sisters to be angry with us!

 

[Leumas]

Which failings are those, now?

Agreed.

The people I've seen acting like "petulant children" are hardly prominent (cough PZ cough). Of course, who is and is not acting like a child is your opinion, and like any opinion, people are going to disagree with it, and we're back to arguing again.

I don't understand why there's this idea that Christians are waiting for us to extend the olive branch, but we're too busy being angry and hateful to them. Don't kid yourself. Christians really can't afford to be nice to atheists, anyway. We are the enemy. In order for us not to be, we'd have to quit talking about the non-existence of God... Then the atheist movement is dead in the water, which is exactly where they want us.

I really haven't seen these "attacks" from atheists. Perhaps you could clue me in. The only "attacks" I've seen are putting up a billboard here, a sign there, that says something like "There's probably no God", or "You're not alone", or something like that, and Christians flipping out as a result. Or maybe you're talking about the "attacks" on the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, or a Nativity scene in a public place, or Intelligent Design and prayer in schools? Naturally, we would have to ignore that nasty First Amendment if we don't want our Christian brothers and sisters to be angry with us!

Well said on all accounts!

We also need to have less "atheists" keep telling us in thread after thread how nasty atheists are the problem and they need to stop being "petulant children" and to be less evil toward the poor nice theists.... and not even to bother to read posts after posts showing them that it is the other way around.

 

[Leumas]

....
Second, we need those who are prominent in the community to start acting like reasonable people rather than petulant children.
...
More controversially perhaps, we need to begin actually talking to religious people without immediately dismissing or denigrating their sincerely held beliefs or constantly trying to prove them wrong. And we need to do so in a way that keeps them engaged in the conversation rather than giving them an excuse to dismiss us and turn away.

Yes, attacks on atheism by religious people are a problem, but turning around and attacking them back is not always going to be the right solution - especially when they outnumber us. And being constantly on the offensive against the horrors and evils of religion turns us into an enemy that they have a duty to fight.

You need to to watch minutes 1:02:15 to 1:03:30 in the video in the post below as well as all the other indicated minutes and of course the whole video.

I think it might give you an idea where the problem lies in real fact.... it is not where you think it does.

It is not atheists who attack theists it is the other way around.... it is theists who are trying to have DOMINION over the SEVEN MOUNTAINS.

You need to look at this post which I have referenced every single time some theist comes along and asserts that it is the NASTY ATHEISTS that are attacking the poor well meaning theists.

...
In this documentary video (great and should be watched) about the Dover court case against ID we have one of the teachers who brought the case against the school board being called a "damned atheist" him and his family DESPPITE him and his family being active Christians and active church members.
....
Watch the minutes indicated below to see how much challenge is being done and how it is being done wherever and whenever and however possible.

• 1:26:30 to 1:28:00 Showing how to use word chicanery to obfuscate and obscure the real intentions.
• 1:46:10 to 1:47:00 citing what Judge Jones called the breathtaking inanity of the school board's decision... he found that several members had lied to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy … to get creationism inside classrooms and intelligent design was simply the vehicle that they utilized to do that… ID is a religious view a mere labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory.
• 1:49:17 to 1:49:45 Judge Jones received DEATH THREATS after the trial and he and his family had to be place under round the clock protection
• 1:50:27 to end The issue is certainly not over. One of the things that we've learned is that the opponents of evolution are persistent and resilient. And they are still out there … history has taught us that there is an enduring dispute and disagreement in the USA as it relates to evolution … by no means did my decision put a capstone on that and that will proceed for generations.

Yes that would be nice... so why don't you go tell your fellow theists to stop supporting (actively or passively) stuff like this

• Big Question For 2015: Will The Supreme Court Rule On Abortion?
• Supreme Court to Decide Marriage Rights for Gay Couples Nationwide
• Christian Zionism: The Heresy that Undermines Middle East Peace

And to stop financing and supporting actively or passively any of these things:

No, we are only trying to make them stop shoving their world view down everyone's throat whenever they can get away with it.

We are only trying to demonstrate how their world view is wrong only because they think that it is so correct that they cannot resist the need to enforce it upon everyone by making it the laws of the land.

It is not positive atheists that are

• Persecuting Gays and denying them equal citizenship privileges.
• Targeting and killing abortion clinic staff and flying airplanes into buildings.
• Impeding scientific Research and Development because of their delusion.
• Obstructing education based upon rational realities and trying to shove their delusions into children's education.
• Machinating and supporting things that will cause world destruction because they want to hurry their delusion's long awaited consummation of his marriage to them behind closed doors.
• Hindering action to stem global worming because they believe those disasters are part of their delusion's plan
• Fomenting civil unrest in the defense of their delusion,

Please read some history to find out who are the ones that have done harm for millennia to the whole world.

While we are busy fending off allegations of being "scary nasty totalitarian fundamentalist atheists" hurled at us by self-admitted reformed hateful "fundamentalist atheists" this stuff is going on:

Vision America's Rick Scarborough was a guest on Gordon Klingenschmitt's "Pray In Jesus Name" program recently, where he explained that God is blessing the state of Texas because "Christians have infiltrated" and taken over the state GOP. Scarborough was discussing his efforts to mobilize right-wing pastors to get involved in politics across the nation and noting that he has had a great deal of success in Texas; so much so that if one now attends an annual Republican Party convention in Texas, it feels as if one is attending a revival meeting.​

It is not positive atheists that are trying to enforce their world view wherever they can.

It is not atheists that are insidiously trying to dominate the "seven mountains of power" and take over the country.

While we argue on forums whether negative atheism is nicer than the positive one they are pressing on quietly with their strategic plans.

From Here

The George Grant quote cited below comes from a book he published in 1987 with Dominion Press, entitled The Changing of the Guard. Yes, they have been aiming for this for a very long time. And for a very long time they have worked under the cover of our ignorance. Who could have predicted a few nut cases could ever acquire such influence in our politics and our military? (No apologies to Condoleeza Rice).

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations."​

[imgw=300]http://spagmonster.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/christian-persecution.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=300]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/bcf6a53b82badb9a8503facb73b2a45d_zps8558b72f.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=300]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_512824eb207d719dc1.jpg[/imgw]

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

More controversially perhaps, we need to begin actually talking to religious people without immediately dismissing or denigrating their sincerely held beliefs or constantly trying to prove them wrong. And we need to do so in a way that keeps them engaged in the conversation rather than giving them an excuse to dismiss us and turn away.

<snip>

This is where the problem gets a bit thorny.

Leaving aside the modifiers like "immediately" and "constantly", which only serve to distort the reality of the situation, what you have just described essentially means not discussing the fundamentals of the divide between the two. This would not lead to productive discussion.

Almost by definition atheism does dismiss their sincerely held beliefs, and proving them wrong is implicit in that, at least from their POV. This is the main source of the calumny that atheists as a group are rude.

The average theist's position is that our very refusal to recognize their beliefs as somehow "true" is rude, and admitting to that refusal in public is an insult and assault on their faith.

The simple fact is that this means we cannot express our lack of belief without their feeling dismissed and denigrated. This is a reflection of their conviction, not necessarily our behavior or attitude.

I am not saying that there are no atheists with problematic and excessively confrontational attitudes, but even the many who do not behave in that fashion are quite inevitably going to be perceived as such by most if not all believers. For them to do otherwise is an implicit concession that the non-believer view might have validity, and for a believer that cannot be allowed. That would be the true "camel's nose".

A theist cannot consider evidence which might undermine their belief because doubt and belief are antithetical in the view of most religions, unlike the atheist who lacks a belief to be undermined in the first place and can entertain evidence without fear of repercussion or censure.

Hence the inevitability of "rude" and "dismissive".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I am not saying that there are no atheists with problematic and excessively confrontational attitudes, but even the many who do not behave in that fashion are quite inevitably going to be perceived as such by most if not all believers. For them to do otherwise is an implicit concession that the non-believer view might have validity, and for a believer that cannot be allowed.

This is not my experience with any but a very few theists I've ever met. Even those who stop me in the street to try to convert me usually end up conceding points and coming away with a respect for my position after a friendly conversation with me.

 

[3point14]

I'm not an atheist, I don't discriminate, I don't believe in any fictional beings.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm not an atheist, I don't discriminate, I don't believe in any fictional beings.

Would you take a Turing test?

 

[MG1962]

This is not my experience with any but a very few theists I've ever met. Even those who stop me in the street to try to convert me usually end up conceding points and coming away with a respect for my position after a friendly conversation with me.

And I think that is the best possible outcome. When I disagree with someone I try hard to understand their point of view because ultimately it makes me a better person.

 

[3point14]

Would you take a Turing test?

I might fail it...

 

[RockNroll]

Regardless of what you think the definition of atheism is, atheism in the community is perceived - especially by those who aren't atheists - as arrogant and misogynistic.

I can't open Cracked on this computer, but yeah, about that, why and when did the whole "whiney misogynistic internet neckbeard" movement become associated with atheism? I constantly see those people smearing their feces all over every part of the internet, but they usually stick to bashing women and feminists (and occasionally gays and minorities). Now, I know atheism is simply lack of belief, and atheists can be as dumb as anyone else, but given those guys' generally far-right views and their obsessive lady hate, I sort of expected the movement as a whole to lean toward religion rather than atheism...

 

[Leumas]

This is not my experience with any but a very few theists I've ever met. Even those who stop me in the street to try to convert me usually end up conceding points and coming away with a respect for my position after a friendly conversation with me.

How nice for you! Have you considered the REST OF HUMANITY and what their experiences have been or are going to be or what they are right now experiencing?

Have you even bothered to look at the post only two posts up from yours which lists all the strife and mayhem theists are causing?

All humanity is supposed to go by your anecdotal evidence?

Just because you had nice experiences then to heck with the rest of the world... you is all that matters and because you had pleasant experiences with theists then all theists are good and lovey dovey....right?

I suggest you try this lovey dovey stuff in the middle of Alabama pretending to be gay or a 15 years old girl trying to obtain a morning after pill so that her life does not get ruined.

Two posts up from yours is a post that shows what THE REST OF HUMANITY is experiencing because of theistic activism.... not accounting for your anecdotal evidence!

 

[Leumas]

And I think that is the best possible outcome. When I disagree with someone I try hard to understand their point of view because ultimately it makes me a better person.

Nice on you... but I wish you could tell that to ALL the theists doing the stuff listed in a post only 5 posts up from yours.

Wishing for the best possible outcome and telling us what YOU do is a great lovey dovey stuff.

However.... REALITY is not what one wishes it to be sometimes.

THE REST OF THE WORLD is not experiencing your kumbaya world and only 5 posts up from yours is a list of what THE REAL world is suffering because of theistic activism.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How nice for you! Have you considered the REST OF HUMANITY and what their experiences have been or are going to be or what they are right now experiencing?

Have you even bothered to look at the post only two posts up from yours which lists all the strife and mayhem theists are causing?

All humanity is supposed to go by your anecdotal evidence?

Just because you had nice experiences then to heck with the rest of the world... you is all that matters and because you had pleasant experiences with theists then all theists are good and lovey dovey....right?

I suggest you try this lovey dovey stuff in the middle of Alabama pretending to be gay or a 15 years old girl trying to obtain a morning after pill so that her life does not get ruined.

Two posts up from yours is a post that shows what THE REST OF HUMANITY is experiencing because of theistic activism.... your anecdotal evidence not counted!

I'm trying to work out whether you deliberately took my post out of context in order to be confrontational, or whether you're genuinely unable to understand the very simple message that it contained, in context.