"5 stupid things about atheists"

[pgwenthold]

Hardly a defining feature of theists.

So tell me something that applies. Remember, the claim was that atheists behave like the theists they dislike so much.

Here's an example where they don't. Others have given other examples. Now, let's see where they do?

 

[pgwenthold]

To sum up the video.

1. Atheists think they are better

Of course atheists think atheism is better than theism. If they didn't, they wouldn't be atheists, would they?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course atheists think atheism is better than theism. If they didn't, they wouldn't be atheists, would they?

Not necessarily. That is certainly true of religions, but why does someone who believes that "there is no god" is a fact automatically this this makes them better? I guess it is better in the I believe fewer untrue things sense, but in a moral sense does not necessarily follow.

 

[Rum]

I don't agree with any of the points made, except perhaps some apply to the new atheist 'presence' on the net.

Personally I am a rather gloomy atheist. I feel no pride in it, just a bit sad that there is no afterlife and no god to look after us, which clearly there isn't. *sigh*

 

[pgwenthold]

To sum up the video.

3. Atheists argue trivialities (at this point he refers to theists as "non atheists" *groan*)
.

A few weeks ago, I was looking up the bible verse "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me."

I found it with no problem, of course, but among the other things I found (and didn't look into) was a christian forum that was asking the question, "What constitutes "the least" of our neighbors?"

Sounds to me a lot like arguing about trivialities. More importantly, it was trivial word parsing in an attempt to justify their treating others badly, in contradiction to Jesus's teaching. Because, see, if those people really _aren't_ "the least of our brothers" then we don't have to help them.

I thought the concept was pretty disgusting on the whole, but then again, I am just one of those smug atheists.

 

[The Greater Fool]

We need to get back to that good 'ol time atheism.

 

[Rum]

Needs more gnashing a wailing?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I don't agree with any of the points made, except perhaps some apply to the new atheist 'presence' on the net....

I agree with that

 

[Aepervius]

I agree with much of what is said in here (although the word "stupid" is in dispute for me - it's just the tag line for the youtube series) and wondered what others thought. Ofc, I won't pretend that when it comes to confrontation and other things that only atheists are guilty of this, either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uAR4nb3TLg

(7 min video by Steve Shives)

One thing I do disagree with is his point about being caught in "trivialities". I know many would consider defining terms to be a triviality, especially when it comes to the words atheist and agnostic (I use agnostic atheist and define it as often as possible to make it clear what I mean) but I consider this a very important thing to do both for the discussion at hand and to help others in future discussions to better understand what people mean or be less quick to pretend they understand what someone means by "agnostic" for example.

Firstly this should be named "five stupid things about SOME atheist".

Secondely this is soooo general that he could pretty much rename it

"five traits some people will have in any group news at 11".

 

[pharphis]

Firstly this should be named "five stupid things about SOME atheist".

Secondely this is soooo general that he could pretty much rename it

"five traits some people will have in any group news at 11".

Ya I think I agree with this, now.

I think there's some cultural bias that affected my original opinion or just the fact that I can recognize problems within "my own community" more easily than others, even if it's not a problem limited to just that community.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

A militant Muslim kidnaps and kills people.
A militant Christian firebombs abortion clinics.
A militant atheist is smug and rude.

The funny thing is there is only one of these you can criticize without people jumping down your throat about being an intolerant jerk. Can you guess which one?

 

[Howie Felterbush]

I don't agree with any of the points made, except perhaps some apply to the new atheist 'presence' on the net.

Personally I am a rather gloomy atheist. I feel no pride in it, just a bit sad that there is no afterlife and no god to look after us, which clearly there isn't. *sigh*

That's good, though. It means you probably won't feel the need to tell people about it ad infinitum, like many atheists do.

I'm the same way: atheist and don't care if anyone knows it.

Except you guys, and I can't even say I actually care about that.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

That's good, though. It means you probably won't feel the need to tell people about it ad infinitum, like many atheists do.

Who are these "many atheists"? All of the atheists I know (including myself) hardly ever talk about it, especially to people they know are religious. The reason is simple: it makes an awkward social situation. I think it would be better if atheists were more vocal about their atheism, but I don't volunteer that information unless somebody asks.

Contrast that to the many Christians who not only feel comfortable talking about their religion, but actually volunteer that information whenever they get the chance. I've even known people who manage to shoehorn Jesus into any conversation you get with them. I've never met an atheist like that. This is because society has a different message for atheists than it does it does for the religious. That message is "shut up".

Being an atheist is, in some ways, like being gay. You're supposed to be ashamed of being an atheist. You're not supposed to talk about it.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Who are these "many atheists"? All of the atheists I know (including myself) hardly ever talk about it, especially to people they know are religious. The reason is simple: it makes an awkward social situation. I think it would be better if atheists were more vocal about their atheism, but I don't volunteer that information unless somebody asks.

Look around. This forum is populated with people that can't let the word "God" or "Jesus" slip by, even in a non-religion oriented post, without some remark about how stupid it is to believe in a god or "God". One poster here doesn't like their country's national anthem because it mentions "God".

I'm guilty of it myself, but I'm trying to break the habit, because it's annoying. I'll dig you up some examples to forestall the cries of "EVIDENCE!!" if you'd like. Pretty sure I saw one today.

Contrast that to the many Christians who not only feel comfortable talking about their religion, but actually volunteer that information whenever they get the chance. I've even known people who manage to shoehorn Jesus into any conversation you get with them. I've never met an atheist like that. This is because society has a different message for atheists than it does it does for the religious. That message is "shut up".

I wish they'd shut up about it, too. None of my business and I couldn't care less what religion someone is, unless they take a fancy to worshiping me! I hear the donation plates can be quite the haul.

Being an atheist is, in some ways, like being gay. You're supposed to be ashamed of being an atheist. You're not supposed to talk about it.

Don't be ashamed of it. Talk about it if you like, but it doesn't need to be interjected every time someone mentions god*. If a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Howieite did this people would be screaming for his blood, and rightly so since it's annoying as all get-out.

*I'm not accusing you (Axiom_Blade) of any of this, I'm just mentioning that we (atheists) as a group could tone it down a little. The smug, know-it-all atheist stereotype didn't just appear out of thin air.

Who knows, maybe I'm totally off-base here, but I don't see the religious people changing their views based on our actions, so we might as well make our actions at least tolerable to our own kind.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Look around. This forum is populated with people that can't let the word "God" or "Jesus" slip by, even in a non-religion oriented post, without some remark about how stupid it is to believe in a god or "God". One poster here doesn't like their country's national anthem because it mentions "God".

No offense, but do you know where you are? This is a skeptics' forum. There are a lot of atheists here. Atheists are only vocal about their atheism online. If you go outside, how many people do you hear talking about atheism? Heck, if I want to hear people talking about atheism, I have to seek them out, and it's difficult. If I want to hear somebody talking about Jesus, all I have to do is go to a church, and there's one of those every 5 blocks.

I'm guilty of it myself, but I'm trying to break the habit, because it's annoying.

Why is it annoying to you?

If a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Howieite did this people would be screaming for his blood, and rightly so since it's annoying as all get-out.

Maybe here, on this forum, yes. Not in most places, though.

Who knows, maybe I'm totally off-base here, but I don't see the religious people changing their views based on our actions, so we might as well make our actions at least tolerable to our own kind.

I don't care whether they change their views or not. I have the right to be an atheist, and I have the right to talk about my non-belief. I don't need to make myself tolerable to the intolerant.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Hey, suit yourself, dude or dudette.

I have no beef one way or the other, when you get right down to it. Just trying to offer a little insight into why people might think we're a bunch of smug a-holes.

Later.

 

[quadraginta]

There's no basis for a behavioral difference between the two that I know of. There's no more difference in behavior between your average atheist and your average believer than there is between two different people in the same church

<snip>

I have never met an atheist who is convinced that the tenets of a book of oral tradition and mythology (frequently as interpreted by some guy who can't even put his collar on the right way out) should be used to define public policy.

 

[Manopolus]

I have never met an atheist who is convinced that the tenets of a book of oral tradition and mythology (frequently as interpreted by some guy who can't even put his collar on the right way out) should be used to define public policy.

True enough, but I don't think that properly defines the lives of most theists, either. It's a mere affectation, not an entire personality.

 

[quadraginta]

A Pew Research survey shows more than one-third of millennials are unaffiliated with any faith, but just 3% call themselves atheists, which seems to indicate a growing indifference to both theism and atheism. In short, neither is an issue, and both are irrelevant. A hopeful sign for the rationally inclined.

I agree that it is a hopeful sign, but feel compelled to point out that the only requirement for membership in the group "atheists" is the absence of belief in a supernatural deity.

What they may or may not call themselves is unimportant.

<snip>

Of course atheists think atheism is better than theism. If they didn't, they wouldn't be atheists, would they?

They certainly could. See above.

They might not feel that it was a better thing to be. Sometimes I envy the religious their childlike ability to find a sense of safety and security in their faith when it is not rational.

I do think that judging themselves to somehow be "better" is a behavior intrinsic to many if not most religious groups. It is often a core value of their tenets.

 

[quadraginta]

Look around. This forum is populated with people that can't let the word "God" or "Jesus" slip by, even in a non-religion oriented post, without some remark about how stupid it is to believe in a god or "God". One poster here doesn't like their country's national anthem because it mentions "God".

<snip>

You realize, I hope, that the ones who do not do that aren't going to be particularly noticeable by comparison.

How would you propose quantifying the two groups for purposes of comparison?