What I dislike about modern atheism

[applecorped]

I don't believe in atheists

 

[Steve]

I don't believe in atheists

Smart man! That way they don't exist for you and that is one less thing to concern yourself with.

 

[psionl0]

As far was I am concerned "atheism" just means "not theism", how has that changed in modern times?

What has changed (at least in this forum) is the need to be able to make a claim without appearing to believe in the claim.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I also have -- well, had -- a grandma and a great aunt who got a bit of ye olde gang rape in WW2. All that the bible has to say on the topic is basically that the rapists should have also kidnapped them and shaved their head before raping them. I'm not entirely sure how that would make it any better. Any of the women on the forum can please tell me if being ALSO kidnapped at bayonet point and having the guy play dress-up-barbie with you and your hairstyle first would make the rape go down any better.

I'm really sorry to hear that. (If it had happened in biblical times, at least god would have made their rapists pay their father and marry them. )

 

[Steve]

I'm really sorry to hear that. (If it had happened in biblical times, at least god would have made their rapists pay their father and marry them. )

Yeah, that god seems to be rather disinterested in enforcing its own rules these days.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'm really sorry to hear that. (If it had happened in biblical times, at least god would have made their rapists pay their father and marry them. )

Actually, no, not for wartime rape. The OT rules for that are just kidnap her, shave her head and **** her. If you think she's good enough in bed to be worth marrying, go for it, if not, just let her go afterwards.

Sort of a unilateral *ahem* test for marriage

We've got to have rules, people.

 

[Trakar]

@Trakar
The two are not exclusive categories.

Not inherently, no.

Being anti-theist or not doesn't make one any more or less of an atheist. So I'm not sure why one should specify the former every time they mention the latter.

The only primary difference I tend to notice is that the anti-theists tend to be very evangelical* and are often quite antagonistic with regard to their, and others' personal beliefs, whereas the not-theists tend to just not be much interested in, or concerned about, what other people believe or don't believe with regard to religion.


*Evangelical - zealous in advocating something, and/or converting others to their perspective.

 

[Trakar]

...Your point is the one that I made: outspoken atheists are reacting to the outspoken theists. If they shut up so would the atheists. At least atheists don't preach subjugation of women, demonisation of minorities etc.

Really? Ayn Rand (among others) seems to do a pretty good imitation of the old testament in non-theistic rhetoric with regard to a number of sexist, racist and selfish/greed issues.

 

[dann]

Yeah, that god seems to be rather disinterested in enforcing its own rules these days.

Not in India (where it may be a different god, of course). As mentioned in another thread:

A 49-year-old (apparently one of only three or four who expressed some kind of remorse) had raped a 5-year-old and wanted to make it up to her (and, I guess, her family) in this manner: "‘I would accept her, I will marry her when I come out of jail.’"
From the article: A woman interviewed 100 convicted rapists in India. This is what she learned. (Washington Post, Sep. 11, 2017)

 

[dudalb]

The main problem I have with a lot of the "New Atheists' is they come off like a Bizzaro version of the "religionists" they hate so much. The arguments between them and the fervent beleivers probably cause a lot of third parties to go away thinking "They Are Both Nuts".
Another problem is that some Athiest just don't want to admit that Athiest can behave like real jerks.

 

[David Mo]

The problem seems banal to me, or there are underlying assumptions that are not explained.

Almost every belief in the world can be reasonably or stupidly defended. Therefore, to say that there are unbearable atheists is to say nothing relevant. The problem is rather that when we lament the way some atheists are, we have something in mind that should not be done. For example, it is said that an atheist should not attack religion. Why not? If the atheist thinks that religion is a bad thing he is right to attack it. In religion as in any other subject. Or does religion have some kind of special immunity? What if what I want is to provoke? Maybe I think the only way to get society out of its drowsiness is to shake it up a little bit. Is that wrong?

I believe that complaints about the behaviour of some atheists reveal or hide our own ideas about what the ways of behaving and debating ideologies should be.

 

[dann]

Almost every belief in the world can be reasonably or stupidly defended.

Everybody probably agrees with you on that one.

I believe that complaints about the behaviour of some atheists reveal or hide our own ideas about what the ways of behaving and debating ideologies should be.

So is your point that when the belief that there are no gods is defended stupidly by "some atheists", you don't want anybody to criticize them?! Should we ignore that they do it stupidly simply because we think that the target of their criticism is the right one? Haven't you noticed that a stupid attack on religion doesn't really do anything about the problem of religion? It gives the defenders of religion a wonderful example of the stupidity of (some) atheists!

Maybe I think the only way to get society out of its drowsiness is to shake it up a little bit. Is that wrong?

Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's not. Could you give us a specific example? (Not that I agree with you that "society" is particularly 'drowsy'. I think that society should be criticized and abolished, not 'shaken up a little bit.')

 

[dann]

Another problem is that some Athiest just don't want to admit that Athiest can behave like real jerks.

They are usually the real jerks ...

 

[angrysoba]

The main problem I have with a lot of the "New Atheists' is they come off like a Bizzaro version of the "religionists" they hate so much. The arguments between them and the fervent beleivers probably cause a lot of third parties to go away thinking "They Are Both Nuts".
Another problem is that some Athiest just don't want to admit that Athiest can behave like real jerks.

This is so vague that you have wasted your time and ours by writing it.

Give us some specific examples of the problem and maybe some ideas on what to do about it.

There is little point in telling us that you have noticed a lot of jerks who make people think they are nuts.

 

[SOdhner]

This is so vague that you have wasted your time and ours by writing it.

Give us some specific examples of the problem and maybe some ideas on what to do about it.

There is little point in telling us that you have noticed a lot of jerks who make people think they are nuts.

I would put this reply forth as a minor example.

 

[Zambo]

Athiesm is on the rise because with the increase in their numbers there is more chance that 2 athiests will marry and have a child. In my experience that child will be told they can choose to follow a religion if they want, but in that case which one and why. For the second generation athiest religion has no point at all and if asked to give a religion on an official form "none" is as or more appropriate than "athiest".

 

[Myriad]

"Which religion(s) do you practice?" is a different question from "which religious narratives do you believe in?" which in turn is a different question from "which religious narratives do you think are literally true?"

(Yeah, I'm going to get a lot of incredulity about there being any difference at all between the latter two.)

Disregarding those distinctions, on either or both sides' part, does tend to make the dialog unproductive and tedious. It might even make people look like jerks. It doesn't necessarily make them jerks, though of course it's possible for anyone involved in the disputative discourse to be a jerk for other reasons.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

What level are we at? Beliefs. Whatever pushes yourself.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

"Which religion(s) do you practice?" is a different question from "which religious narratives do you believe in?" which in turn is a different question from "which religious narratives do you think are literally true?"

(Yeah, I'm going to get a lot of incredulity about there being any difference at all between the latter two.)

Disregarding those distinctions, on either or both sides' part, does tend to make the dialog unproductive and tedious. It might even make people look like jerks. It doesn't necessarily make them jerks, though of course it's possible for anyone involved in the disputative discourse to be a jerk for other reasons.

 

[David Mo]

So is your point that when the belief that there are no gods is defended stupidly by "some atheists", you don't want anybody to criticize them?!

I think I suggested no such thing. What I have said is that we need to focus on why we believe this atheism is following a bad practice. In other words, why this practice is bad, regardless of whether an atheist or a believer follows it.

Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's not. Could you give us a specific example? (Not that I agree with you that "society" is particularly 'drowsy'. I think that society should be criticized and abolished, not 'shaken up a little bit.')

In Spain the crime of blasphemy is included in the legal code. Courts generally dismiss cases. But the crime exists and is a menace against freedom of expression. Actor Willy Toledo made a public statement in which he said, "I ***** on God and I still have plenty of ***** to ***** on the dogma of the Virgin Mary's virginity". He then stated that he did not recognize the right of a court to bring charges against him for these words and that he declared himself insubordinate. When the court called him to testify, he didn't come. Toledo, unlike other people who were accused of the same crime, who simply stated that they did not want to offend anyone, wanted to draw attention to the illegitimacy of such a crime and questioned the law itself, which the other defendants had not done in accepting the trial and trusting in their innocence.

Maybe he's right.

NOTE: "*****" is referred to the daily task of ejecting the organic waste from the body. I omit the word to avoid the censure of this forum, but in Spain is an habitual exclamation, very popular in some regions. Toledo's attack transcedend the circumstancial situation to aim to the state of right.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited to (1) fully mask the naughty words as required by the Membership Agreement, and (2) fixed the damaged quote-tags.