Why is it that Atheists like to hang around Religion Boards??

[BrokenAngel]

Some people on both sides make ad hominem attacks. Often the religious attack non-believers by questioning whether they can be moral, accusing them of dishonesty- by saying that they are not really atheists, by conveying the sentiment that it is morally justified for them to be punished for eternity, accusing them of disregarding religion for hedonistic reasons, or accusations of being closed-minded/ that they just have not searched for the truth.

I know atheists make offensive comments as well, but I just wanted to point out the above because frankly, every one of these I find offensive, but a theist may not view them as such and thus reach a conclusion that theists are less often offensive simply on the basis of not recognizing the types of comments that an atheist may find offensive. Calling believers stupid or deluded is no less moral than accusing atheists of being dishonest or immoral by nature.

What are some other examples of atheistic attacks on religion you have seen here, Newby?

I would ask you if you could put up a link where the religious made such accusations on the board without provocation. I would like to backhand anyone who did, but I have yet to see it myself.

 

[Newby]

Some people on both sides make ad hominem attacks. Often the religious attack non-believers by questioning whether they can be moral, accusing them of dishonesty- by saying that they are not really atheists, by conveying the sentiment that it is morally justified for them to be punished for eternity, accusing them of disregarding religion for hedonistic reasons, or accusations of being closed-minded/ that they just have not searched for the truth.

I know atheists make offensive comments as well, but I just wanted to point out the above because frankly, every one of these I find offensive, but a theist may not view them as such and thus reach a conclusion that theists are less often offensive simply on the basis of not recognizing the types of comments that an atheist may find offensive. Calling believers stupid or deluded is no less moral than accusing atheists of being dishonest or immoral by nature.

What are some other examples of atheistic attacks on religion you have seen here, Newby?

I would ask you if you could put up a link where the religious made such accusations on the board without provocation. I would like to backhand anyone who did, but I have yet to see it myself.

Same here. Just go read any thread where religion is a topic and the disrespect is pretty obvious.

 

[Amanda]

If I see an example of atheists questioning why christians come to their message boards, I will offer the same critique of them. Additionally, I know very few atheists convinced they are absolutely correct. Even Richard Dawkins admits that one can never be 100% certain that there is no god- 100% certainty requires faith.

However, more importantly, even if an atheist believes with absoute certainty that there is no god, there are no other convictions that follow from that. With a religious conviction there is frequently a large body of dogma that assumes the same degree of absolute certainty as the general theistic conviction. And since that dogma is often based upon writings that can be interpreted in a variety of ways, the interpretation usually follows a pre-determined ideology. So, the belief in god gets transferred to dogma which gets interpreted through ideology- in other words, it results in absolute belief in an ideology. This leads to everything from suicide bombers, to abortion clinic killings, to anti-evolutionism and anti-gay marriage. Each group interprets their holy book through the lens of their own ideological slant, and by doing so attempts to use their religion to justify their behavior or worldview.

I would have to disagree with the bolded part, and pretty much everything that follows. The atheists I've met can be as rabidly zealous as any "believer". I know atheists like to see themselves as calm and rational and oh so above the emotion of believers but from my vantage point is looks like they are only fooling themselves.

Of course, being rabidly zealous about one's atheistic belief has nothing to do with the bolded part or anything after it.

What is the dogma that follows a conviction of atheism? What other absolute convictions coincide with acceptance of absolute conviction in atheism?

Perhaps you misread my post?

Not being 1 I don't know what is typical beyond the assclowns I run across on message boards that seem to think it's their duty to sling mud at believers at every opportunity. Maybe you've met Illusion/Vinnybus... (more and more I'm thinking Illusion is a really apt name).

But that aside, I see atheism as a religious belief. I'm sure if I sat down with a calm, rational atheist (and I will if I ever meet 1) there are sorts of other beliefs that flow from their "religion".

 

[N4mddissent]

Some people on both sides make ad hominem attacks. Often the religious attack non-believers by questioning whether they can be moral, accusing them of dishonesty- by saying that they are not really atheists, by conveying the sentiment that it is morally justified for them to be punished for eternity, accusing them of disregarding religion for hedonistic reasons, or accusations of being closed-minded/ that they just have not searched for the truth.

I know atheists make offensive comments as well, but I just wanted to point out the above because frankly, every one of these I find offensive, but a theist may not view them as such and thus reach a conclusion that theists are less often offensive simply on the basis of not recognizing the types of comments that an atheist may find offensive. Calling believers stupid or deluded is no less moral than accusing atheists of being dishonest or immoral by nature.

What are some other examples of atheistic attacks on religion you have seen here, Newby?

I would ask you if you could put up a link where the religious made such accusations on the board without provocation. I would like to backhand anyone who did, but I have yet to see it myself.

I've seen entire threads started around the premise that without god, morals cannot exist. And anyone who shares the belief that atheists will burn in hell and maintains belief in a just and moral god, inherently believes that atheistic suffering is moral and just. I've personally encountered the arguments that atheists aren't really atheists- they just deny god despite him revealing himself. Often this is accompanied by claims that atheists don't want to give up their "sinful" lifestyles. And the comment that, "if you would just open your heart to belief and/or read your bible, you will know the truth" is not uncommon here.

Personally, I don't think either side acts as "offensively" as some posters might think. Disagreeing with a view is not being offensive. Aside from a couple of posters who seem to enjoy low-blow attacks to reasonable argument, I think both sides manage to keep a reasonable discourse.

The topic of religion lends itself to unbalanced criticism. Most non-believers have no "doctrine" nor put forth an actual claim. Since the burden of proof lies upon the believer to prove the existence of the object of their claim, and since the arguments, doctrines, and apologetics of theism are so varied, it is natural that critical arguments would issue most heavily from the side of non-believers who reject not one particular, but all religious claims as untenable. The non-believer's challenge to the theist is to present an argument to support your position that is reasonable- in other words, convince me. But do not expect to the claim to be accepted without strong justification. The atheist feels the issue is too important to be considered lightly.

Occasionally, the non-believer will issue a positive argument for the impossibility or improbability for the existence of god, and then it is subject to as much criticism as any theistic argument.

From my experience, some atheists do see theistic arguments as subject to ridicule. While theistic views definitely vary in their level of sophistication, I think this approach is rarely useful. But the same sort of ridicule is often promoted by theists of different systems. For example, many protestant christians may ridicule the claims of catholic christians or especially mormons. Many from all groups ridicule the claims of scientology. It is hypocritical to decry ridicule directed on one's own belief but feel comfortable promoting the same sort of ridicule about other beliefs. It just so happens that atheists make no claims other than saying that the claims of theism are invalid. It's harder to ridicule atheistic claims just by the nature of the debate.

 

[Amanda]

Some people on both sides make ad hominem attacks. Often the religious attack non-believers by questioning whether they can be moral, accusing them of dishonesty- by saying that they are not really atheists, by conveying the sentiment that it is morally justified for them to be punished for eternity, accusing them of disregarding religion for hedonistic reasons, or accusations of being closed-minded/ that they just have not searched for the truth.

I know atheists make offensive comments as well, but I just wanted to point out the above because frankly, every one of these I find offensive, but a theist may not view them as such and thus reach a conclusion that theists are less often offensive simply on the basis of not recognizing the types of comments that an atheist may find offensive. Calling believers stupid or deluded is no less moral than accusing atheists of being dishonest or immoral by nature.

What are some other examples of atheistic attacks on religion you have seen here, Newby?

I would ask you if you could put up a link where the religious made such accusations on the board without provocation. I would like to backhand anyone who did, but I have yet to see it myself.

I'd like to see that too.

 

[N4mddissent]

I would have to disagree with the bolded part, and pretty much everything that follows. The atheists I've met can be as rabidly zealous as any "believer". I know atheists like to see themselves as calm and rational and oh so above the emotion of believers but from my vantage point is looks like they are only fooling themselves.

Of course, being rabidly zealous about one's atheistic belief has nothing to do with the bolded part or anything after it.

What is the dogma that follows a conviction of atheism? What other absolute convictions coincide with acceptance of absolute conviction in atheism?

Perhaps you misread my post?

Not being 1 I don't know what is typical beyond the assclowns I run across on message boards that seem to think it's their duty to sling mud at believers at every opportunity. Maybe you've met Illusion/Vinnybus... (more and more I'm thinking Illusion is a really apt name).

But that aside, I see atheism as a religious belief. I'm sure if I sat down with a calm, rational atheist (and I will if I ever meet 1) there are sorts of other beliefs that flow from their "religion".

I consider myself a calm, rational atheist. I think referring to atheism as a theological position is more appropriate than a religious belief. Calling it a religious belief is a bit like saying the absence of symptoms is a form of disease.

Speaking for myself, when the realization that I was an atheist set in, that realization provided me no guidance whatsover on other aspects of my life. Each and every part of my life was approached and engaged without reference to my lack of belief as a guide. Some might say that approaching events from a naturalistic, self-contained perspective is a conviction that follows from non-belief, but I disagree. Such an approach could just as easily lead to non-belief as flow from it. Furthermore, there are atheists who do not completely deny any supernaturalism. Some Buddhists would fall into this category.

Any theistic conviction that has a practical effect on one's life, has those effects that come directly from their conviction. Take something as simple as prayer. Some form of prayer is present in almost any religion. It is usually an appeal of some sort to a god. The conviction that this communication could be heard by a deity is one that can only be rational alongside a conviction that such a being exists. Is there an atheistic equivalent? Not praying? No, people operate constantly without praying. Many theists go through the entire day not praying. On the other hand, it would be absolutely irrational for an atheist to pray. Prayer is a conviction and behavior that flows from theism.

Think of it this way:

Imagine you are hungry and trying to decide what to get to eat. Let's say there are many different restaurants in town, plus one super grocery store. Now, you have a lot of choices. There are a variety of restaurants, and in each one is a variety of menu options. On the other hand, you could go pick up supplies at the super grocery store and prepare your own dinner.

Now, if you choose a restaurant, by virtue of that choice you limit your further options. The types of food and methods of preparation are limited by the menu of that restaurant. Perhaps the menu has exactly what you want and that's fine. But it is undeniable that there is a certain limitation accepted once a restaurant has been chosen. The choices of possible meals flow from the particular restaurant upon which you decided.

However, if you choose to go the super grocery store, there are no limitations on type of food nor method of preparation. To be sure, one may choose a certain food and method of preparation that was available at one of the restaurants, but the shopper is not limited to what is on the menu at any particular restaurant nor even limited only to foods that are in restaurants.

By not choosing a restaurant, you avoid artificially limiting your choices. Whatever meal you prepare, the decision does not come from the fact that you did not choose a restaurant. Perhaps your meal decision is based on your knowledge of cooking. You might say "wait- what if someone only knew how to prepare one dish. Wouldn't choosing the grocery store limit them to that dish, when going to the restaurant would give them more options?" No. It is true that such a person would be forced to prepare that one dish, but it is not the choice of going to the grocery that determined the dish they prepare, it is the limitation of their cooking knowledge that has forced them to prepare that dish.

You see, going to the grocery does not inhibit choices, even if those who go are limited. However, regardless of one's cooking skill, your choices are limited by the menu if you choose a restaurant.

Not believing in god is like not choosing a restaurant. One's personal attitudes and abilities may come into play in developing a worldview, but nothing follows from simply not believing. The food represents our internal and external interactions with our world. The outcome is limited by choosing an intermediary like religious belief, just like a restaurant is an intermediary that limits our choice of meals.

I and others like me, happen to prefer to prepare our own meals. It does require some extra effort, success may depend upon the culinary skill of the shopper, and still it may not have the presentation or perhaps even taste of dishes served at some of the finer restaurants. But there is a certain satisfaction in preparing it yourself. More importantly, you know with certainty the quality of the ingredients and the sanitary condition of the environment in which it was prepared (not to mention that you're confident a waiter or chef hasn't fouled your dish).

 

[N4mddissent]

Some people on both sides make ad hominem attacks. Often the religious attack non-believers by questioning whether they can be moral, accusing them of dishonesty- by saying that they are not really atheists, by conveying the sentiment that it is morally justified for them to be punished for eternity, accusing them of disregarding religion for hedonistic reasons, or accusations of being closed-minded/ that they just have not searched for the truth.

I know atheists make offensive comments as well, but I just wanted to point out the above because frankly, every one of these I find offensive, but a theist may not view them as such and thus reach a conclusion that theists are less often offensive simply on the basis of not recognizing the types of comments that an atheist may find offensive. Calling believers stupid or deluded is no less moral than accusing atheists of being dishonest or immoral by nature.

What are some other examples of atheistic attacks on religion you have seen here, Newby?

I would ask you if you could put up a link where the religious made such accusations on the board without provocation. I would like to backhand anyone who did, but I have yet to see it myself.

You know, it seems a post arrived just at your request. Haven't seen this guy around lately, but he was to whom I was specifically referring about starting an entire thread about the lack of morality inherent in atheism. Here's a post he made today.

Not to mention I noticed on this same thread that one person responded to the query about why atheists come to religious boards with, "because they are sexually frustrated". It was a lame attempt at insult in my opinion, but is certainly an example of ad-hominem attack on non-believers.