Zone1 Why do so many atheists seem to want to attack religion?

[Grumblenuts]

Regarding who's happier, I'm confident the religious are. Having simple, indoctrinated, fashionable answers to tough questions is undoubtedly more comforting and acceptable to most. Bah, ram, ewe,..

 

[GLASNOST]

Are you going to name an atheist counterpart to a canonized Saint or not?

Are you going to name one (just one) who was canonised in God's presence? Gosh, I'd be satisfied with a copy of the e-post sent by God nominating even one Saint. I've seen a couple of forest fires but not a single bush ever spoke to me. And that was during the time I was still an altar boy so you'd think, you know ...... dominus mecum fuisset.

 

[GLASNOST]

It was a holy mission.

That goes without saying.

 

[GLASNOST]

Your entire post is built on assumptions, and your failure to recognize that shows either dishonesty or a serious disconnect with reality .....

You've mischaracterized reality. Also, if you were truly passive ......

I see. So I was not only wrong but agressively so when I sang a song of praise to you and for your benefit, quoted here below ...

It is my assumption that you are comfortable with your decision. That's a good thing, isn't it?

Whew! I'm an awful person! A really, really bad person!

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Don't believe your lying eyes."

A rhetorical sleight of hand. Intellectual posturing where you hide assertion behind denial, then claim the high ground of “neutrality” while still clearly advancing a worldview. “I don’t believe in God” is not a neutral statement if it's immediately followed by “Anyone who does is committing a logical fallacy without providing physical, empirical evidence.” That’s no longer a passive lack of belief. That’s an active rejection and critique of belief. A worldview with its own assumptions. When you say “I assert nothing” but then follow it up like that, you're not being logically consistent or intellectually honest.

You're projecting non-assertion while asserting.

When someone says "You believe something I don’t. Prove it or you're wrong.” That’s not honest skepticism. That’s lazy antagonism framed as philosophy, or put differently, intellectual masturbation. You're accusing them of shifting burden while you dodge your own. You're pretending neutrality while asserting superiority and dismissing their inquiry as flawed without offering substance of your own. That’s not a debate; that’s ego maintenance. If your position needs to hide behind no claim while dismissing others, maybe it’s not the strength of your logic, but the weakness of your faith in it that you’re defending.

Seems I struck a nerve. What a crock of shit response. Here's news, sparky. Words do indeed have meaning. When you attack "so many atheists," accusing them of wanting "to attack religion," guess what that makes you? You say you're not religious. Atheists are not religious. Are you trying to beat yourself up here? Publicly self-flagellating? If so, stop. It's just embarrassing.

 

[GLASNOST]

"Don't believe your lying eyes." A rhetorical sleight of hand. Intellectual posturing where you hide assertion behind denial, then claim the high ground of “neutrality” while still clearly advancing a worldview.

Do you have a diploma from Camel Hairless' College of Wordsaladia?

“I don’t believe in God” is not a neutral statement

Of course it is. He's not telling you what to think or what to believe.

if it's immediately followed by “Anyone who does is committing a logical fallacy without providing physical, empirical evidence.”

What you believe is up to you. Isn't it? Or maybe it isn't? Could it be that Grumblenuts is inadvertently cornering you as you back away from your own hypocrisy?

That’s no longer a passive lack of belief.

READ MY LIPS: It is his lack of belief .... and that bothers you terribly. So much for strength in your belief. Pretty weak, ain't it?

That’s an active rejection and critique of belief.

An active rejection and critique by his standard, ie, for his own benefit and how he has come to his conclusions and convictions.

When someone says "You believe something I don’t. Prove it or you're wrong.” That’s not honest skepticism.

Yes, it is honest. You've provoked him and you are getting it back in spades. You cannot prove something so you've screwed yourself.

That’s lazy antagonism framed as philosophy, or put differently, intellectual masturbation. You're accusing them of shifting burden while you dodge your own. You're pretending neutrality while asserting superiority and dismissing their inquiry as flawed without offering substance of your own. That’s not a debate; that’s ego maintenance. If your position needs to hide behind no claim while dismissing others, maybe it’s not the strength of your logic, but the weakness of your faith in it that you’re defending.

The topic is, "Why do so many atheists seem to want to attack religion?" and here you are attacking an atheist point of view. It looks like the shoe is on the wrong foot isn't it. You are guilty, he is not.

Seems I struck a nerve.

Just for starters, yes. And that is why it is "the Theist" who is guilty of "attacking" the non-religious. It's not the other way around as the OP is trying to make it seem.

What a crock of shit response. Here's news, sparky. Words do indeed have meaning. When you attack "so many atheists," accusing them of wanting "to attack religion," guess what that makes you? You say you're not religious. Atheists are not religious. Are you trying to beat yourself up here? Publicly self-flagellating? If so, stop. It's just embarrassing.

A wise summation.

 

[Mashmont]

Regarding who's happier, I'm confident the religious are. Having simple, indoctrinated, fashionable answers to tough questions is undoubtedly more comforting and acceptable to most. Bah, ram, ewe,..

“When the solution is simple, God is answering” — Einstein.

 

[Mashmont]

Are you going to name one (just one) who was canonised in God's presence? Gosh, I'd be satisfied with a copy of the e-post sent by God nominating even one Saint. I've seen a couple of forest fires but not a single bush ever spoke to me. And that was during the time I was still an altar boy so you'd think, you know ...... dominus mecum fuisset.

So you can’t think if even one great moral atheist who devoted his life to attend to others? Not even one? (George Carlin, ROFL)

 

[Mashmont]

Are you going to name one (just one) who was canonised in God's presence? Gosh, I'd be satisfied with a copy of the e-post sent by God nominating even one Saint. I've seen a couple of forest fires but not a single bush ever spoke to me. And that was during the time I was still an altar boy so you'd think, you know ...... dominus mecum fuisset.

Still evading the simple question. — Looking for just ONE atheist counterpart to a canonized Saint.

 

[alang1216]

An agnostic does not believe it is possible to know or not know of God’s existence.

Your main argument here is that you know the God of Abraham cannot be God. That disqualifies you as being agnostic.

Correct but, as I said, I don't know if there was a supernatural creator who engineered our universe. That disqualifies me as being atheist. Wheat does that leave?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Looking for just ONE atheist counterpart to a canonized Saint.

For starters,

Annie Laurie Gaylor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mashmont]

For starters,

Annie Laurie Gaylor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are you kidding? The woman is a horrible person. She kills babies. She’s a butcher. Do you not understand helping and working with people while living an exemplary moral life? That’s what Saints do.

 

[alang1216]

Then you don’t embrace making sacrifices for others. I do.

I do a number of volunteer activities, I just don't count them as suffering, as you do.

 

[Anomalism]

Regarding who's happier, I'm confident the religious are. Having simple, indoctrinated, fashionable answers to tough questions is undoubtedly more comforting and acceptable to most. Bah, ram, ewe,..

This post almost sounds like it's in pain.

It can hurt to see someone find comfort in something simple and realize the same comfort eludes you. I’ve been there too. Calling peace simple doesn’t make it any less profound for those who find it. Maybe there’s more strength in belief than you’re willing to admit, and more ache in you than you're ready to face.

 

[Anomalism]

Seems I struck a nerve. What a crock of shit response. Here's news, sparky. Words do indeed have meaning. When you attack "so many atheists," accusing them of wanting "to attack religion," guess what that makes you? You say you're not religious. Atheists are not religious. Are you trying to beat yourself up here? Publicly self-flagellating? If so, stop. It's just embarrassing.

I articulated a critique. That's not the same as an attack, or an emotional outburst. You, on the other hand, say "What a crock of shit response." Emotional, reactive language. You're trying to assert dominance through tone, not substance. This often happens when someone's worldview feels challenged at its foundation.

"Words do have meaning."

Ironically, this supports my point. I was calling out how language is weaponized under the guise of neutrality. Also, I explicitly didn’t say all atheists. I even amended my critique and made room for the possibility that a smaller, but loud group of atheists is who I'm actually talking about. You're ignoring nuance. If none of this applies to you, then why respond like it does? If it does apply to you, then maybe sit with that discomfort a little before trying to bury it in sarcasm.

 

[Grumblenuts]

This post almost sounds like it's in pain.

It can hurt to see someone find comfort in something simple and realize the same comfort eludes you. I’ve been there too. Calling peace simple doesn’t make it any less profound for those who find it. Maybe there’s more strength in belief than you’re willing to admit, and more ache in you than you're ready to face.

Still torturing logic? Worry not. Be happy now.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Are you kidding?

Not at all. Also, George Carlin was great. Get over it.

 

[Mashmont]

Not at all. Also, George Carlin was great. Get over it.

No doubt Carlin took a good many of his simpleton fans to Hell. An ugly feature of human nature sometimes is to follow the snarky rebel. It's the same as kids in elementary school who laugh along with the bully, so they can be "hip".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Atheism is not a monolith, so I'll acknowledge that before it even goes there.

Many though, in my opinion, behave just the way I'm describing. Atheism sometimes feels less like its own worldview and more like a reaction to religion; a counter-brand built against theology rather than something for itself. If faith brings peace and meaning to so many decent people, why disrupt that? Why try to hurt people with what you believe to be a devastating truth? Shouldn't the truth of its devastation trigger your empathy to restrain yourself? Is the pursuit of being right worth more than compassion? Can skepticism coexist with kindness, or does it always have to provoke conflict?

Could we maybe respect belief without surrendering critical thought? What do you think? Is there a middle ground, or is this a cultural war destined to rage forever?

The obsession to prove theists wrong isn’t bravery. It’s insecurity framed as enlightenment, and tribalism framed as skepticism. Why chain others with the burden of your disbelief? If your cause is truth, why inflict suffering in its name? Maybe some people need their faith to survive. Maybe your relentless assault only feeds their fear and resentment.

So what are you really fighting for?

My personal view is...


I think religion can be good for people. However if someone religious wants to talk religion with me, I'm going to state my opinions. If they want to believe something and can't cope with other views, then they shouldn't talk to me

 

[dblack]

An ugly feature of human nature sometimes is to follow the snarky rebel. It's the same as kids in elementary school who laugh along with the bully, so they can be "hip".

That explains Trump.