The Angry Atheist?

Goduznt Xzst

I read quite a few atheist blogs and forums and one of the underlying feelings I get is that the majority of Atheists are angry.

A lot of the articles seem to be aimed at "preaching to the converted" and whereas they might evoke a quick laugh from myself I can see most religious people closing their mind after the first searing and derisive remark about crack pot beliefs. A lot of people also hold the stance that they are not tolerant of religious people.

I'd say i'd probably also fit into this camp, I wouldn't bow my head if someone started to pray at a dinner table also I refuse to acknowledge moments of silence. If I pay to see the inside of a church, I'm there to see the architecture and learn of its history, i'm not there to pay respects or stay silent. I treat Churchs the same way I'd treat a Museum.

On reflection though of my manner towards the religious, I can see it actually hardening them against Atheism. But then I thought, is the goal of Atheism really to convert the religious to accepting reality?

I mean a lot of the Atheist discussions with religious people that I read tend to be solely dedicated to trying to win the mind and not the heart. I see this as a futile endeavour and merely ego stroking for the atheist. Where the atheist really trying to convert the other person to their viewpoint they'd start with the heart and try to understand the emotive reasons for believing in a God.

Again, i'd say I also suffer from this presumption when arguing with believers. If someone held out their hands and had an apple in each and said "I have 3 apples", my gut instinct would be to derive for them mathematically why they clearly do not have 3 apples, whereas what I really should do first would be to ask "why do you believe you have 3 apples?".

It's from this that I think the angry atheist grows, the frustration with using pure logic to define why God doesn't exist and being met with a brick wall of denial surrounded by smoke and mirrors.

My questions I guess are:

1. Are you an angry atheist?
2. Do you argue with believers and why, when you know any logical argument you make can be easily be refuted by the believer merely saying the word "faith"?
3. Do you think it is the duty of an Atheist to reason with and convert the religious?

Galvasean

GRRR, F*CK OFF!

Malari

Interesting post. I do get that impression from people who are not even religious, just don't care either way. They seem to think atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists :eek:

I more or less do the same things you describe...refusing to go along for the sake of peace. I don't see it as being disrespectful, I see it as being assertive of my own beliefs, or lack thereof. I have been to church weddings, where I just sit there the whole time while everyone around me gets up, sits down, kneels, bows their head, etc,. I have only ever argued with believers who started questioning me first!

I used to be an angry rebellious teenage atheist, but I'm over that now

My atheism is really a personal thing. I'm not out to convert anyone, but I will question people about their beliefs unashamedly and if that leads to them questioning their "faith" - all the better.

AtomicHorror

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

1. Are you an angry atheist?

Nope.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

2. Do you argue with believers and why, when you know any logical argument you make can be easily be refuted by the believer merely saying the word "faith"?

Only if they are attempting to contradict something that has been proven. So that would be creationists, ID proponents, flat earthers and various alternative medicine types.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

3. Do you think it is the duty of an Atheist to reason with and convert the religious?

No. I'm imagine that if the world suddenly came to realise the truth tomorrow morning it'd descend into unimaginable chaos. Let them have their opium, so long as it does not risk lives or get in the way of progress.

chin_grin

1. Are you an angry atheist?
2. Do you argue with believers and why, when you know any logical argument you make can be easily be refuted by the believer merely saying the word "faith"?
3. Do you think it is the duty of an Atheist to reason with and convert the religious?

A1: Not really, get riled up now and again as a result of "oh for shame, you don't believe? What, is there something wrong with you?". Why should anyone care? Then again I listen to metal music, so......YES C'MERE I EAT YOUR HEAD OFF, etc.

A2: No. It's not worth the futile effort. Each to their own once it doesn't encroach on my beliefs in that I have none.

A3: Not at all. According to Richard Dawkins we should all be dancing in fields sniffing our own farts and being smug about not believing. Lets be fair he does have an air of smugness-ity about him that I cannot stand! Elaborating I suppose for me it boils down to being "smug" in ones own faith. "My god does this" crap. I try not to let it bother me.

And yes I know religion is the biggest reason there is War, but have I been affected personally? Nope.

pH

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I mean a lot of the Atheist discussions with religious people that I read tend to be solely dedicated to trying to win the mind and not the heart. I see this as a futile endeavour and merely ego stroking for the atheist. Where the atheist really trying to convert the other person to their viewpoint they'd start with the heart and try to understand the emotive reasons for believing in a God.

I'm not particularly interested in converting believers. If a group of people want to believe in a god, worship him in a private building and live by additional rules (no divorce, contraception or pork) then I say let them get on with it. As long as it has no impact on my life then fine. The problems is that this is rarely the case, they want their morals enforced on me and want me to support their beliefs.

Again, i'd say I also suffer from this presumption when arguing with believers. If someone held out their hands and had an apple in each and said "I have 3 apples", my gut instinct would be to derive for them mathematically why they clearly do not have 3 apples, whereas what I really should do first would be to ask "why do you believe you have 3 apples?".

Sadly this in not a normal conversation they normally go more like.

"I have 3 apples, and if you dare disagree then you need to be beheaded or burnt as the stake ... now how many apples do I have?"

"I have 3 apples and I want to teach this to children in public schools"

"I have 3 apples and I want a law that says if you question that or mock me then you should go to jail"

"I have 3 apples and hate Gays ... "

"I have 3 apples ... how about some money?"

1. Are you an angry atheist?

Who me?

2. Do you argue with believers and why, when you know any logical argument you make can be easily be refuted by the believer merely saying the word "faith"?

Yes, I think it's important that they know there are people out there who think they're ignorant.

3. Do you think it is the duty of an Atheist to reason with and convert the religious?

No, more like the duty to reduce the harm that belief in their imaginary friend causes for society.

larryone

Most atheists I know aren't angry. I'm a non-angry pantheist.
My brother was fairly christian in his outlook up till his mid twenties, now he's an atheist. I think he has a deep understanding of the monotheistic perspective, and so he isn't driven to anger when he's presented with illogical bs in the name of faith.

Most atheists woundn't bother arguing with believers because they see it as pointless. You can't make someone see what they dont want to see.

Question 3 there is really about evangelical atheism. More of a personal choice I suppose to try and spread atheism. I dont know that many evangelical atheists. An ammusing image comes to mind of someone on grafton street with a megaphone preaching atheism to the masses.

You mention in your post that you refuse to acknowledge moments of silence? Why is that?

Goduznt Xzst

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Only if they are attempting to contradict something that has been proven. So that would be creationists, ID proponents, flat earthers and various alternative medicine types.

Have you had much success with this?

larryone wrote: »

You mention in your post that you refuse to acknowledge moments of silence? Why is that?

What non-religious purpose does adhering to an organized moment of silence accomplish?

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

But then I thought, is the goal of Atheism really to convert the religious to accepting reality?

I'm gonna be obvious here and say atheism has no goal. Individual atheists may have, but there's nothing to say they must have anything in common.

I'm not an angry atheist, btw.
But I do suffer a lot from bemusement when faced with religion.

larryone

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What non-religious purpose does adhering to an organized moment of silence accomplish?

If you're around people who are observing silence, then it's a matter of respect. Organised moments of silence are not always a religious affair.

Dades

larryone wrote: »

Organised moments of silence are not always a religious affair.

Indeed. A moment of 'reflection' doesn't cost anyone anything.

Goduznt Xzst

larryone wrote: »

If you're around people who are observing silence, then it's a matter of respect. Organized moments of silence are not always a religious affair.

Respect is irrelevant. Who defines that remaining silent for a minute is an act of respect? If you where walking amongst a group of people and they started to flap their arms like birds out of respect for a dead friend, would you feel obliged to join in?

To me a moment of silence has too many religious connotations for me to endorse it.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

To me a moment of silence has too many religious connotations for me to endorse it.

So what do you do during it? Look indignant? Hum 'Taps'?

larryone

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Respect is irrelevant. Who defines that remaining silent for a minute is an act of respect? If you where walking amongst a group of people and they started to flap their arms like birds out of respect for a dead friend, would you feel obliged to join in?

To me a moment of silence has too many religious connotations for me to endorse it.

I probably would't join in. But your analogy here isn't rally a good one. If I didn't flap my arms then very few people would actually notice. If I was with number of people who wanted to howl at the moon out of respect for *bla* and I didn't howl, it wouldn't matter. If they were peacefully observing the moon and I was howling it'd be a different matter.

Respect is not irrelevant. Would you answer a phone call in the middle of a cinema? Unlikely, our of respect for the people who are there to see the movie. Would you answer your phone and start yapping away if you were surrounded by people observing silence for *bla* reason???

A moment of silence does not have to involve prayer or anything religious.

Do you reject anything that you precieve to have religious connotations? Are you an angry athiest?

Malari

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Respect is irrelevant. Who defines that remaining silent for a minute is an act of respect? If you where walking amongst a group of people and they started to flap their arms like birds out of respect for a dead friend, would you feel obliged to join in?

To me a moment of silence has too many religious connotations for me to endorse it.

I'm surprised by your answer, I assumed you meant silence that was obviously religious....like asking for a moment's silence for prayer. If it's a minute's silence in memory for someone who's died then it is disrespectful to start yapping loudly.

DenMan

OP You really do sound angry, there is no doubt about that. Let's discuss the first topic of converting believers into accepting reality. Both my parents (especially my mother) came from a strict Catholic upbring and it is because of this I have come to look at things a lot more open minded and not being led around like a herd of sheep. A believer will always have one eye closed and an atheist will always have one eye open and the other closed. See the problem. If you are comfortable with yourself and your own set of beliefs then it doesn't matter what either side thinks of each other. Believers should not weigh on your mind unless you are disproving their doctrine to them. You should not allow it to affect you, they are not looking to convert you and you are comfortable with your own set of beliefs. The hardest thing in the world is to prove something to others (eg existance of God) and the easiest thing to do is to dismiss it out of hand. Leave it to the world religions to find their own path and we will find ours. Don't let it get to you and let the anger subside. It's not worth it.

You should read a lot more as it will make you feel a lot more comfortable with yourself.Famialise yourself with other beliefs. Look at the history of the Native Americans, Buddhism, all forms of Christianity, Islam, Taoist beliefs and be prepared before you get into a heated debate with a believer. Ignorance is not right and in order to communicate with a believer you have to know what you are talking about because it can spiral out of control quickly and you will get angry. I have really enjoyed conversations with many people from many different religions and even though we didn't always agree on things I could understand where they were coming from. Good luck with it OP and remember try and not get angry just be comfortable with your own set of beliefs and don't get bogged down by what believers say to you.

AtomicHorror

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror:
Only if they are attempting to contradict something that has been proven. So that would be creationists, ID proponents, flat earthers and various alternative medicine types.

Have you had much success with this?

Hard to say really. I debate on internet forums, so it's all about convincing the lurkers. The diehards will never change their opinion because they've felt the edge of that terrible truth and run screaming from it into the warm safety of ignorance. They're not coming out, but maybe we can stop them dragging everyone else in too.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

So what do you do during it? Look indignant? Hum 'Taps'?

If I was engaged in a conversation I would continue the conversation. I'm not saying I would purposely start making noise but I wouldn't change my actions.

I remember being in town along the quays during some festival when a moment of silence happened, everyone froze on the spot. I continued walking and talking with my friend. Some woman actually grabbed my arm and gave me this glaring look with her finger against her lips like I was going to be shot if I didn't stop moving and start meditating/praying/reflecting immediately.

larryone wrote: »

I probably would't join in. But your analogy here isn't rally a good one. If I didn't flap my arms then very few people would actually notice. If I was with number of people who wanted to howl at the moon out of respect for *bla* and I didn't howl, it wouldn't matter. If they were peacefully observing the moon and I was howling it'd be a different matter.

Respect is not irrelevant. Would you answer a phone call in the middle of a cinema? Unlikely, our of respect for the people who are there to see the movie. Would you answer your phone and start yapping away if you were surrounded by people observing silence for *bla* reason???

So you are saying that if it was the custom to howl out of respect it would be ok to be silent? That strikes me as hypocritical as the manner in which the respect is shown shouldn't be of a concern to you as you are merely adhering to a cultural norm that is tied to religious connotations.

The cinema analogy is not valid either because 1: It carries no religious connotations and 2: Within the cinema screen it is a condition of watching the movie to be quiet, non-observance of this will have you ejected from the movie.

I would not say that I am angry rather I am not tolerant of religious customs. In fact I would say the shedding of cultural/religious requisites has made me a more centered person as I am not tied to observances, actions or inactions assumed due to the society I live in.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Hard to say really. I debate on internet forums, so it's all about convincing the lurkers.

Well I would agree with this. The first seeds of questions I had where answered from forums where religious people where trying to defend them. I was looking for answers to back up my faith and instead found more questions raised by atheists. I think debate with the staunchly religious is probably best kept to open debates and forums. On a one to one basis I find it pointless as the matter of the emotional crutch that their belief hinges on can only be addressed on a personal level. I will however discuss topics as morality and ethics with religious people.

kelly1

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The diehards will never change their opinion because they've felt the edge of that terrible truth and run screaming from it into the warm safety of ignorance.

I think atheists too could be called guilty of ignorance because of their refusal to look beyond the natural world and that which they can see and touch. I've said it before and I'll say it again, all that's needed is a humble leap of faith. Don't expect God to bow to your demands. He needs to be approached with humility and we need to ask for faith because it's not something that comes naturally. Faith is a gift from God to those who genuinely and humbly seek Him.

".....
He puts forth His arm in strength
and scatters the proud-hearted
He casts the mighty from their thrones
And raises the lowly...."

"....God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." James 4:6

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

I think atheists too could be called guilty of ignorance because of their refusal to look beyond the natural world and that which they can see and touch. I've said it before and I'll say it again, all that's needed is a humble leap of faith. Don't expect God to bow to your demands. He needs to be approached with humility and we need to ask for faith because it's not something that comes naturally. Faith is a gift from God to those who genuinely and humbly seek Him.

".....
He puts forth His arm in strength
and scatters the proud-hearted
He casts the mighty from their thrones
And raises the lowly...."

"....God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." James 4:6

Good stuff Kelly1....... ......if you believe it. :rolleyes:

Dades

kelly1 wrote:

I think atheists too could be called guilty of ignorance because of their refusal to look beyond the natural world and that which they can see and touch.

The world makes so much more sense without a God - why would anyone start looking for contradictory, nonsensical supernatural explanations?

kelly1 wrote: »

Faith is a gift from God to those who genuinely and humbly seek Him.

More likely faith is a gift from one's brain, to those genuinely want to believe he is there.

This thread is starting to fulfill it's own proposition!

Galvasean

kelly1 wrote: »

all that's needed is a humble leap of faith.

But why?The world seems to work just fine without God, so why take this leap?

larryone

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So you are saying that if it was the custom to howl out of respect it would be ok to be silent? That strikes me as hypocritical as the manner in which the respect is shown shouldn't be of a concern to you as you are merely adhering to a cultural norm that is tied to religious connotations.

If I didn't howl, it wouldn't make much difference to the howlers. If they were silent while I was howling, then it would. I was just trying to show you that your arm flapping analogy didn't apply because of the difference between action and inaction. Observing silence is observing inaction.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The cinema analogy is not valid either because 1: It carries no religious connotations and 2: Within the cinema screen it is a condition of watching the movie to be quiet, non-observance of this will have you ejected from the movie.

Ok, fair enough, but lets change the scene a bit. If you were at a funeral (and dont say you'd never go to a funeral, everyone has to bury their parents at some point) would you leave your phone on? Would you answer and start chatting if it rang?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I would not say that I am angry rather I am not tolerant of religious customs. In fact I would say the shedding of cultural/religious requisites has made me a more centered person as I am not tied to observances, actions or inactions assumed due to the society I live in.

So you're an intolerant athiest?

Goduznt Xzst

kelly1 wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again

no doubt :rolleyes:

kelly1 wrote: »

"....God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." James 4:6

You forgot to mention that a condition of being humble is that you will need to:

"Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom." - James 4:9

Can you say you are fully living your life in accordance with this scripture? If so i'd expect you'd need to be wailing at least on a daily basis to show that you are humble.

For me a life of being proud sounds a lot better than a long life of wailing. My voice gets horse even from speaking a little louder in the pub.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

The world makes so much more sense without a God - why would anyone start looking for contradictory, nonsensical supernatural explanations?

Really? Why then do so many atheists say life has no meaning? Where's the sense in that? How could life possibly make more sense without God??

God gives life purpose and meaning. The notion of no life after death makes life a bit pointless really. Maybe you'll be terrified of death just like Nuala of Faolain when your time comes. It's easy to be cavalier now.

kelly1

Galvasean wrote: »

But why?The world seems to work just fine without God, so why take this leap?

Really? Aren't you aware of the evil that goes on the world? War, muder, rape, drugs, abortion, jails overflowing etc, etc.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You forgot to mention that a condition of being humble is that you will need to:

"Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom." - James 4:9

Can you say you are fully living your life in accordance with this scripture? If so i'd expect you'd need to be wailing at least on a daily basis to show that you are humble.

James is talking about sinners who repent. He's not suggesting that we should continue to mourn and wail after forgiveness.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Really? Why then do so many atheists say life has no meaning?

Has an atheist ever actually said to you that life has no meaning Kelly?

That seems to be what believers say being an atheist must be like because they cannot imagine life having meaning or purpose that isn't assigned to it by some supernatural boogie man. It always reminds me of my friends who had to be told what they wanted to do in college by their parents because they were so used to having everything decide for them. Its like some people can't find their own purpose in life or take ownership of their own destiny.

kelly1 wrote: »

How could life possibly make more sense without God??

Considering life doesn't make any sense with your god you need to remove your god before life makes sense, let alone makes more sense.

kelly1 wrote: »

God gives life purpose and meaning.

Your god gives convoluted, contradictory, illogical and nonsensical meaning to life.

And at the end of the day the "meaning" is simply do what you are told and you well get into the proper existence in heaven after you "die" on this Earthly plain. It renders this existence as a kind of pointless TV game show.

kelly1 wrote: »

The notion of no life after death makes life a bit pointless really.

Quite the contrary, life after death and your religions insistence that the main purpose of this life is to prove oneself worthy of getting into the proper existence in heaven, makes this life rather pointless. Why did God bother with this existence at all?

Galvasean

kelly1 wrote: »

Really? Aren't you aware of the evil that goes on the world? War, muder, rape, drugs, abortion, jails overflowing etc, etc.

And you think faith in a God who may not even exist is the only thing stopping people from doing these things?
How long have you been posting in A&A again?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Really? Aren't you aware of the evil that goes on the world? War, muder, rape, drugs, abortion, jails overflowing etc, etc.

Are you aware that your god appears to do nothing about that, almost as if he doesn't exist...

The world looks exactly like a world in which your god doesn't exist.

Yes your religion has a very overly complicated and convoluted explanation for why that is, but it seem far more reasonable to simply look at the obvious answer, it's because he doesn't.

mojawoja

1. Are you an angry atheist?
2. Do you argue with believers and why, when you know any logical argument you make can be easily be refuted by the believer merely saying the word "faith"?
3. Do you think it is the duty of an Atheist to reason with and convert the religious?

A1: No

A2: Deffo! I enjoy debating. I wouldn't let them use that old cop-out. I pose the following Q: "If you were born in India, and only ever heard of Budda, do you think you'd be a Christian or a Buddist?" If they're honest they won't say Christian. Then you ask "So people's religion is largely a result of social surrondings and upbringing then?", that usually gets 'em thinking.

A3: That's a crackin' question and I don't have a black n' white answer. I think "having faith" is a good thing; as opposed to going thru life knowing you're gonna be worm food by the 2050's.
As well as that, I don't think the religious want to hear it.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

This thread is starting to fulfill it's own proposition!

lol... so true

larryone wrote: »

I was just trying to show you that your arm flapping analogy didn't apply because of the difference between action and inaction. Observing silence is observing inaction.

Your point was not in regards to action and inaction it was in regards to showing respect and not showing it. You are saying that it is ok to not show respect when an action is required. This I find hypocritical. I would view changing from talking to being silent as an action on my part.

Your argument falls apart because it hinges on how noteworthy your sign of respect is. If it won't be noticed then you do not need to do it. This has more to do with your feelings of societal acceptance than your adherance out of respect as respect clearly is not your motivations for remaining silent.

larryone wrote: »

So you're an intolerant athiest?

Yes. I'm intolerant of any religious practices whether directly or indirectly that affect the way in which I live my life.

kelly1 wrote: »

James is talking about sinners who repent. He's not suggesting that we should continue to mourn and wail after forgiveness.

Are you saying that you aren't a sinner that needs to repent? Sounds fairly proud to me? You wouldn't want to become like the Pharisee in Luke chapter 18