Keyboard warrior atheists in AH

MrStuffins

Deleted User wrote: »

Thank you



First, Fixed your post.

Second, As one of the discouraged, I can honestly say that I have no fear of being "found out" as being definitively "wrong", as I do not believe being difinitively "wrong" is possible. It's down to your own interpretation of the Universe as you find it.

Sorry I didn't add "in my opnion" but I just presume all of my posts are just taken as my opinion.

But anyway, it's silly people claim to have the answer to everything! This completely ambiguous "God" answer! There's so much to this Universe we simply don't understand!

Maybe there IS a creator, bt don't go getting your knickers in a twist and getting all defensive if I say i don;t think there is!

twinQuins

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, here's a line of questioning:

As we can see here, there are many very vocal atheists on AH, far more than vocal theists. Does that mean that any thread that asks a religious question will be given a predominantly atheist answer?

It means if you make a thread addressing atheists - or using atheism in the title - you're going to get a lot of atheists replying.

You gave a cursory mention to keyboard warrior theists but the main thrust of your post was against atheists - yes you qualified it as keyboard warrior atheists but you're going to get a lot more than that responding. In that case you were guarenteed to get a majority of atheists responding.

If a thread is given mostly atheist replies, does that discourage theists from posting?

If they don't want to deal with a majority of atheists they have the various Religion & Spirituality forums. AH isn't just for atheists or theists. If the forum has a majority of atheists (I would imagine so, as you do) then I still don't see an issue as that's just the demographics and I don't see how you could possibly change that.

If theists are discouraged from posting, does that make AH a de facto Atheist forum?

If they're discouraged from posting because of a thin skin or because they don't like uncomfortable questions being asked then that's their problem.

Now I'm not talking about who's "right" or "wrong" about the topic at hand, I'm on about the reaction people have to seeing a large group who vehemently disagree with them on a topic they're not that keen on wasting their breath arguing on an internet forum for.

But again, that's their problem. No one is forcing them to argue on the thread. You have to accept that there will be people who will disagree with you and will have no problem letting you know that they disagree with you.
There are forums you can go to if you don't want to deal with that.

A poll asking people what they think might be best to answer whether theists are put off and just how large this problem, if there is one, really is.

partyatmygaff

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well obviously not according to you. You seem to be able to tell me what I was thinking and was saying. And continue to tell me i was saying "All Theists" even though i've made it pretty clear I wasn't.

By leaving out rather important words from your post you've made me have to delve deeper in to what you've written to determine your message. If you just say "Theists" the general way someone would comprehend that is saying "Theists in general" or "All Theists".

Again, learn to read posts instead of making connections that don't exist.
again, I will point it out, i was NOT saying all Theists.

You said "Theists" without a quantity modifier. Saying "Theists" on its own is saying "Theists in general" just as how saying "Governments are corrupt" would mean "governments in general".

Well then you need to study the English language a little harder in my opinion.

I laughed.

twinQuins, you have a position regarding the existence of this thread. Could you state it clearly please?

I get the impression your attitude to Theists discouraged from arguing is "good riddance". Is that true?

MrStuffins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

......

Jaysus just give it up! You completely lived up to the "Completely Over-reacting at the Mere Sign of Beliefs being Questioned" stereotype!

Now just move on for Yahweh's sake! :rolleyes:

twinQuins

Deleted User wrote: »

twinQuins, you have a position regarding the existence of this thread. Could you state it clearly please?

I have only my own speculation - that you started this thread to elicit a specific reaction: that of having a majority of atheists reply to prove your case.

I get the impression your attitude to Theists discouraged from arguing is "good riddance". Is that true?

Not at all. If people (of whatever religious/political/whatever belief) are put off posting because they dislike the opinions of a majority of posters then I suggest they might grow a thicker skin; because in virtually every avenue of life you're* going to meet people who won't give two whits about your beliefs.

If they don't wish to have their views challenged there are various forums where they can go where they won't be challenged.

Please don't take that to mean I have a problem with theists - I don't.

*Just to be clear I'm using you and you're in the general sense, not you specifically.

Humans eh!

Deleted User wrote: »

This is where I have to stop thanking posts and make one of my own.

The Roman Catholic faith is pushed on the majority of Irish children. Your personal experience doesn't invalidate this fact. Why are you annoyed by people telling you it's stupid? Instead of getting angry, why not listen to what they have to say?

Irish people have a terrible habit of masturbating (pun!) to the thought of the status quo. They don't like having our beliefs questioned, or having to think about things; they avoid conflict, shy away from intellectual argument, and can't fathom the idea of shaking off mammy mentality. They tell people to shut up when they stand up and make a fuss over an obvious injustice. It's like stockholm syndrome, or some other weird love of obedience. This is why Ireland is largely still a backwards country.

To destroy Fianna Fáil, it took the worst financial scandal in the history of the state. To damage the Catholic Church, it took public recognition of decades of systematic child abuse and rape. And yet, despite these advances into the 21st century, they exposed the worst of being Irish: for example, when the student protests were happening, so many people sat around, complaining about the protesters, as if challenging something is abhorrent (not specifically the violence which took place). The exact same thing happens with atheists.

According to swathes of the Irish public, atheists shouldn't attack religion or superstition. But why? I reckon it's because Irish people - especially the religious or loopy 'spiritualists' - just don't like having to think. In the same way that a public speaker in Temple Bar ranting about brutal régimes in the Middle East would be dismissed and ignored by 99.9% of Irish passers-by (regardless of how correct or reasonable his arguments are), atheists are told to shut up and stop criticising religion, despite its horrific crimes and constant desire to retard the minds of children and humanity's scientific and rational progress.

Bah. :pac::pac::pac:

Best post of this thread.

I think militant atheism comes from a fear that the world may slip back into the often recent past where religion influenced almost every aspect of life. Religion of all sorts is exclusive, its a them and us mentality and has led to the most horrific human behavior to people it viewed as inferior or dangerous or different. I also personally believe that religion has been and continues to be a major retardant in the growth and advancement of humanity and its ability and desire to live in harmony with the world and its inhabitants.

I am atheist and I'm currently reading Keepers Of The Keys Of Heaven - a History of the Papacy By Roger Collins. Orion books
The simplistic notions that most lay people of faith have about the church are infantile when you take a long historical and objective look at this powerful political organisation and the power hungry men who built it.
I learn and read about the church not to belittle it but to try to understand the complex reasons why and how clever men use its considerable power over the minds of their flocks and how they benefited politically financially and egotistically.

IMHO Atheism is much more progressive because it is never satisfied with acquired knowledge and constantly seeks answer after answer to try to understand the fundamental questions, which it also acknowledges may be unanswerable. Theism is the security blanket of learning and satisfies only mankind's desire to feel loved, special and important, which is fine by me but it never stays at just that once humans get their hands on power over others. Thats the problem. Compassion doesn't come under threat of fire and sword, only mans desire for power.

Atheism has only had a few years to be able to question the church and religion without fear of dispossession, violence and death at the hands of 'loving' theists whom have been unprepared for said criticism. Because for centuries, religion never had to defend itself from intellectual argument but conveniently lit the fires of their hell on earth with the corpses of anyone who disagreed with them.

Trying to silence outspoken atheists today is just the evolution of this practice onto internet forums, which is much more civilised and less lethal so thats a vast improvement.

Keyboard warrior atheists V's The inquisition. The playing field has been leveled. And religion doesn't like it very much.

partyatmygaff

MrStuffins wrote: »

Jaysus just give it up! You completely lived up to the "Completely Over-reacting at the Mere Sign of Beliefs being Questioned" stereotype!

Er... You didn't question my beliefs. You insulted people's intelligence and then likened them all to an idiot on an American TV show.

MrStuffins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Er... You didn't question my beliefs. You insulted people's intelligence and then likened them all to an idiot on an American TV show.

No I didn't. You're just saying I did. You continue to say I did even after i've posted about 7 different times pointing out to you that, despite you're misinterpretation of simple English, I in fact never said nor meant "All Theists".

This will be my last post on the matter. it's quite obvious you either continue to ignore my posts, or you are downright trolling!

partyatmygaff

MrStuffins wrote: »

No I didn't. You're just saying I did. You continue to say I did even after i've posted about 7 different times pointing out to you that, despite you're misinterpretation of simple English, I in fact never said nor meant "All Theists".

This will be my last post on the matter. it's quite obvious you either continue to ignore my posts, or you are downright trolling!

A little English lesson.

Interpret the following

"Governments are corrupt"
"Cats are sly"
"Cars are fast"
"People are empathic"
"Englishmen drink too much"


In each of the above statements the subject of the sentence is being described in some way. Now consider the following

"Many governments are corrupt"
"Most cats are sly"
"Some cars are fast"
"Few people are empathic"
"Hardly any Englishmen drink too much"


What is the difference between the first set of sentences and the second set of sentences?

MrStuffins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A little English lesson.

Interpret the following

"Governments are corrupt"
"Cats are sly"
"Cars are fast"
"People are empathic"
"Englishmen drink too much"


In each of the above statements the subject of the sentence is being described in some way. Now consider the following

"Many governments are corrupt"
"Most cats are sly"
"Some cars are fast"
"Few people are empathic"
"Hardly any Englishmen drink too much"


What is the difference between the first set of sentences and the second set of sentences?

MrStuffins wrote: »

No I didn't. You're just saying I did. You continue to say I did even after i've posted about 7 different times pointing out to you that, despite you're misinterpretation of simple English, I in fact never said nor meant "All Theists".

This will be my last post on the matter. it's quite obvious you either continue to ignore my posts, or you are downright trolling!

partyatmygaff

MrStuffins wrote: »

No loss to me.

:)

flas

flas wrote: »

i have not developed a dislike for atheists, i have how ever developed a dislike for people who tell me what i should and should not believe in, that my views dont suit their's and in having these views i am wrong.

What you have just said is that you reject evangelical faith.

On the topic of deities specifically, it is rare for intelligent atheists to sincerely claim 'you should believe this way, otherwise you are wrong'; some may do so in the heat of the moment, but it's not at all commonplace. I know plenty of people (theist and atheist alike) would say that when it comes to particular scientific theories (e.g. evolution), as in such a case it would be a reasonable thing to say.

Many theists (and religions themselves) do say that you should believe the same as them, and that everyone else is wrong. Most religions are mutually exclusive, and contradict one another on a multitude of subjects (unlike atheism, which has no dogma). Usually some kind of reward/threat system is in place, e.g. eternal paradise if you go along with it, eternal damnation if you don't. Or, if it's your Catholic granny, she might refuse to give you sweets, or guilt-trip you, until you go to Mass. Whatever the circumstances, this does happen, and it is far more widespread among the faithful than unbelievers.

The most important point here is that there is a difference between telling you what to believe and challenging your beliefs, i.e. 'you can't and shouldn't believe in a god, otherwise you're an idiot' is completely different to 'I think you are wrong for the following reasons...'. Challenges to beliefs are something we should all be rejoicing in, as that's how humanity often makes progress; by applying reason, logic and science to our conceptions of the universe, we fillet out the facts from the fantasy. An unwillingness to have one's beliefs challenged - while simultaneously claiming that they are correct - is called intellectual dishonesty.

tl;dr: theism tells people what to believe (this is called doctrine or dogma), atheism does not.

partyatmygaff

Deleted User wrote: »

tl;dr: theism orders people what you believe (this is called doctrine or dogma), atheism does not.

People can choose to be theists as equally as they can choose to be atheists.

If people wish to abide by a Religious doctrine then they are not being "ordered to believe" anything. They are believing of their own accord.

Einhard

partyatmygaff wrote: »

People can choose to be theists as equally as they can choose to be atheists.

For true believers, and true atheists, I don't think there's a choice to be honest.

MrStuffins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

People can choose to be theists as equally as they can choose to be atheists.

If people wish to abide by a Religious doctrine then they are not being "ordered to believe" anything. They are believing of their own accord.

The VAST majority don't choose to be theists.

Their religion is indoctrinated into them from their parents and elders throughout their childhood! Their theism is in general a product of theor surroundings, geography etc.

It's no coincidence a lot of isrealis are Jews, a lot of Irish people are Catholics etc.

partyatmygaff

Einhard wrote: »

For true believers, and true atheists, I don't think there's a choice to be honest.

You choose to be a true believer or a true atheist.

If you do not believe in a God or you do believe in a God you make a choice to adhere to the (Lack of) belief system that you find yourself comfortable with.

partyatmygaff

MrStuffins wrote: »

The VAST majority don't choose to be theists.

Correction. The vast majority in the Western world. As you have yourself they choose to forgo their religious beliefs as they get older. Quite acceptable.

Their religion is indoctrinated into them from their parents and elders throughout their childhood! Their theism is in general a product of theor surroundings, geography etc.

Parents will always attempt to instill their values on their own children. They believe in Religion and see it as a positive effect on their lives and as they naturally love their child they will want to do their best to make decisions they think will be best for the child.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

People can choose to be theists as equally as they can choose to be atheists.

If people wish to abide by a Religious doctrine then they are not being "ordered to believe" anything. They are believing of their own accord.

I don't think anyone chooses either.

I'm not talking about freedom of choice anyway, I'm talking about groups spreading their beliefs in an aggressive and viral manner. The person I quoted said he or she didn't want to be told what to believe, but for so many religions, that's the entire purpose of their existence, and you absolutely cannot escape their thinly-veiled threats of hell among the incessant proselytising. That is what's so ironic about people complaining about vocal atheists.

Atheists don't quote scriptures to tell you how you're living in sin or come knocking on your door to convert you. We tend not to dabble in such childishness.

partyatmygaff wrote:

Parents will always attempt to instill their values on their own children. They believe in Religion and see it as a positive effect on their lives and as they naturally love their child they will want to do their best to make decisions they think will be best for the child.

Absolutely, but that still means the child has no choice in the matter. I didn't actively choose to become an atheist, I just became one once I realised 'this doesn't make any sense...'.

partyatmygaff

Deleted User wrote: »

Atheists don't quote scriptures to tell you how you're going to hell or come knocking on your door to convert you. We tend not to dabble in such childishness.

Neither do sensible Theists. Take a Christian for example. They cannot and should not judge others yet still some of them do. It's not so much the Religion as it is the people of the Religion that can be an issue.

Einhard

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You choose to be a true believer or a true atheist.

If you do not believe in a God or you do believe in a God you make a choice to adhere to the (Lack of) belief system that you find yourself comfortable with.

That's not true at all. I have never made a conscious decision to be an atheist. Indeed, sometimes I wish I could believe in God. However, to do so would require a level of delusion that I'm not capable of. For true atheists at least, there is no choice.

partyatmygaff

Einhard wrote: »

That's not true at all. I have never made a conscious decision to be an atheist. Indeed, sometimes I wish I could believe in God. However, to do so would require a level of delusion that I'm not capable of. For true atheists at least, there is no choice.

So you consider it entirely improbable that there is a God? Not even a hint of agnosticism?

Einhard

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So you consider it entirely improbable that there is a God? Not even a hint of agnosticism?

Not even a hint. I just can't see it. I never made that choice either. I actually continued praying for a while after I stopped believing, even though I knew deep down I was deluding myself. Then one day i stopped the pretence. I chose to acknowledge my atheism; I didn't chose to become one though.

partyatmygaff

Einhard wrote: »

Not even a hint. I just can't see it. I never made that choice either. I actually continued praying for a while after I stopped believing, even though I knew deep down I was deluding myself. Then one day i stopped the pretence. I chose to acknowledge my atheism; I didn't chose to become one though.

So a subconscious decision then? That would be the best way to describe it.

Einhard

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So a subconscious decision then? That would be the best way to describe it.

No, I wouldn't. Subconscious suggests that it was something I wasn't aware of. I had doubts, and they were magnified when i actually thought about religion. It was cumulative more than anything. ventually I couldn't go on believing. There was no choice involved.

Pace2008

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So a subconscious decision then? That would be the best way to describe it.

It seems you're trying to trap the poster by suggesting their atheistic stance is indeed a decision. For me, at least, this "decision" is no different to any other aspect of how I perceive the world. I suppose on some level I might accept the outside possibility that the world is flat, or the Sun orbits the earth, or indeed that reality as I perceive it is a lie and I'm really a brain in a vat hooked up to a virtual reality simulator. However, these beliefs would essentially go against everything I've learned in life and as such I reject them because to do otherwise would qualify as self-delusion as I see it.

If you want to class these as "decisions," so be it. My atheism is no different in this regard.

MrStuffins

What's with all the attempts to put words in people's mouths?

It's amazing how people can try to back up their own beliefs by playing word games!

partyatmygaff

Pace2008 wrote: »

It seems you're trying to trap the poster by suggesting their atheistic stance is indeed a decision. For me, at least, this "decision" is no different to any other aspect of how I perceive the world. I suppose on some level I might accept the outside possibility that the world is flat, or the Sun orbits the earth, or indeed that reality as I perceive it is a lie and I'm really a brain in a vat hooked up to a virtual reality simulator. However, these beliefs would essentially go against everything I've learned in life and as such I reject them because to do otherwise would qualify as self-delusion as I see it.

If you want to class these as "decisions," so be it. My atheism is no different in this regard.

The difference there is that issues of whether the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits the Earth differs from belief in a God. The first two are scientific matters to deal with our study of the universe and have been proven to be false. Belief in God however has nothing to do with Science but more so to do with philosophy and personal belief.

I can prove that the Earth is round as I can prove that the Earth orbits the sun by use of the scientific method. The scientific method however applies only to the natural world. Theists believe in God as being a creator and as such God is supernatural and unprovable or indeed impossible to disprove by means of the scientific method.

strobe

MrStuffins wrote: »

What's with all the attempts to put words in people's mouths?

It's amazing how people can try to back up their own beliefs by playing word games!

So you're saying the only opinion worth considering is your one?

MrStuffins

strobe wrote: »

So you're saying the only opinion worth considering is your one?

Wait, by insulting me you've just insulted my family, my ancestors, my friends, my ancestors friends and my cat!

How dare you!