What's the most frustrating thing about being atheist?

Mark Hamill

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

What you were told there, by both posters, is not that your atheism is a problem and an age thing ( i.e. childish), but your childish use of language is - imaginary friend, theists are morons etc..

If its moronic to do something, and someone does it, then they are morons. Frankly, the only childish reaction is from those who throw the debate out the window when someone says something they don't like hearing and can't refute, even though they are given the chance.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You want a world where you can sneer at anybody, but nobody can sneer at you. Or, even not sneer, but complain about your sneering.

Who is sneering? I'm not. I'm not trying to be offensive when and if I use the term "imaginary friend", sometimes it fits the point I'm trying to make, so I use it.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

There is no such world, and i am surprised that it took the internet to point this out to you.

I'm surprised you think I'm talking about such a world .

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think we should lower ourselves to the level of the people on the other side of the argument.

You already did, when you labeled certain atheists as childish for saying "offensive" things to theists as if that in of itself made the things incorrect. Its a really common theist tactic, when someone debunks what you say, just claim offense or persecution.

sasser

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You were responding to Nyan Cats post, which was in response to me, were you not?

Nope, don't know what you're talkng about

Mark Hamill

sasser wrote: »

Nope, don't know what you're talkng about

Then what were you talking about?

sasser

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then what were you talking about?

What are you talking about? You indicated I made some point about atheism being a phase which I obviously didn't, you went to the trouble of tagging my user name also

MegGustaa

There are many things that are frustrating about being an atheist.

A) Religion class. I go to a fee-paying Catholic girls school so there's no escaping it. It's incredibly difficult to say nothing. I rarely succeed at keeping quiet, and I feel like that annoys people.

Being expected to not express my beliefs in case I 'offend' others. At a compulsory retreat this year, the preacher person said "if you can understand it it's not God" so I put up my hand and questioned that. It was a cop out of a statement (my wording was more polite). Later that day a girl in my class was annoyed with me and was just like "there's a line you don't cross". What line? The line between accepting everything he says without question and, em, asking him to clarify?

C) Knowing that so many people call themselves Catholics but don't understand their religion properly.

D) People ignoring the atrocities done in the name of religion because"well, not all religious people are like that". Yes, I understand that, my concern is with the people who *are*.

E) Being 17 and terrified that if I were to die tomorrow, I'd be given a religious funeral. I don't believe in life after death but that would be the biggest insult to me and all I stood for. It wouldn't be the worst thing, but it makes me sad either way. But I'm not in a position to be frank about that to my parents yet either

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You already did, when you labeled certain atheists as childish for saying "offensive" things to theists as if that in of itself made the things incorrect.

But I didn't.

There is a world of difference between declaring atheists to be "less than fully human" and agreeing with another poster when they point out that someone who says rude things is a bit immature. As it happens, by the way, Duggy's Housemate used the term "childish", but I used different terminology. However I won't resile from my agreement with his core point.

In any case I'm not at all sure that it's relevant to a debate about the most frustrating thing about being atheist. Although maybe it is, who knows? Maybe it is frustrating for you that theists won't just stop believing, but you can't make them and you'll only give yourself palpitations worrying about it.

Mark Hamill

sasser wrote: »

What are you talking about? You indicated I made some point about atheism being a phase which I obviously didn't, you went to the trouble of tagging my user name also

You made a point indicating that athiests go through a phase were they are less tolerant and respectful in the teens/20's and change as they age.

Doc_Savage

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You made a point indicating that athiests go through a phase were they are less tolerant and respectful in the teens/20's and change as they age.

here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77726157&postcount=107

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

But I didn't.

There is a world of difference between declaring atheists to be "less than fully human" and agreeing with another poster when they point out that someone who says rude things is a bit immature.

I already debunked this in my discussion with Nyan Cat on the previous page. There is a world of difference between saying something that offends someone and saying something to offend someone.

Deleted User wrote: »

In any case I'm not at all sure that it's relevant to a debate about the most frustrating thing about being atheist. Although maybe it is, who knows?

You dont know? Maybe you should read the thread and see how it came up.

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe it is frustrating for you that theists won't just stop believing, but you can't make them and you'll only give yourself palpitations worrying about it.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I already debunked this in my discussion with Nyan Cat on the previous page. There is a world of difference between saying something that offends someone and saying something to offend someone.

Debunked? What are you on about? My point is that the Pope referred to atheists as less than fully human. By any standard, that is an appalling thing to say - it is simply unacceptable to suggest that anyone is less than fully human. What I said was that someone else was right when they said that another someone else was a bit immature. Even if you disagree with my view, as you evidently do, my view is not remotely comparable with a theist referring to people as "less than fully human". It's a weak analysis to suggest that they are on the same level.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You dont know? Maybe you should read the thread and see how it came up.

I don't know, and I'm open to reasoning on it, hence the rest of what I said. The fact that theists continue to believe is not a source of frustration to me. It doesn't make my blood pressure rise, and I don't feel the need to insult them or call them names over it. In any case, I don't see what there is to be gained by doing so.

Doc_Savage

Doc_Savage wrote: »

here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77726157&postcount=107

But that post doesn't mention atheists. If anything it has more to do with age than with philosophical standpoint.

I've met a few guys who were very fond of yelling anti-Catholic sectarian sentiments in their teens and 20s. Now they're all in their 40s and 50s and they don't do it any more. Ask any of them why and they'll say that it's an age thing.

RobbingBandit

No matter how hard you try not to you will still say oh god at least once a week.

RobbingBandit

RobbingBandit wrote: »

No matter how hard you try not to you will still say oh god at least once a week.

Yep, even after all these years I still do that every so often, though often with an expletive in the middle.

Ah well, what can I say except........

sasser

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You made a point indicating that athiests go through a phase were they are less tolerant and respectful in the teens/20's and change as they age.

No I didn't, I questioned the maturity levels of some posters, big difference.
Why do you have a problem admitting you are wrong

MagicMarker

Atheists are never wrong, didn't you know?

Pabzzz

Getting dirty looks off people when I don't kneel, pray, or stand up when everybody else does at a funeral.

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

Debunked? What are you on about?

You said you were "agreeing with another poster when they point out that someone who says rude things is a bit immature." That poster was talking to Nyan Cat who was talking with me and I had explained were he was going wrong.

Deleted User wrote: »

My point is that the Pope referred to atheists as less than fully human. By any standard, that is an appalling thing to say - it is simply unacceptable to suggest that anyone is less than fully human. What I said was that someone else was right when they said that another someone else was a bit immature. Even if you disagree with my view, as you evidently do, my view is not remotely comparable with a theist referring to people as "less than fully human". It's a weak analysis to suggest that they are on the same level.

Why are you talking about the pope?

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know, and I'm open to reasoning on it, hence the rest of what I said. The fact that theists continue to believe is not a source of frustration to me. It doesn't make my blood pressure rise, and I don't feel the need to insult them or call them names over it. In any case, I don't see what there is to be gained by doing so.

Evidently you're not that open, as you still wont read the thread to see where this tangent came up. You don't even know which poster you were agreeing with and who they wee talking too.

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

But that post doesn't mention atheists. If anything it has more to do with age than with philosophical standpoint.

The poster was clearly talking about atheists (of a certain age group).

Deleted User wrote: »

I've met a few guys who were very fond of yelling anti-Catholic sectarian sentiments in their teens and 20s. Now they're all in their 40s and 50s and they don't do it any more. Ask any of them why and they'll say that it's an age thing.

Ok, I'm not denying that you have met these people. But that type patronising about atheists of a certain age going through a phase is very, very similar to the patronising theists throw out about atheism in general being a phase.

Mark Hamill

sasser wrote: »

No I didn't, I questioned the maturity levels of some posters, big difference.
Why do you have a problem admitting you are wrong

Because I'm not. You said:
"I wonder is it an age thing, I found I have gotten more tolerant and respectful of others as I get older. Sometimes reading posts on this forum, they read as if written by boys in their late teens/early 20's. "
Are you honestly trying to claim that you weren't making a generalisation about atheists of a certain age here? You questioned the maturity of some posters under the assumption that it correlated with the age group "late teen/ early 20s" (despite not knowing how old the posters here are). That's what it means to say someone is going through a phase, its an assumption that their actions are based on their age (or how long they have held to an opinion or ideology).

sasser

You misinterpreted my post completely, and wrote a whoel paragraph on your interpretation of it, however it is all wrong. I don't know why you have such a big problem admitting it. it's petty. Considering I am an athesist and have been since I was a teenager, I would hardly accuse someone else of "going through a phrase". You presumed the comments I made were directed at you, as if waiting to be offended, they weren't.

Are you honestly trying to claim that you weren't making a generalisation about atheists of a certain age here?

Yes

(despite not knowing how old the posters here are).

Exactly, I would presume there is an array of ages here, what I said is that post read "AS IF written by boys in their late teens/early 20's" That is to say some posters have very immature attitudes. Nothing to do with atheism per se, just immaturity.

As I said big difference to you interpretation.

Mark Hamill

sasser wrote: »

You misinterpreted my post completely, and wrote a whoel paragraph on your interpretation of it, however it is all wrong. I don't know why you have such a big problem admitting it. it's petty. Considering I am an athesist and have been since I was a teenager, I would hardly accuse someone else of "going through a phrase". You presumed the comments I made were directed at you, as if waiting to be offended, they weren't.

So who exactly were you talking to in your post, if not Nyan Cat? You said "I wonder if it's an age thing". Is the "it" you were talking about, not what Nyan Cat was talking about and attributing to me?

sasser wrote: »

Yes

Regardless of who you were talking to, you clearly were making a generalisation about atheists of a certain age. You might not have been claiming that all atheists of a certain age group act a certain way, but you were claiming that all atheist that act a certain way belong to a certain age group.

sasser wrote: »

Exactly, I would presume there is an array of ages here, what I said is that post read "AS IF written by boys in their late teens/early 20's" That is to say some posters have very immature attitudes. Nothing to do with atheism per se, just immaturity.

Its to do with atheists being tolerant and respectful. Otherwise you were just saying that you believe that people in their teens/20's are less tolerant and respectful for no reason. If you weren't talking about atheists, then what exactly does your post have to with the topic?

Duggys Housemate

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You made a point indicating that athiests go through a phase were they are less tolerant and respectful in the teens/20's and change as they age.

Doc_Savage wrote: »

here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77726157&postcount=107

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The poster was clearly talking about atheists (of a certain age group).


Ok, I'm not denying that you have met these people. But that type patronising about atheists of a certain age going through a phase is very, very similar to the patronising theists throw out about atheism in general being a phase.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because I'm not. You said:
"I wonder is it an age thing, I found I have gotten more tolerant and respectful of others as I get older. Sometimes reading posts on this forum, they read as if written by boys in their late teens/early 20's. "
Are you honestly trying to claim that you weren't making a generalisation about atheists of a certain age here? You questioned the maturity of some posters under the assumption that it correlated with the age group "late teen/ early 20s" (despite not knowing how old the posters here are). That's what it means to say someone is going through a phase, its an assumption that their actions are based on their age (or how long they have held to an opinion or ideology).

As far as I can see all those posters referred to people in a certain age group being immature - i.e. use of language ( imaginary friend. etc.) but not to either Hamill, or the "phase of atheism". The phase is clearly the name calling not the atheism.

Hamill, who likes to use the word moron wherever possible, takes this as an attack on him, however he is apparently 27 so outside the age group being referred. So it couldn't be aimed at him.

I not the other hand, I have no problem calling Hamill an example of an immature atheist whatever age he is.

sasser

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So who exactly were you talking to in your post, if not Nyan Cat? You said "I wonder if it's an age thing". Is the "it" you were talking about, not what Nyan Cat was talking about and attributing to me?
Regardless of who you were talking to, you clearly were making a generalisation about atheists of a certain age. You might not have been claiming that all atheists of a certain age group act a certain way, but you were claiming that all atheist that act a certain way belong to a certain age group.

Its to do with atheists being tolerant and respectful. Otherwise you were just saying that you believe that people in their teens/20's are less tolerant and respectful for no reason. If you weren't talking about atheists, then what exactly does your post have to with the topic?

The it I was referring to was the need to insult others beliefs, I really just don't get it now. As I said, I
have found I have gotten far more tolerant the older I've gotten. I clearly wasn't claiming anything about atheists in certain age group, the did you read my last post?? Are you deliberately choosing to pick up a meaning that
isn't there? You sure picked a lot up from a short post.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The poster was clearly talking about atheists (of a certain age group).

The poster was clearly talking about people of a certain age group. In this instance they happen to be atheists, but they could just as easily be Islamic fundamentalists, hardline loyalists, or rabid Celtic supporters.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok, I'm not denying that you have met these people. But that type patronising about atheists of a certain age going through a phase is very, very similar to the patronising theists throw out about atheism in general being a phase.

It doesn't really matter whether you deny it or not, because it doesn't alter what happened. The people in question weren't atheists. They were Protestants. They were going through a phase, and not a "Protestant" phase either.

robindch

Boys and girls, can we move on please from this splendid "I said/you said/didn't/did/didn't/did so" debate?

Solair

Solair wrote: »

Never really found it a problem.

I went to a nominally catholic school, the main religion there was rugby. I don't remember anything ever particularly catholic about the place but we did have strange chanting and flag waving rugby rallies quite frequently ...

Most of my family are non religious, so I suppose that makes life a lot easier. In fact, in our family you'd be more likely to get funny looks if you were overtly religious. My granny always referred sneeringly to pushy, in your face, religious neighbours as 'that awl holy joe" etc etc

I think a lot depends on one's particular experiences. Although I grew up outside Dublin in the 1970s at least I lived in multi-channel land, which helped. My mother's background was mixed religion. My father had a very strong anti-clerical streak (actually, so did my mother), and only saw the inside of a church a couple of times a year, but he would have considered himself to be a believer.

My school was a CBS, yet considering the era it was I got what I would consider to be a liberal education. It was the post-Vatican II era, the Christian Brothers were only a small minority of the teaching staff, and a couple of the teachers and the local parish priest had all worked in Latin America, so the school's religious education had a fair bit of emphasis on tolerance, ecumenism and social justice. RE and Civics classes tended to blend together, especially in the senior cycle, into mini-courses on comparative religion and philosophy, with a smattering of self-help and group dynamics thrown in. All in all, it was quite experimental, or at least it seemed that way to us.

I left home almost straight out of school and found myself living in the part of the country that was the first to get rid of the "smack of the crozier". It went on to become the country's liberal heartland, and I've never left. I wouldn't leave either; I couldn't imagine living anywhere else in Ireland. That's not to say that there aren't Catholic authoritarian wannabees around here; but they are in a minority and their views don't really get much traction.

So I've never had that much reason to be frustrated about being an atheist. Maybe I got lucky, or maybe to some extent I made my own luck. But in any case there's limited scope for feeling frustrated when one is comfortable and secure about one's philosophical outlook. If other people are uncomfortable about my outlook or insecure in their own, that's their issue, not mine. And if other people are comfortable being believers and don't need to play at being insecure about the standpoints of others, then fair play to them.

CrabRevolution

Off topic I know, but am I the only one who sees post number 166 having 4.3 billion thanks...?

Hotblack Desiato

After reading your post I thanked that one to see what would happen - that's the empiricist in me :pac:

CrabRevolution

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Off topic I know, but am I the only one who sees post number 166 having 4.3 billion thanks...?

Nope.

4294967295 to be precise.

CrabRevolution

Does that include ninja900's one?

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

how can this be a 5 page thread?! and such a popular forum as well?!

don't believe in god. end of story. what else is there to talk about?!

Hotblack Desiato

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Does that include ninja900's one?

Nope, it didn't increment

Hotblack Desiato

georgiecasey wrote: »

how can this be a 5 page thread?! and such a popular forum as well?!

don't believe in god. end of story. what else is there to talk about?!

It's a 13 page thread, and you don't get to decide what is popular or not, tough.

Why is there a Christianity forum? Sure don't you all believe in god and are going to heaven, what's there to talk about? (Obligatory Fr Ted: "It's great being a priest, Ted. We're all going to heaven, wahey!!!!")

the_syco

RobbingBandit wrote: »

No matter how hard you try not to you will still say oh god at least once a week.

When I believed in god, saying "Jesus Christ" in vain was bad.
Since I don't believe in anything, "jeaaaasus holy (mutha)fúcking christ" is blamed for pretty much everything bad that happens, such as stubbing my big toe at a table leg, etc.

Humans eh!

Spare a thought for us rural dwellers.

I am recently single, and have no interest in football.
I am vegetarian.
I am an atheist.

In other words I am considered to be a gay wierdo satanist.

CerebralCortex

Humans eh! wrote: »

Spare a thought for us rural dwellers.

I am recently single, and have no interest in football.
I am vegetarian.
I am an atheist.

In other words I am considered to be a gay wierdo satanist.

Why would you live in the country!!??

legspin

Humans eh! wrote: »

Spare a thought for us rural dwellers.

I am recently single, and have no interest in football.
I am vegetarian.
I am an atheist.

In other words I am considered to be a gay wierdo satanist.

A vegetarian?

SHUN HIM/HER/IT!!!!

Galvasean

georgiecasey wrote: »

how can this be a 5 page thread?! and such a popular forum as well?!

don't believe in god. end of story. what else is there to talk about?!

Why do people keep strolling in and asking this question when they could just have a read through some of the forum to see for themselves?

Mark Hamill

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

As far as I can see all those posters referred to people in a certain age group being immature - i.e. use of language ( imaginary friend. etc.) but not to either Hamill, or the "phase of atheism". The phase is clearly the name calling not the atheism.

They are either talking about atheists of a certain age, or people of a certain age. If its the latter, then what the hell does it have to do with this thread?

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Hamill, who likes to use the word moron wherever possible

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I not the other hand, I have no problem calling Hamill an example of an immature atheist whatever age he is.

Based on?

Mark Hamill

sasser wrote: »

The it I was referring to was the need to insult others beliefs, I really just don't get it now. As I said, I
have found I have gotten far more tolerant the older I've gotten. I clearly wasn't claiming anything about atheists in certain age group, the did you read my last post?? Are you deliberately choosing to pick up a meaning that
isn't there? You sure picked a lot up from a short post.

If you weren't talking about atheists of a certain age group, then why where talking in a thread about aspects of atheism that people find the most frustrating, to a poster who was talking specifically about atheists being intolerant or disrespectful?
And I still dont see how you aren't accusing someone of going through a phase if they are intolerant or disrespectful because of their age?

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

The poster was clearly talking about people of a certain age group. In this instance they happen to be atheists

So he was talking about atheists of a certain age, doing something because they were that age? So he was talking about atheists going through a phase? Finally someone gets it and we can move on.

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't really matter whether you deny it or not, because it doesn't alter what happened. The people in question weren't atheists. They were Protestants. They were going through a phase, and not a "Protestant" phase either.

Ok being told you are going through a phase is not atheist specific (I've never said it was) but it was levelled at me in terms of my atheism.
I've never been told I was going through a phase in real life, but on this forum two people implied I was going through a phase as an atheist. Can we move on?

Zamboni

Humans eh! wrote: »

Spare a thought for us rural dwellers.

I am recently single, and have no interest in football.
I am vegetarian.
I am an atheist.

In other words I am considered to be a gay wierdo satanist.

Ugh. Vegetarianism. The worst religion of them all and they only have one rule!

sasser

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So he was talking about atheists of a certain age, doing something because they were that age? So he was talking about atheists going through a phase? Finally someone gets it and we can move on.


Ok being told you are going through a phase is not atheist specific (I've never said it was) but it was levelled at me in terms of my atheism.
I've never been told I was going through a phase in real life, but on this forum two people implied I was going through a phase as an atheist. Can we move on?

Actually it's she. And don't be so arrogant or ignorant to tell me what I was saying when it's simply not true.

sasser

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you weren't talking about atheists of a certain age group, then why where talking in a thread about aspects of atheism that people find the most frustrating, to a poster who was talking specifically about atheists being intolerant or disrespectful?
And I still dont see how you aren't accusing someone of going through a phase if they are intolerant or disrespectful because of their age?

But I wasn't targeting a sepcific age group, you are being obtuse at this stage

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Boys and girls, can we move on please from this splendid "I said/you said/didn't/did/didn't/did so" debate?

The next poster who starts moaning about things that a previous poster said, or might have said, or said something that might have meant, or said something that was the second cousin of something that might have had some offensive meaning in a parallel universe, will be carded.

This is one of your moderators speaking and that is all.

Irish_wolf

The hours are crap and the pay definitely isn't enough for the amount of work I put in.

The Black Oil

To be honest, I wouldn't really have said I'm an atheist until recently enough and even then, I don't really harp on about it. I'm not big on labels or interested in making a big deal about it. I remember refusing to go to mass when in the scouts and tantrum type response from leaders, adults can be rather silly, at times. I wouldn't have even said I was an atheist then, more just growing out of the whole religion thing.

More recently, we're clearly seeing a big push back against 'attacks' on Catholicism and that if you are seen to question it in any way you're automatically labelled as being 'anti'. The same crap goes on in American political discourse and debates about America. Are there genuine cases of people actually attacking, well, yes, of course, but I suspect most people are not anti-Catholic...they are simply skeptical. I'm not out to undermine Catholicism. I just want an honest debate about its place in this country, from the stats/census level upwards and in schools.

Oh, and as for respect, I respect your right to hold whatever beliefs, but not necessarily the content of them. I'd expect the same in return.