• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why are atheists thought ill of?

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
'Why are atheists thought ill of?'

Vocal atheists are thought ill of because they are as annoying as their theist counterparts. Often times, they have so much invested in making people "see the truth" that they overlook the significance of belief to the believer. As someone standing outside the debate (as Costrin so astutely pointed out I'm an agnostic apatheist...or maybe it's an apatheistic agnostic...needless to say I couldn't give two shits less about the existence/non-existence of a god/goddess/gods) atheists look as obnoxious to me as any other proselytizer. Why the atheist feels the need to shove his/her truth down the throat of the theist is completely beyond me. Can't they just be happy knowing they have "the truth" (whatever the hell that is)?
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
I guess this idea comes from the fact that atheists believe that God does not exist even though there is no evidence to prove that belief beyond all doubt. This suggests that their belief stems from the passions and not from reason.
My only passion on this point is that negative proofs are irrational.
 

INA

now! in shell form
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
3,195
MBTI Type
intp
'Why are atheists thought ill of?'

Vocal atheists are thought ill of because they are as annoying as their theist counterparts.
Yet vocal theists are not given anywhere near as much ill-regard, though they are far more common than proselytizing atheists. And non-vocal atheists are also subject to ill-regard for nothing more than refusing to joining the at-least-in-theory-but-not-so-much-in practice pious chorus. Silent disagreement is still provocative.

edit:

Wasn't there was a study recently in the US in which people put atheists as the worst possible mates for their children? Even the bigots would prefer a person of the race(s) they dislike than an atheist.
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't know anyone that thinks ill of me and my beliefs. (Probably because I take the time to explain my beliefs if questioned to the best of my ability and altho I do not expect people to join my beliefs, it does allow them to respect me for mine. Since I don't just seemingly pull my beliefs out of my arse..)
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Yet vocal theists are not given anywhere near as much ill-regard, though they are far more common than proselytizing atheists. And non-vocal atheists are also subject to ill-regard for nothing more than refusing to joining the at-least-in-theory-but-not-so-much-in practice pious chorus. Silent disagreement is still provocative.

edit:

Wasn't there was a study recently in the US in which people put atheists as the worst possible mates for their children? Even the bigots would prefer a person of the race(s) they dislike than an atheist.

Interesting, do you happen to have link/title for that study? I find them equally revolting myself.

That said, I do recognize the value of religion. I also think most people actually conflate their desire/need to belong to a religious community with a belief in god. Religion generally offers a great deal to adherents (support, a moral framework, financial help in times of need, social interaction, etc.). Vocal atheists often do nothing to help their fellow man. They seem hell bent on making others understand that god doesn't exist, offer nothing in place of religion, and then are puzzled why people don't just jump into the arms of reason . They don't contribute much to their communities, and they don't seem to serve any purpose other than to rain on other people's parades. If a person doesn't believe that god exists, good for them. Do they really need to share that belief with the people who don't want to hear it? Now I know the average "good" atheist will respond with some shtick about how religion causes war and famine and blah, blah, blah, but you and I know that 99.9999% of so-called holy wars are nothing more than a struggle over resources (Palestine anyone?). Leaders justify sending the young to die by saying it's god's will, but it's nothing more than a way of getting the unwilling on board in the struggle to secure new territory/resources/power. That struggle will continue as long as there is life on this planet, regardless of ontological status of some weird supernatural being. Atheists often seem to either overlook or forget this when they get on their oh-so-rational high horses.

Atheism cannot be, rationally, argued for because as the poster above pointed out negative proof is not an option. That is not to say you have to be unreasonable to be an atheist, but there really is no reason for the theist to accept the atheist's position. The theist has tons of, albeit hokey and totally absurd, proof all around him. He's got scripture, miracles, and even the world itself. The atheist, by contrast, thinks he has "reason" on his side. What he really has is bupkiss. He can argue until the cows come home but he can never prove that god does not exist. The smart atheist knows this and simply redirects his focus toward matters he can actually have some effect on. The less intelligent atheist finds himself caught up in a game of metaphysical whack-a-mole.
 

INA

now! in shell form
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
3,195
MBTI Type
intp
Interesting, do you happen to have link/title for that study. I find them equally revolting myself? That said, I do recognize the value of religion and I think most people actually conflate their desire/need to belong to a religious community with a belief in god. Religion generally offers a great deal to adherents (support, a moral framework, financial help in times of need, social interaction, etc.). Vocal atheists often do nothing to help their fellow man. They seem hell bent on making others understand that god doesn't exist, offer nothing in place of religion, and then are puzzled why people don't just jump into the arms of reason . They don't contribute much to their communities, and they don't seem to serve any purpose other than to rain on other people's parades. If a person doesn't believe that god exists, good for them. Do they really need to share that believe with the people who don't want to hear it? Now I know the average "good" atheist will respond with some shtick about how religion causes war and famine and blah, blah, blah, but you and I know that 99.9999% of so-called holy wars are nothing more than a struggle over resources (Palestine anyone?). Leaders justify sending the young to die by saying it's god's will, but it's nothing more than a way of getting the unwilling on board in the struggle to secure new territory/resources/power. That struggle will continue as long as their is life on this planet, regardless of ontological status of some weird supernatural being. Atheists often seem to either overlook or forget this when they get on their oh-so-rational high horses.
Here's a link to an excerpt of the study. Americans down on atheists
Unfortunately you have to subscribe to get the full article from this site, but I'm sure if you poke around the net you can find it in full for free.
Excerpt:
Muslims, gays and lesbians don't win many popularity contests in America. But a recent study has discovered a group even more despised: atheists.

I don't hold out much hope for rational discussion with theists, so I don't find myself in vocal disagreements with them. Plus, I do respect the place of religion in society. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing - though it often has ill effects. I find much of it is beautiful or produces things of beauty that I appreciate. In my experience, though, it is usually the theists who start down the road of "but how did we come about and how do you have morals, blah blah blah" as soon as someone's lack of faith is made known. It makes sense: much of western religion (read: Christianity, not Judaism) mandates proselytizing, so I understand it but find it distasteful.

edit: here's another LINK to an article discussing the study.
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
That said, I do recognize the value of religion. I also think most people actually conflate their desire/need to belong to a religious community with a belief in god. Religion generally offers a great deal to adherents (support, a moral framework, financial help in times of need, social interaction, etc.). Vocal atheists often do nothing to help their fellow man. They seem hell bent on making others understand that god doesn't exist, offer nothing in place of religion, and then are puzzled why people don't just jump into the arms of reason . They don't contribute much to their communities, and they don't seem to serve any purpose other than to rain on other people's parades.

I think you've hit a good point here in that people are willing to rationalize a great deal in order to maintain the communal perks that religion offers to a group. People are social creatures and benefit greatly from interaction.

Though the grouping here may be unfair. Atheists do not band together under an umbrella because they are not a religion or even an organization. They won't do things "in the name of atheism" like a religious group may. Certainly there are a number of active communal and charitable efforts that exist outside the scope of religion.

Atheism cannot be, rationally, argued for because as the poster above pointed out negative proof is not an option. That is not to say you have to be unreasonable to be an atheist, but there really is no reason for the theist to accept the atheist's position. The theist has tons of, albeit hokey and totally absurd, proof all around him. He's got scripture, miracles, and even the world itself. The atheist, by contrast, thinks he has "reason" on his side. What he really has is bupkiss. He can argue until the cows come home but he can never prove that god does not exist. The smart atheist knows this and simply redirects his focus toward matters he can actually have some effect on. The less intelligent atheist finds himself caught up in a game of metaphysical whack-a-mole.

No. A negative proof is false claim to truth on something because it cannot be disproven. For example, say I claim moon men within the core of the moon control our actions via telepathy and only by sacrificing 10 tons of cheese to the lunar spirits every 28 days can we avoid eternal damnation. Can you disprove this? If not, then it's reasonable to believe it, according to the theist.

The problem with offering this concept to a theist is that they usually start of the position of god vs. no god. It's a black and white question. An atheist will see an infinite number of equally reasonable possibilities and conclude that throwing weight into anything outside direct observation only stands a (1/infinity) chance of being correct.
 

Sentura

Phoenix Incarnate
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
750
MBTI Type
ENXP
Enneagram
1w9
i treat atheism as a religion. while it may not be a proper label, it certainly makes things much more manageable in reference.
 

Synarch

Once Was
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,445
MBTI Type
ENTP
i treat atheism as a religion. while it may not be a proper label, it certainly makes things much more manageable in reference.

It's as much a leap of faith to believe in no God. They just can't see that.
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
It's as much a leap of faith to believe in no God. They just can't see that.

Read and learn:

And also the misunderstanding that atheism is the belief that god(s) does not exist. Rather, it is the nonbelief in god(s). There's a subtle difference. The first is a positive assertion, "I believe gods don't exist". The second is simply a denial of the position that gods exist.

Which for practical purposes, nulls the no evidence for no gods point. It isn't the atheist's job to prove that there is no god, but rather the theists job to provide evidence that there is a god.

</pet peeve>
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
How can you have a nonbelief? That's like having no money. What do you have?

Um... because I can? This is my position: I see no evidence for god, therefore I do not believe in it. It's that simple. If evidence were to surface, I would consider it, and if strong enough, I would believe in god. Naturally though, I don't completely reject the possibility of a god, so the technical term for my position would be agnostic atheist.

In fact most theists are also atheists in regards to other gods, I'm just an atheist to all of them.

How do I believe the universe started? No idea. I don't believe any theory, as there is no evidence for any of them. (Which btw, Big Bang theory isn't a theory of how the universe started. It doesn't describe what was before the Big Bang, if anything.)
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
I'm an Atheist in the sense that I don't believe in the Christian/Muslim(etc.) god in the same way that I don't believe in Zeus, Thor or Ra. I don't discount the possibility of their existence but I don't let that possibility influence how I live my life in any way.

I'm not sure why that should bother anyone.

Leaders justify sending the young to die by saying it's god's will, but it's nothing more than a way of getting the unwilling on board in the struggle to secure new territory/resources/power. That struggle will continue as long as there is life on this planet, regardless of ontological status of some weird supernatural being. Atheists often seem to either overlook or forget this when they get on their oh-so-rational high horses.

It does provide a veil of legitimacy and an acceptance of mad people/ideas, it does make justification of astrocities much easier. Although I think it's probable that if religion disappeared over night we would start seeing people as god-like. Faith seems to be a common psychological need.
 

Synarch

Once Was
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,445
MBTI Type
ENTP
Um... because I can? This is my position: I see no evidence for god, therefore I do not believe in it. It's that simple. If evidence were to surface, I would consider it, and if strong enough, I would believe in god. Naturally though, I don't completely reject the possibility of a god, so the technical term for my position would be agnostic atheist.

In fact most theists are also atheists in regards to other gods, I'm just an atheist to all of them.

How do I believe the universe started? No idea. I don't believe any theory, as there is no evidence for any of them. (Which btw, Big Bang theory isn't a theory of how the universe started. It doesn't describe what was before the Big Bang, if anything.)

That's like having a non-belief in Easter bunnies. How can you have a non-belief? Atheism is a reaction to theism rather than its own set of principles. It's the cognitive equivalent of "I don't like vegetables" to which I say, "Fine, don't eat any!" Don't start a club called "Down with vegetables" and try to make people bad or stupid for enjoying vegetables.

The only logical position on such subjects is to have no position. In the realm of science, we should make decisions based on what is provable, but this should really extend no further.
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
The only logical position on such subjects is to have no position. In the realm of science, we should make decisions based on what is provable, but this should really extend no further.

That is my position essentially. I do not believe in any theory as to how the universe started as none have any evidence for them. Which means of course that I do not believe in any theistic theory, ie, atheist.
 

INA

now! in shell form
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
3,195
MBTI Type
intp
A lot of times there's not much you can do about that attitude except ignore it and show by your actions that atheists are perfectly capable of being moral.

Precisely.
Still it is the case (as in this thread) that many force you to give them a smack-down with ridiculous inverted persecution complexes (yes, the atheists have historically been after Christians, pitchforks in hand -- not the other way around) and lazy, loud analogies.
 

Synarch

Once Was
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,445
MBTI Type
ENTP
That is my position essentially. I do not believe in any theory as to how the universe started as none have any evidence for them. Which means of course that I do not believe in any theistic theory, ie, atheist.

So, why don't you just claim to be an agnostic? Atheist is an assertion of disbelief, not lack of belief.

I am, for the record, agnostic.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
So, why don't you just claim to be an agnostic? Atheist is an assertion of disbelief, not lack of belief.

Atheism is not limited to an assertion of disbelief. You can be an agnostic theist, for example. They deal with separate things. Hell, most religious people are theistic agnostics, if you take a liberal interpretation of saying that "they don't know for sure but must still have faith".

I am an agnostic atheist, and I base this on my positive assertion behind my theory of knowledge - that absolute universal knowledge isn't possible (probably), and that the accuracy of knowledge is best judged from evidence, leading to a 1/infinite chance of religion being correct - approaching zero.

This leads me to a skeptical non-opinion about theistic belief.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
No. A negative proof is false claim to truth on something because it cannot be disproven. For example, say I claim moon men within the core of the moon control our actions via telepathy and only by sacrificing 10 tons of cheese to the lunar spirits every 28 days can we avoid eternal damnation. Can you disprove this? If not, then it's reasonable to believe it, according to the theist.

The problem with offering this concept to a theist is that they usually start of the position of god vs. no god. It's a black and white question. An atheist will see an infinite number of equally reasonable possibilities and conclude that throwing weight into anything outside direct observation only stands a (1/infinity) chance of being correct.

I think you're being a bit unfair to the theists. It's far more black and white to the atheists that I've encountered. Also the example you used is somewhat lacking. The empirical evidence that the theist uses to support his position is epistemically accessible to the atheist. The atheist just doesn't see it as evidence. Think here of Paley's Watchmaker. If you're not down with the teleological account you can go back to St. Anselm's "greatest possible being" or the Platonic "unmoved mover". Invoking absurd examples to empirically discredit the believer is shifty move that many atheists make. They misrepresent the true theist's position in order to make claims about the lack of rationality inherent in it. As a rational being, I find that problematic. The best an empiricist can do with a concept of god is deny it on the grounds of probability, but that's an inductive claim and inductive claims are, necessarily, limited in their scope of applicability to the natural world. If there's a supernatural being somehow responsible for it all we cannot have direct epistemic access to it simply because it is supernatural. You cannot prove or disprove it exists, because you cannot do anything at all with it, empirically. The theist and atheist end up being in the exact same place logically. The theist takes the leap of faith in one direction, the atheist in the other. The rest of us sit here wondering what the hell everyone is so excited about.
 
Top