Why are atheists thought ill of?

[Mole]

Sam Harris

If you look at atheists, such as Sam Harris, on Youtube, you see how balanced and sensible and sane they are compared to the believers.

And ever since the destruction of the Twin Towers, we have been alert to the destructive power of belief.

And until 9/11 we were content to let believers wallow in their paranoia and continue to worship the god or gods of their choice.

But the right of believers to swing their fist stops where my nose begins. And unfortunately believers are not stopping at the tip of my nose.

And so we invoke our right of self defence.

And Sam Harris leads our defence.

 

[Sniffles]

But the right of believers to swing their fist stops where my nose begins. And unfortunately believers are not stopping at the tip of my nose.

Which goes to show how truely sane believers are in the end!

 

[Mole]

Which goes to show how truely sane believers are in the end!

There is truth and real Truth with a capital T.

And there are the sane and the truly sane.

Both illustrate the logical fallacy called, "The no true Scotsman fallacy".

 

[Sniffles]

Victor, perhaps it'd be better if you adopt a kitten or take up a hobby, it will ease the anger you have towards God when, for example, your ice cream cone falls to the floor, you get a hangnail, or your lotto ticket isn't a winning one.

 

[Mole]

Victor, perhaps it'd be better if you adopt a kitten or take up a hobby, it will ease the anger you have towards God when, for example, your ice cream cone falls to the floor, you get a hangnail, or your lotto ticket isn't a winning one.

It's the anger of believers I am worried about.

And of course believers project their anger onto their god in order to justify and explain their anger.

I mean the kind of god who orders jihad and martyrdom, the domination of dhimmi and the killing of infidels, is a reflection of the anger of believers.

But believers refuse to own their own anger and continue to project it onto their god.

And this give them carte blanche to act out their anger on us.

And they do -

Believers have been caught just the other day in New York planting explosives to blow up synagogues and Jews, and about to shoot down aircraft with guided missiles.

 

[heart]

To be fair I've seen antheists just as angry and saying that believers need to be eliminated. I fear fanatical atheists just as much as any fanatical believer.

 

[Nadir]

-Atheists are without morals
-Atheists cannot be normal nice people
-Atheism promotes lawlessness
-Atheists are arrogant because they don't believe there is something higher than them
-Atheists don't have a sense of purpose in life
-Atheists don't deserve the same respect as everyone else
-Atheists don't respect other people
-A rise in Atheism is making the planet corrupt
-If you say you are an Atheist you are trying to convert everyone to your beliefs which is wrong but it's OK to try to convert an Atheist
-It's OK to question Atheists about why they don't believe in God but not OK for them to question why people do.

All of these are the same, and they stem from a simple belief that ethics and ethical behaviour are inseperable from religion. There's no need to go into dubious psychoanalysis or anything of that sort. Now, I obviously don't think there's such a marriage. You don't need to fear God's retribution to understand that theft, assault, murder etc. are reprehensible or that helping others is its own reward. Societal rewards and consequences, behavioural ethics can fill whatever gaps the absence of religion might leave.

But that's all negligible: what's important about the quoted belief is that you can't possibly prove it to be incorrect: there's no way to disprove the above claims as they are not really falsifiable ideas. Moral decadence, lawlesness, niceness, sense of purpose, etc. can all be attributed to various reasons and mechanisms, but people can choose to attribute all these to atheism as well and there's not much you can do about it.

If you were to, say, convince a religious individiual with the above beliefs that you are not really amoral or lawless, he/she can just as easily spurn you on the grounds that you're trying to spread your obvious decadence to him/herself and refute you that way. Now this may not be a "reasonable" approach, as in, cause and effect relationships don't play into it. But even that attitude is consistent within its principles (of the above beliefs) and there's nothing you can say to "prove" the opposing side is making a mistake. In such a case, there's truly nothing to do: all you can hope for is that the person is open-minded or will have an eye-opening experience at some point which will let that person him/herself divorce religion from ethical awareness.

 

[Mole]

To be fair I've seen antheists just as angry and saying that believers need to be eliminated. I fear fanatical atheists just as much as any fanatical believer.

Well, the next time you find an atheist planting explosives to blow up synagogues and Jews in New York, and ready to shoot down aircraft with guided missiles at JFK airport, let me know.

 

[Jaguar]

Hey, not bad, Jaguar; you've established yourself as an offical TypologyC troll in less than 200 posts.

If stating an opinion makes one a troll, we have an entire forum of trolls.
Your post doesn't make much sense.

 

[Mole]

If stating an opinion makes one a troll, we have an entire forum of trolls.
Your post doesn't make much sense.

Yes, to call someone a troll here is simply an insult.

And it is an insult masquerading as concern for the common good.

 

[professor goodstain]

Yes, to call someone a troll here is simply an insult.

Isn't it also a bigger insult to be called someone who sticks up for pederasses?

 

[ThinkingAboutIt]

I wasn't aware that they were 'ill thought of' because they were an atheist. Seems to me, atheists are more 'accepted' than christians that live what they believe are?

 

[porous_shield]

I think there's a tendency with atheists to purposefully set themselves apart and hope they're offensive to religious people. So I also think that the extent to which atheists are "thought ill of" is probably exaggerated by atheists themselves.

I think that's definitely a problem of how atheists are seen and how many behave. If they act more out of rebellion and to be offensive, like you say, it removes some of their credibility since their atheism is seemingly for the wrong reasons.

I've never believed in any being of any sort. I remember being in bed when I was about four and trying to figure out where I would go after I died. I came to the conclusion I be in the same state as before I was born. For me, not believing in a deity is as natural as breathing, but I have a friend who's beliefs are because he's rebelling from his staunchly religious mother and he is quite a bit more fanatical. He is quite active in forcing it down people's throats. I think its the difference between those who are at peace with their beliefs and those who aren't.

 

[Take Five]

Just curious, was Stalin a believer?

Anyway, blaming the angst of religious folks for violence is not a good assessment, especially since the branch of Islam most associated with it here is a radical one. Radical religion is only as dangerous as any other radical.

It could be that places in which atheism is in the majority are reacting against their past in which religion played a major role, and resulted in major problems.

I think it is definite that the context in which one lives largely influences their degree of belief or disbelief. In an atheist context of living, how would one have easy access to religious knowledge, and vice versa?

 

[Sniffles]

If stating an opinion makes one a troll, we have an entire forum of trolls.

You were not stating an opinion, but making knee-jerk remarks about my faith.

Your post doesn't make much sense.

Then place me on ignore, and move on with life. I won't shed a damn tear.

 

[Warm]

I wasn't aware that they were 'ill thought of' because they were an atheist. Seems to me, atheists are more 'accepted' than christians that live what they believe are?

 

[Spartacuss]

I wonder if atheists are still bottom of the barrel in the U.S. after the notorious antics of the Westboro Baptist Church...

 

[Mole]

I wonder if atheists are still bottom of the barrel in the U.S. after the notorious antics of the Westboro Baptist Church...

Here an atheist is at the top of our barrel - just look to your left to gaze into the eyes of our Prime Ministerial atheist. Say G'day to Julia, but hold your breath, and don't hold her gaze for too long. lest you become an atheist too.

 

[swordpath]

Atheists are thought ill of because their views and questioning threaten traditional, prevalanet judeo-christian beliefs. No more no less really.

 

[jcloudz]

they`re believed to not have compassion because they don`t serve god. they are free agents unbound. this is from the people i have met. im agnostic