Why are Atheists so Scary?

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

GoshisDead, I bet that as a child you have been continuously graded on regurgitating non-witchcraftist, non-unicornist, non-fairyist elements. Has that made disbelief in witches, unicorns, and fairies a large part of your self-esteem? I would be surprised if it had. More likely, these beings are non-entities to you, and as non-entities they have no impact on your self-esteem at all. That's the way atheists feel about god. As a non-entity, he plays no role in our self-esteem.

I haven't seen atheists proselythizing in this thread. I have seen atheists defending themselves against the charge that they are scary people, made by the initiator of this thread. Could you please cite examples of what you mean by proselythizing?

Am I assuming correctly that by "the justification for atheist belief", you mean biological evolution? You're speaking code here.

You act as If I have been twisting words and throwing sophistry against the wall to see if it will stick.

Reactionary poselyting = the initial reaction calling the OP ignorant, stupid etc... read my first post in the thread. Degradation is a form of proselyting, just like the complaints about fundamental religious proselyting and claims of degradation that have happened in the thread. There has also been a great deal of 'come on, if you are on the fence, just come over to our side its not so bad and you can have the added bonus of empirical solidity-ness". this is also proselyting. A defense woul be state your argument and let the argument stand without slander or coersion.

The child/education system commentary was just that, commentary. It is a fact that the educational system in modernized countries follows an scientific ideology. I for one appreciate it, its much more practical than the previous incarnations of educational systems. The commentary was that an atheism is going to be more and more accepted because of it. The commentary was also that the rise of fundamental organizations in very aggressive forms may be a reaction to the rise in instituitonalized science that may contradict a fundamental set of beliefs.

As for my disbelief in unicorns and such, that is an invalid argument in light of the educational system argument. No one in the fundamental movement is teaching unicorns to kids, they are teaching God. Kids do not even start developing higher rational thought process ability. These processes are not fully developed until the early 20's. If a kid is taught religion at home s/he has full reason to believe it until it is contradicted at school, and in the teen to twenties when the child is forming a true self identity they are likely to side with that which is not taught by parents. Kids cannot not be indoctrinated. It is not within their developmental ability as humans to not be indoctrinated. They can however after reaching the tail end of puberty begin to make real rational choices.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
2) They fear the disproportionate political impact of non-believers. Contrary to your plaintive question, non-believers in America do have a disproportionate degree of power. Whether or not this is good is another question, but the fact remains that it is the case.

Bullshit. The separation of church and state was intended to assure freedom of conscience for all believers in anything. It was not part of some deep laid plan on the part of a vanguard of crafty atheists. Jesus, the right wing will believe in conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat. The expression "wall of separation" come from a letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist congregation in Connecticut complaining about how they were treated by the established church in that state--the Congregationalists.

"In God We Trust" is printed on the goddamned money for Christ's sake. Stop making **** up, Finn.

Careful Setanta. These God botherers take offense real easy ya know. You've cursed and blasphemed in one post!

A fatwa/(insert your religious persecution of choice here) heading your way soon......

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

I think the rational choices can happen much earlier than you indicate. My husband was born into a very religious family but the idea of God was never intuitive to him, and at age eight or so it slid from a more general "this doesn't make sense but whatever," to "I'm not going to pretend I believe something I don't believe." He started actively rebelling, which met with resistance from his parents, but he stopped being religious (praying et al though he may have been forced to continue to go to church for a while) within a year or two.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

I'm not saying thgre aren't outliers, nor am I saying that rational skills are not present. I'm regurgitating the latest child development stuff, well maybe not latest, last class I took in educational child development was 5 years ago. The whole skill set is a process that takes over a decade to fully mature. In that time many things can happen.

I'm wondering, are emotions so high here that I cannot place a situation in a possible socio-political context via average biological and anthropological research?

To set the record straight here. I am a theist. I could care less if other people are atheists. I'm willing to preach if another tells me they are receptive, otherwise, I have no say in anyone else's choices. I got into this thread attempting to show that both sides of this argument are pretty much responsible and capable for and of the same types of behavior to the other side. It seems that my being a theist and defending the OP's post as an inquiry not a condemnation has automatically put others on the defense. Being part of an ideological group does that to people. I understand people have had traumatic experiences with others who do not believe the same thing. If you read my posts and an unbiased reader, you will likely find, no condemnation, and no value judgment other than that of being rude to other posters.

My main purpose of religious threads is that of analysing a function in a larger system. I find religions fascinating. I have worked directly with many of them, tribal to world in anthropological, linguisitc and ethnographical settings. So I am not in anyway judging atheism to be this or that. I am analysing out loud, so to speak, as I see it the function of these posts in a larger socio-political system.

4 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

I'm not saying thgre aren't outliers, nor am I saying that rational skills are not present. I'm regurgitating the latest child development stuff, well maybe not latest, last class I took in educational child development was 5 years ago. The whole skill set is a process that takes over a decade to fully mature. In that time many things can happen.

I'm wondering, are emotions so high here that I cannot place a situation in a possible socio-political context via average biological and anthropological research?

Did my post seem emotional to you? Because it wasn't, at all. I thought about your post, then realized it didn't seem entirely accurate, and posted my musings thereof.

Also because it went back to some of the "intuitive" stuff that had been talked about -- I realized that while it seems to make sense that children who are raised in religious families would find the concept of God intuitive, that's not always the case.

I'm not intending to say anything too general with a sample size of one, though.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Ah, I'm not implying intuition, although I have definite opinions about it, I was strictly keeping it to a child's normal acquisition of social identity, and that they normally aren't fully developmentally capable to make those sorts personal choices and maintain them diligently until much later when the curriculum of the educational system is not cohesive with most religious teachings. These two things combined, especially with the reinforcement of grading and diploma/degree seeking coupled with the general environment in non-religious universities make for an environment that allows that now grown child to make a definitive and maintainable choice to be atheist.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Goshi'sDead wrote:

I'm wondering, are emotions so high here that I cannot place a situation in a possible socio-political context via average biological and anthropological research?

No, some of us just think that what you're saying is wrong, and we're not shy to let you know. In this particular case, you made a very confident claim about developmental psychology. You made it without citing any scientific authority for it, and yet you expect us to take it as a finding of "average biological and anthropological research". Sorry, but that doesn't work here. If you want to appeal to the authority of scientific research, cite it. If you don't cite it, don't complain when people take your claim for nothing more than your own personal experience, and consider their own personal experience sufficient for rebutting it.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

You seem to be claiming that atheism is being proselytized through the institutions of secular education. Thomas and others have asked you to clarify why you think this is true. Are secular schools doing this intentionally? Do you feel that subjects such as science are taught for the purpose of discouraging any belief in a god or gods?

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

You seem to be claiming that atheism is being proselytized through the institutions of secular education. Thomas and others have asked you to clarify why you think this is true. Are secular schools doing this intentionally? Do you feel that subjects such as science are taught for the purpose of discouraging any belief in a god or gods?

Intentional, as proselyting for a religion, no. We are talking about seperate Ideas. Hard to separate and i don't want to write an essay. 1st Idea I am saying here in this thread there is definite proselyting as i described. 2nd idea The education systems are historical products of a series of socio-political trends which had the catylist of 'the enlightenment'. It is simply the way it is. The scientific paradigm is the current accepted paradigm, it might change, it might not. In being the current socially accepted paradigm for truth and education it has an institutionalized power and prestige which brings about the third idea. The third idea is that much of the current theist resentment against atheism is the reaction of being threatened by the growing general acceptance among the educated of the scientific paradigm upon which atheism as an identifier is built.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

You seem to be claiming that atheism is being proselytized through the institutions of secular education. Thomas and others have asked you to clarify why you think this is true. Are secular schools doing this intentionally? Do you feel that subjects such as science are taught for the purpose of discouraging any belief in a god or gods?

Intentional, as proselyting for a religion, no. We are talking about seperate Ideas. Hard to separate and i don't want to write an essay. 1st Idea I am saying here in this thread there is definite proselyting as i described. 2nd idea The education systems are historical products of a series of socio-political trends which had the catylist of 'the enlightenment'. It is simply the way it is. The scientific paradigm is the current accepted paradigm, it might change, it might not. In being the current socially accepted paradigm for truth and education it has an institutionalized power and prestige which brings about the third idea. The third idea is that much of the current theist resentment against atheism is the reaction of being threatened by the growing general acceptance among the educated of the scientific paradigm upon which atheism as an identifier is built.

So, in summary

You're generally unhappy about one of the most likely consequences of a sound education in the material facts of life as far as we understand them is that a growing number of people tend to conclude atheism is the most plasuable view of existence they can take. As a consequence of the above, you are also generally unahppy that a growing number of people think that your theist beliefs are silly at best and perncious/dangerous at worst.

Excuse me while I fret over the threat to your theist sensibilities.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Goshi'sDead wrote:
I'm wondering, are emotions so high here that I cannot place a situation in a possible socio-political context via average biological and anthropological research?

No, some of us just think that what you're saying is wrong, and we're not shy to let you know. In this particular case, you made a very confident claim about developmental psychology. You made it without citing any scientific authority for it, and yet you expect us to take it as a finding of "average biological and anthropological research". Sorry, but that doesn't work here. If you want to appeal to the authority of scientific research, cite it. If you don't cite it, don't complain when people take your claim for nothing more than your own personal experience, and consider their own personal experience sufficient for rebutting it.

I mean really? I am the only one required to cite?

Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations Michael Cole editor

Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (Topics in Applied Psycholinguistics)
Larry Selinker Editor

Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction
Ralph Tyler

There now back your own stuff up.
Wow that was the only post that almost upset me.
Congrats

1 Reply

@stevecook172001,

stevecook172001 wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

You seem to be claiming that atheism is being proselytized through the institutions of secular education. Thomas and others have asked you to clarify why you think this is true. Are secular schools doing this intentionally? Do you feel that subjects such as science are taught for the purpose of discouraging any belief in a god or gods?

Intentional, as proselyting for a religion, no. We are talking about seperate Ideas. Hard to separate and i don't want to write an essay. 1st Idea I am saying here in this thread there is definite proselyting as i described. 2nd idea The education systems are historical products of a series of socio-political trends which had the catylist of 'the enlightenment'. It is simply the way it is. The scientific paradigm is the current accepted paradigm, it might change, it might not. In being the current socially accepted paradigm for truth and education it has an institutionalized power and prestige which brings about the third idea. The third idea is that much of the current theist resentment against atheism is the reaction of being threatened by the growing general acceptance among the educated of the scientific paradigm upon which atheism as an identifier is built.

So, in summary

You're generally unahppy that a growing majority think that your beliefs are silly at best and perncious/dangerous at worst.

Excuse me while I fret over the threat to your theist sensibilities.

No not unhappy at all, read the prior posts, I'm placing both arguments in context of a larger societal system. I am fully aware that my beliefs are silly and fully aware of their contradiction to the current truth paradigm. I also fully don't care that they are silly. They are what I deem to be true. Have you seen me preaching to you. trying to tear you or your beliefs down, Call you stupid or silly, make outrageous claims on your morality, or even claim that your are wrong in anyway?

When you watch two people arguing, whether or not you agree more with one than the other, are you not able to make a reserved observation about the argument and its context? Are you not able to see both sides and relate those? Theism does not automatically a raving lunatic make.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

You seem to be claiming that atheism is being proselytized through the institutions of secular education. Thomas and others have asked you to clarify why you think this is true. Are secular schools doing this intentionally? Do you feel that subjects such as science are taught for the purpose of discouraging any belief in a god or gods?

Intentional, as proselyting for a religion, no. We are talking about seperate Ideas. Hard to separate and i don't want to write an essay. 1st Idea I am saying here in this thread there is definite proselyting as i described. 2nd idea The education systems are historical products of a series of socio-political trends which had the catylist of 'the enlightenment'. It is simply the way it is. The scientific paradigm is the current accepted paradigm, it might change, it might not. In being the current socially accepted paradigm for truth and education it has an institutionalized power and prestige which brings about the third idea. The third idea is that much of the current theist resentment against atheism is the reaction of being threatened by the growing general acceptance among the educated of the scientific paradigm upon which atheism as an identifier is built.

Personally, I think "paradigm" is an overused term. Educated people can accept science for what it is: natural explanations of natural phenomena. There is plenty of room for educated people to speculate on phenomena that transcend nature.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

....Have you seen me preaching to you. trying to tear you or your beliefs down, Call you stupid or silly, make outrageous claims on your morality, or even claim that your are wrong in anyway?....

And so here we have it...The central reason why religion is so distruted, so untrustworthy and so dangerous.

The very nature of religion means that the holders of such beliefs cannot seperate those beliefs from their own identity. Thus, to critcise the belief is to critisise the person holding it. It's essentially an infantile belief system in this regard. This would harldy matter except that it is held by adult humans who have used their religious beliefs as justification for more murder, mayhem and misery throughout the entirety of human civilisation than any damn thing else.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Paradigm might be an overused term. Yet it is normative the terminology used for what I was expressing. And I totally agree that the educational system can and probably should speculate in the trans-natural.

1 Reply

@stevecook172001,

stevecook172001 wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

....Have you seen me preaching to you. trying to tear you or your beliefs down, Call you stupid or silly, make outrageous claims on your morality, or even claim that your are wrong in anyway?....

And so here we have it...The central reason why religion is so distruted, so untrustworthy and so dangerous.

The very nature of religion means that the holders of such beliefs cannot seperate those beliefs from their own identity. Thus, to critcise the belief is to critisise the person holding it. It's essentially an infantile belief system in this regard. This would harldy matter except that it is held by adult humans who have used their religious beliefs as justification for more murder, mayhem and misery throughout the entirety of human civilisation than any damn thing else.

Point proven for all my previous posts. Human behavior demonstrated by every political power structure ever recorded scape goated onto a bogeyman.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Thanks for the references. I'll see if I can find them in the library, and whether they really say that it isn't until their teens or twenties that kids reach conclusions different from what their parents tell them.[/quote]

GoshisDead wrote:

There now back your own stuff up.

Sure! Remind me again, which claims have I asked you to accept on the authority of science, without citing the science whose authority I was appealing to? I'll be happy to give you the quotes.

GoshisDead wrote:

Wow that was the only post that almost upset me.
Congrats

You're such a drama king it's almost cute.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

That was a useful post on the various charities, Set.

1 Reply

@squinney,

squinney wrote:

Gracie was very hurt by this until I pointed out that you had said "...one of..."

Awwww.... please give my love to Gracie.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

....Have you seen me preaching to you. trying to tear you or your beliefs down, Call you stupid or silly, make outrageous claims on your morality, or even claim that your are wrong in anyway?....

And so here we have it...The central reason why religion is so distruted, so untrustworthy and so dangerous.

The very nature of religion means that the holders of such beliefs cannot seperate those beliefs from their own identity. Thus, to critcise the belief is to critisise the person holding it. It's essentially an infantile belief system in this regard. This would harldy matter except that it is held by adult humans who have used their religious beliefs as justification for more murder, mayhem and misery throughout the entirety of human civilisation than any damn thing else.

Point proven for all my previous posts. Human behavior demonstrated by every political power structure ever recorded scape goated onto a bogeyman.

In a world without falsifiable belief systems (including most perniciously, religion), good men do good things and bad men do bad things

However, it takes a non falsifiable belief system to make good men do bad things.

2 Replies

Why are Atheists so Scary?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know