Why are Atheists so Scary?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You've answered your question.

You might have been more precise (Why are Atheists so scary to me) and avoided some of the displays of sensitivity we've seen in this thread.

Yes I am quickly learning my sensitivity is taken as either my weakness or my antagonism.
Grow some plums me thinks, or not

Not your sensitivity, the sensitivity of the people who feel you have offended them.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It is amusing though when the offended go on the offense...in spades.

I did not find it in the slightest amusing.
But if it made you smile, I am glad it at least did that.

Well thanks. It did make me smile.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I know a lot of aetheists and they don't seem, as a rule, particularly angry. Sure, the ones who make a crusade of their right not to have the word "god" mentioned in their presence are generally filled with anger, and many may feel their blood pressure go up when people like me say I feel sorry for them, but I think it would be difficult to legitmately associate any one emotional characteristic to folks who consider themselves aetheists.

There is saying you feel sorry for someone and belittling them and saying you feel sorry for some one and try to be compassionate, I hope you practice the latter.

I think this is an example of a reason people find it difficult to converse with you. You seem to feel a need to preach.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I will give you this though, quite a few aetheists do seem to justify their belief, or lack thereof, with a certain degree of outrage over the notion of a benign God allowing the suffereing that takes place on earth. In thinking back on such exchanges it does seem that they are often angry at a being they profess not to believe in.

As for your Truth, I get the impression from your one statement that you like to believe it more than you embrace it. Admittedly though, you haven't given us all that much to go on.

My Truth with the capital was meant to indicate that my Truth was God.
Oh Christianity is so hard to embrace, I used to be a pagan and find myself slipping regularly into those ways.
But I love Jesus Christ and I love my almost Christianity and worship my Scriptures.
That is about all I have to say right now as I am winding down.

Pleased to meet you.

I've nothing to add beyond what I already wrote.

So did this part of the discussion move or are we still on this thread? I couldn't tell. Will cross-post if need be.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If you wish to insist that there is as much intuitive reason to believe in unicorns as there is to believe in God, so be it.

I'm not going to push the matter beyond noting how amazing it is that intelligent people will so often rely on ignorance when it suits them.

You made an important change to what I said. I am not saying anything so general. You clearly find the belief in god to be intuitive. Littlek and I do not -- and you have been asking us about why we do not believe. I think that may be one important piece of it. The intuitiveness that you take for granted does not exist... for us.

Sorry sozobe but you introduced the unicorn analogy. Don't fault me because I responded to it.

I'm not complaining about the unicorn part. I'm talking specifically about the intuitiveness factor right now. I think that's actually really central.

I'll stop saying "we" because I'm uncomfortable speaking at length for littlek and others who seem to think similarly, will take it back to just me.

The idea of A Singular God has never been intuitive to me.

Now, I want to be sure I'm separating something out. I'm explaining my own thinking, after requests for just that. The corollary is NOT that I think that people who believe in God are just as silly as people who believe in unicorns. The analogy doesn't go both ways. It's simply a thought experiment -- since I surmised (correctly) that you don't believe in unicorns, that non-belief you already have can be compared to my non-belief in any gods.

Since you DO believe in God, I have to use an analogy of something YOU don't believe in to demonstrate how inconsequential -- to ME -- this non-belief is.

This does not mean that I think your own belief in your God is inconsequential. Again, I am not anti-religion, and know many intelligent, logical people who are religious. I don't think they are silly or illogical for believing in God (the way I would think they are silly or illogical for believing in unicorns). I think that faith can transcend logic and that the very transcendence can be an important and valuable force in many people's lives.

The context here, though, is explaining my own lack of religion, and how that doesn't trouble me as much as many theists imagine.

And I think that this "intuitive" stuff has actually led to a pretty interesting insight. If a belief in God is seen by theists as universally intuitive, that would explain some of the lens littlek was talking about. If theists assume that we all start out believing in God and then have to cast it off somehow, have to rebel, be turned off, ACT in some way to go back on that intuition, that explains some of the ascription of motive that doesn't always exist.

Quote:

If you don't find a belief in God to be intuitive, that's fine, but don't try and compare it to a belief in unicorns if you don't want to be called on your comparison.

Hopefully the above made this clear, but to reiterate, the fact that I don't find a belief in God intuitive is very much a central point. It's answering your question, without casting aspersions on your own belief. It's not a two-way analogy, it's simply a way of helping you to understand MY mindset on this issue.

Quote:

How did it all start?

You can't answer that question of course, but tell me why "I have no effin clue," is more intellectually compelling than "There must have been a creative force?"

Because I don't see any evidence for a creative force. And I guess more to the point, what difference does it make? If the Big Bang occurred because a creative force said "make it so," does that significantly change anything? As I said in my response to F'art's thread, the line between "wow nature!" and "wow God!" is pretty fine when it comes to just creation -- just the initial spark that led to the Big Bang. I think it's nature, not God, but I'm agnostic... I'm willing to be convinced, one way or another. In terms of belief, of faith, I don't currently think any kind of god had anything to do with it.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

littlek wrote:

Shall we all try to agree that MOST theists do not try to cram their religion down others' throats and that MOST atheists, likewise, do not try to persuade anyone into atheism (the notion is ridiculous to me). The people who take either tact are the proverbial squeaky wheels that make the rest of us resentful at best.

All that aside, there is still the consideration of basic communication, civility and tolerance. Accept for one attempt here on a2k, I NEVER open up a conversation about my atheism with someone I don't know well. I also never open up a conversation about someone else's beliefs. Conversations generally occur after someone is being religious at me and getting upset about me. I have had more than one person yell at me for saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Yes YELL at me while including all the other assholes who may go that route as well. Usually when I say that I am referring to Christmas and New Years. How bizarre that reaction is to me I can't even seem to explain.

It does seem as though theists are afraid of us. I also can't fathom why that is. Aside from the loud, shrill and antagonistic atheists who are reported to be out there we are normal, well-adjusted, happy, polite members of society. If most of us atheists can look past the shrill theists, of which there are MANY more, why can't you look past our version?

Doesn't the mere fact that there are so fewer of us than you make you feel better, help you realize that we have no power over you?

Not sure who these comments are directed towards.

I, at least, can agree with your first assertion that the battle between believers and non-believers plays out only in the margins.

If you don't appreciate a poster's "attack" on your atheism you have two very powerful and totally effective responses: withdraw from participation in the thread or ignore the attacker.

The self-assumed role of atheist victim is unbecoming.

"Believers" have two reasons to "fear" unbelivers:

1) They are uncertain in their belief and fear what may be the truth
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.

wouldnt those be excuses rather than reasons? and i would also posit that unbelievers have the very same excuses in fearing believers.

but most interesting is your comment that unbelievers are running the show in usa. i thought it was the christian born-again right wing. i sincerely hope you are right...hallelujiah and amen.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:

The definition of "cool" doesn't include atheism.

sozobe wrote:

No ****. (What does that have to do with anything?)

You know, this fascinated me.

I think what it has to do with anything is that Finn REALLY believes, ultimately, that people who do not share his views are actually only pretending not to because they think the beliefs they "pretend" to have make them appear cool.

It explains so much of his manner when posting, and so much of his unpleasantness, as well as stuff like his seeing atheism as a rebellion.

I bet he thinks all "liberals" are3 just trying to look cool!

When your advice is "hit the road" or "turn the other cheek", yes, I do.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A common theme within the justification of atheist thought is the inability to reconcile human suffering with a God of any sort, let alone a just and loving one.

I don't know of any atheists who feel obliged to "justify atheist thought," much less object to the imaginary friend superstition on such a basis. You've constructed an elaborate straw man there, but your premise is undemonstrated, and, i suspect, not demonstrable. It's rather sad that you suckered people into discussing this blather with you subsequently.

What are your reasons for not believing?

I'm more than willing to listen.

Okay. Your world has two "options".

Small world.

Wow, I do realize there was a long delay but way to utterly miss the point.

I did say pretty clearly that I do NOT think belief in God is as silly as belief in unicorns. I've said repeatedly that I am not anti-religion.

I'm doing something else. I responded to a question you asked:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What are your reasons for not believing?

I'm more than willing to listen.

http://able2know.org/topic/153140-17#post-4181313

(This question was addressed to F'Art, not me, but since I am another nonbeliever I took the opportunity to respond.)

Unicorns came up in my answer to that question. It is about why I don't believe in any gods. About my mindset.

There was no value judgment in my response -- it was merely an attempt to give you insight on this particular nonbeliever's nonbelief.

The reasons I don't believe in any gods are approximately the same as the reasons that I -- and probably you -- don't believe in unicorns.

It's not seated in rebellion, or traumatic experiences, or anything like that. God, to me, is simply not plausible. Similar to how unicorns are not plausible to you.

That's all.