Reply
Fri 16 Mar, 2007 05:41 am
What is the difference between an atheist attacking a theist over their views, and a theist attacking an atheist over their views?
Of course, I am being very broad here, for there are non-christian deists, agnostics, and buddhists on the forum also, who don't seem to fit into the equation. But I suppose what Im mainly talking about is atheists vs christians/jews/muslims.
One difference could be that when an atheist attacks a religious person over their views, the religious person not only gets offended, but sees the atheist as blasphemous and wrong.
Atheists can also see the religious person as being wrong, but not blasphemous (although, maybe out of order).
I am an agnostic/atheist, and I do not necessarily see religious people as always being wrong, sometimes just different.
I think a point that is often forgotten is that being an atheist means that you do not believe in any gods, not that you believe in nothing. I think this point is sometimes forgotten by religious people/ theists. They can often attack an atheist's 'non-beliefs' without realising that the atheist does have beliefs, just not a belief in a deity.
I am sure the opposite situation can occur but I think this can lead atheists to sometimes feel as if the religious people are 'looking down' on them. A lot of christians have quoted the Bible at me on the S&R forum, and it's like, what's the point? I don't believe in it!
Quote:Quoting the bible to prove a point, IMO, shows intellectual laziness. Then again, the use of the intellect and militant religion, is by definition, polar opposites.
...and atheists usually view religious people as intellectual inferiors.
I've always been amused by the presumed intellectual superiority of the garden variety atheist.
The Pentacle Queen wrote:'garden variety?'
Present company excepted, OF COURSE!
neologist wrote:I've always been amused by the presumed intellectual superiority of the garden variety atheist.
There is a large number of those of whom i think as the "professional" atheists, or the "religious" atheists. By that, i mean those who make a point of publicly professing their religion, which happens to go by the name of atheism, but which has "Science" as its deity. For the atheists of that stripe (and which might be those to whom Neo refers as "garden variety), a superstitious belief in science as though it were religious dogma, combined with an actual profound ignorance of science--no other conclusion seems reasonable to me than that they make a religion of their "atheism."
I'm not sure if that's what Neo meant . . . but he's a coffee-abuser, and is probably too keyed up to know himself.
kate4christ03 wrote:...and atheists usually view religious people as intellectual inferiors.
Only if they usually present themselves that way
Setanta wrote:neologist wrote:I've always been amused by the presumed intellectual superiority of the garden variety atheist.
There is a large number of those of whom i think as the "professional" atheists, or the "religious" atheists. By that, i mean those who make a point of publicly professing their religion, which happens to go by the name of atheism, but which has "Science" as its deity. For the atheists of that stripe (and which might be those to whom Neo refers as "garden variety), a superstitious belief in science as though it were religious dogma, combined with an actual profound ignorance of science--no other conclusion seems reasonable to me than that they make a religion of their "atheism."
I'm not sure if that's what Neo meant . . . but he's a coffee-abuser, and is probably too keyed up to know himself.
A self confessed javaholic.
Re: 'Sharpshooting' atheists and religious people.
The Pentacle Queen wrote:What is the difference between an atheist attacking a theist over their views, and a theist attacking an atheist over their views?
I don't think either one sees the other the way they assume they are being seen.
The atheist thinks he's attacking a "view". The theist see an attack on God himself.
The theist sees the atheist as someone lacking all the information, or willfully denying the obvious, who needs to be shown how wrong they are.
It's the chalk attacking the cheese for being terrible on a blackboard, while the cheese thinks the chalk tastes bad.
Yeah I think thats a good difference.
I love your opening post, Pentacle Queen!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace