Some questions to the "atheists/non-believers"

[Aldebaran]

I looked at some of the exchanges between "atheists/non-believers" and people who believe in the existence of God (I made a few posts in such threads too).

A few things look very strange to me when reading such threads.
1. The "non-believers" seem to post in a very defensive mindset.
2. If not defensive this group often posts denigrating remarks about the "believers" (even up to the point of questioning their mental capacities or mental health).
3. If a "believer" declares to have no problem whatsoever with the results of scientific research, "non-believers" don't seem to have the ability to place this within the frame of their own ideas about "believers". They still proclaim the "believer" to be mentally incapable.

I would like to know/get an understanding of the causes behind this.

salaam.
Aldebaran.
non-retarded believer

 

[spanglechick]

For me, buying into the story behind one of the world religions is supersticious at best and at worse, rather like believing in santa claus.

If i found an otherwise intelligent adult who beileved in santa, i'd have to conclude that they were a little different in their logical faculties. I'd also tend to assume that this was harless, and to be ignored - unless they were making the world harder for other people to be in.

 

[Santino]

For a start, atheists posting in this forum are a self-selecting group of people who, by definition, feel strongly enough about their (non)beliefs to articulate them on a message board. They are, therefore, more than likely to be defensive and aggressive about such things, and to insult 'believers'. People often insult people who don't share the same ideas - whether it is about the fundamental nature of the Universe or which sports team to support or which Star Wars trilogy is better.

Atheists are no more or less likely than religious people to be aggressive or insulting. For every atheist who thinks that a Christian* is 'a mental' there's a Christian who thinks an atheist is damned to an eternity of suffering. Now there's an offensive opinion to express: 'I think you're going to Hell.' By comparison implying that someone is irrational or deranged is relatively mild.

There is no such thing as a typical atheist. Atheism has no credo or code to live by. One might as well talk about the sort of person who doesn't live in South America - they have no feature common to them other than they don't believe in an all-powerful god. Their other beliefs about the universe and morality and everything else can be completely different.

So, there's no way you can 'get an understanding' of the atheist mindset, because there is no such thing, and it's quite a patronising attitude to think that there is one.



*Or Muslim or whatever.

 

[gentlegreen]

For me, buying into the story behind one of the world religions is supersticious at best and at worse, rather like believing in santa claus.

If i found an otherwise intelligent adult who beileved in santa, i'd have to conclude that they were a little different in their logical faculties. I'd also tend to assume that this was harless, and to be ignored - unless they were making the world harder for other people to be in.

You mean you don't believe in santa claus

burn the witch !!

 

[Aldebaran]

For me, buying into the story behind one of the world religions is supersticious at best and at worse, rather like believing in santa claus.

1. Why?
2. I don't mention "religions". I mentioned the belief in what people commonly call "God", be it with different words depedning their language.

If i found an otherwise intelligent adult who beileved in santa, i'd have to conclude that they were a little different in their logical faculties.

There is no comparision possible between a belief in the existence of God and a belief in a figure that only exists in the Christian-inspired societies (and probably based on the lifestory of a Bishop who did exist) and from which the "appearances" at that differ depending the Western nation or society.

I'd also tend to assume that this was harless, and to be ignored - unless they were making the world harder for other people to be in.

God - or even religion - is not aimed at "making the world harder to live in". You merely talk about perceived actions of humans. Do you claim that no atheist makes - or ever made - the world harder to live in?
If you can't make such a claim, then why do you want to create an artificial distinction between humans and what they are capable of (in the sense of good and evil) while in reality no such distinction exists?

salaam.

 

[TeeJay]

For me, buying into the story behind one of the world religions is supersticious at best and at worse, rather like believing in santa claus.

But saying someone believes in "god" can mean all sorts of things. It doesn't necessarily involve being christian/muslim/hindu/jewish or whatever, and even then there are many different things people can believe.

Just as "santa" is a useful symbol or embodiment and used in various roles and contexts, so can the concept or idea of "god".

I am not religious myself. Agnostic probably be closest - although this is a negative and 'reactive' description which is relative to other ideas which I don't find that relevant to describing what I do believe. On the other hand I would say I am "spiritual" although I don't buy into dualism (ie the idea of a non-physical spirit) ... I have a "morality" but again it isn't based on any religion.

It often makes me laugh to see how "anti-religion" some people are who then buy into a whole body of ideology which is often just as tenuous and fantastical, and how poeople buy into all sorts of morality and received ways of thinking that they can't justify 'rationally' and 'logically', while at the same time throwing massive abusive at people for supposedly exactly the same reasons.

 

[TeeJay]

2. I don't mention "religions". I mentioned the belief in what people commonly call "God", be it with different words depedning their language.

What - or who - is "God"?

 

[girasol]

I'm an atheist but I'm not one to go around ridiculing/challenging people who have a religion/believe in God. Each to their own, innit? As long as they don't try and 'convert' me, that's fine.

Some of my best friends believe in God

 

[Aldebaran]

For a start, atheists posting in this forum are a self-selecting group of people who, by definition, feel strongly enough about their (non)beliefs to articulate them on a message board.

I'm a bit lost... Why would anyone need "strenght" to "articulate" a non-belief in God on a message board?
Do you think I need such a "strenght" to be able to say I do belief in God? If not: Why does an atheist needs it while I don't, in your view?

They are, therefore, more than likely to be defensive and aggressive about such things, and to insult 'believers'.

Again: Why?

Atheists are no more or less likely than religious people to be aggressive or insulting. For every atheist who thinks that a Christian* is 'a mental' there's a Christian who thinks an atheist is damned to an eternity of suffering. Now there's an offensive opinion to express: 'I think you're going to Hell.'

1. Why would it even bother an atheist, who by definition does not believe in "hell" that someone who does believe in it says such a thing?
2. Saying "I think you go to hell....." is in my view not an insult. Claiming 'you GO to hell" on the other hand only shows the stupid arrogance of the one who makes the claim. (and it is blasphemy to claim that you know what God would decide about someone.)

By comparison implying that someone is irrational or deranged is relatively mild.

1. You don't believe in God, heaven, hell = nothing ever said about that can bother you
2. you believe in irrationality = if you call someone irrational that is deliberately aiming to insult.

There is no such thing as a typical atheist. Atheism has no credo or code to live by.

I said: "atheists/non believers". I didn't say" typical" nor did I mention "universe" or "morality".
To me it comes down to "not believing in God". That is what "atheists/non believers" have in common, no? Or do you have gradations in that?

So, there's no way you can 'get an understanding' of the atheist mindset, because there is no such thing, and it's quite a patronising attitude to think that there is one.

I never mentioned “atheist mindset” and I can take it for quite a bit of a patronising attitude to declare that I am incapable to come to an understanding of the answers I hope to receive.
Maybe you could re-read with a lesser dose of prejudice?

salaam.

 

[Santino]

Well, I'll try to pick my way through your post, as baffling as it is. No offence, but is English your first language?

I'm a bit lost... Why would anyone need "strenght" to "articulate" a non-belief in God on a message board?
Do you think I need such a "strenght" to be able to say I do belief in God? If not: Why does an atheist needs it while I don't, in your view?

It's not about strength, or even "strenght". It's about feeling strongly, i.e. having a passionate belief. Please try to understand.

Again: Why?

Because people who don't care that much don't bother to post. Do you see?

1. Why would it even bother an atheist, who by definition does not believe in "hell" that someone who does believe in it says such a thing?

I have many religious friends. I would be upset if they thought bad things about me. It is human nature. It is also extremely rude. I don't go round telling religious people that they are delusional. I have better manners.

I said: "atheists/non believers". I didn't say" typical" nor did I mention "universe" or "morality".

My point is that all atheists are different, so trying to get an understanding of why they do things is doomed to failure. People being aggressive is down to their individual psychology, not their metaphysical beliefs.

To me it comes down to "not believing in God". That is what "atheists/non believers" have in common, no? Or do you have gradations in that?

There are indeed gradations. Some people happen to think that there isn't enough evidence to support the idea there is a god. Some think that there definitely isn't a god. I happen to think that the very idea of a supreme being is incoherent.

I think it is quite patronising of you to project your misreadings onto my post

Ditto.

and next to declare that I am incapable to come to an understanding of the answers I hope to receive.

I'm expressing my opinion that you won't find any answers because you're asking the wrong question. There isn't going to be a simple answer in the form 'Atheists are aggressive because they hate religious people' because atheists are individuals with widly varying beliefs. (As indeed are non-atheists).

Maybe you could re-read with a lesser dose of prejudice?

Right back atcha, sunshine.

salaam.

Peace.

 

[Aldebaran]

What - or who - is "God"?

A good question. I would be God if I knew the answer.

Of course I can explain Islamic beliefs (it comes down to belief in the "one, unique, un-created Creator of All") but still the very core of this question remains unanswered since no human can possibly "know" "God".

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

No offence, but is English your first language?

Never studied this language. I write it on "look and feel" (and in the hope that Dyslexia doesn't wake up from his coma.)

Because people who don't care that much don't bother to post. Do you see?

Yes, but I don't "see" the need to connect that with defensiveness (or worse).

My point is that all atheists are different, so trying to get an understanding of why they do things is doomed to failure.

You just damned sociology to hell . I would be rather grateful if I still had to pass sociology exams, yet I'm afraid it is far too late for that.

There are indeed gradations. Some people happen to think that there isn't enough evidence to support the idea there is a god. Some think that there definitely isn't a god. I happen to think that the very idea of a supreme being is incoherent.

1. I don't classify people with "doubts" under "atheists".
2. Why do you find it incoherent?

I'm expressing my opinion that you won't find any answers because you're asking the wrong question.

mmm.. No. You read in my post what isn't there.

There isn't going to be a simple answer in the form 'Atheists are aggressive because they hate religious people'

That was not my question to begin with.
I asked to give the cause of such attitudes.
Different people shall give different answers since they have different "reasons" since veryone has a different background (to begin with). It comes across as very weird that you presume that I have no clue about that. (Yes, I'm an undercover alien, but you are not supposed to find out.)

salaam.

 

[Santino]

OK, here's some answers as to why people behave like that:

1. They find themselves having to defend their beliefs a lot, and get upset when they are misunderstood.

2. They have a personal history with people bothering them about this sort of stuff. Perhaps their family preaches at them a lot.

3. They like having arguments on the internet.

4. They're wankers.

Note: These reasons can apply to atheists, theists, vegetarians, Star Wars fans or heterosexuals. Anyone, in fact.

What is your purpose in asking this? Do you expect to find some link to their atheism?

 

[Aldebaran]

Note: These reasons can apply to atheists, theists, vegetarians, Star Wars fans or heterosexuals. Anyone, in fact.

I'm asking atheists, more in particular those posting on this forum (or board).

What is your purpose in asking this? Do you expect to find some link to their atheism?

1. The purpose is in my opening post.
2. When you start a research (no matter how minor or big) with pre-set expectations about your findings such a mindset discredits your conclusions on forehand.
Nobody needs a drawing to understand that. So why would I set up a discussion if I have a pre-fixed idea of how I would manipulate the outcome? (I have better things to do with my time.)

salaam.

 

[Santino]

By confining your 'research' to atheists you've already declared your interests. Proper research would involve a blind test of why people in general are aggressive on message boards. Unless you can demonstrate that atheists are more aggressive than theists, Welsh people or one-legged women then your study is hopelessly compromised from the very beginning.

Here's my own research question:
Why do religious people try to find something common to atheists other than their lack of theistic beliefs? Are they hoping to find some 'real' cause of their atheism? Are they hoping to uncover some kind of character flaw that will 'explain' their lack of belief?


edited for spelling

 

[Aldebaran]

By confining your 'research' to atheists you've already declared your interests.

Correction: I framed it.

Proper research would involve a blind test of why people in general are aggressive on message boards.

That is not my interest.

Unless you can demonstrate that atheists are more aggressive than theists, Welsh people or one-legged women then your study is hopelessly compromised from the very beginning.

I don't say I'm interested in a comparative study about how people in general behave when posting on a message board.

Who are you to say what
a) my frame should be
b) my interest should be
c) my scope should be
d) my aim should be

You clearly think that you have a say in this. Why?

Here's my own research question:
Why do religious people try to find something common to atheists other than their lack of theistic beliefs?
Are they hoping to find some 'real' cause of their atheism? Are they hoping to uncover some kind of character flaw that will 'explain' their lack of belief?

I would advice you to ask such questions to those people who actually behave like that. I can't answer for them or do you all of a sudden think that I have some "supernatural gifts"? (I was born with a few weird, uncommon "gifts" but nobody ever claimed they are supernatural.)

salaam.

 

[Santino]

I don't say I'm interested in a comparative study about how people in general behave when posting on a message board.

Who are you to say what
a) my frame should be
b) my interest should be
c) my scope should be
d) my aim should be

You clearly think that you have a say in this. Why?

I don't have a say in it, but the principles of reasoned enquiry ought to have a say. Let me spell it out for you: The way your OP is worded will not get you any useful information. You have asked a badly conceived question which cannot reap any useful answers. All you will achieve is reinforcing your own pre-conceived ideas of what atheists are like which, as I am already tired of pointing out, does not correspond to any actual phenomenon in the world.

 

[xenon]

Not all us Agnostics are so vitriolic.

 

[TeeJay]

A good question. I would be God if I knew the answer.

Well get back to me when you have worked out who or what this god is that you "believe" in and I might be able to have a more in depth discussion.

After all you asked the following:

1. The "non-believers" seem to post in a very defensive mindset.
2. If not defensive this group often posts denigrating remarks about the "believers" (even up to the point of questioning their mental capacities or mental health).
3. If a "believer" declares to have no problem whatsoever with the results of scientific research, "non-believers" don't seem to have the ability to place this within the frame of their own ideas about "believers". They still proclaim the "believer" to be mentally incapable.

I would like to know/get an understanding of the causes behind this.

Surely what it is that people believe in - ie who is a "believer" and who is a "non-believer" - and what they think about each other - plays a big part in answering this question.

You obviously do have some kind of definition about "believers" and "non-believers" and therefore you logically must have some kind of concept of what you mean by "God". I would like to know what this is, as it is the basis of your original question.

In the absence of this however, the best I can offer is that the people you call "non-believers" dislike certain religions for a whole range of things and have a bad reaction to anyone who professes ideas that they associate with these religions (ie people who you label "believers").

They probably also have some kind of concept about what "religious" people think and believe, one that might not actually correspond to what people actually do think or believe.

 

[Aldebaran]

Well get back to me when you have worked out who or what this god is that you "believe" in and I might be able to have a more in depth discussion.

I think you misunderstood my answer. It is not about "working it out". It is about the simple reality that being human does not equal being God = humans can picture themselves what God "could" be, but they can't possibly declare to "know" anything about it or else they would be God.

Can you tell me what or who I am, even if you see me face to face? Can you do that for no matter who? Can I say who or what you are? Can I do that for no mattrer who?
Impossible. You -or I - can only make a guess (at best).
Does that mean for you that I don't exist, that humanity doesn't exist and that you do not exist?

If you are interested in a theological discussion I have of course no objections to that. Can you make a thread for it because this one is not made for it (the title on its own is not really an invitation for theological discussion)

You obviously do have some kind of definition about "believers" and "non-believers" and therefore you logically must have some kind of concept of what you mean by "God". I would like to know what this is, as it is the basis of your original question.

What I believe or don't believe has nothing to do with the reason of my question, but I answered yours in a previous post.

In the absence of this however, the best I can offer is that the people you call "non-believers" dislike certain religions for a whole range of things and have a bad reaction to anyone who professes ideas that they associate with these religions (ie people who you label "believers").

That much is clear to me witouth quesitoning. Yet my question is about the "what" or "why" causing this, and it does not say "religion" but "belief in God".
In my experience many "non-believers" can't make that distinction (many "believers" can't do that either).

They probably also have some kind of concept about what "religious" people think and believe, one that might not actually correspond to what people actually do think or believe.

Yes and that would also be interesting for me to hear about.

salaam.

 

[winterinmoscow]

Well firstly I should probably say that I am Agnostic. I respect that for some people, religious views are important but I would also expect them to realise that this is not the case for all people.

1. The "non-believers" seem to post in a very defensive mindset.

Now, this is quite obvious on some posts ie. if they're about religion, but on other things, how do you know if a post is from a believer or not.

2. If not defensive this group often posts denigrating remarks about the "believers" (even up to the point of questioning their mental capacities or mental health).

As I said above, I respect people's religious beliefs. However, to qualify that statement, I do know several Evangelical Christians and yes, the ones who believe in creationism, I would question why they take their religion to this kind of extreme

3. If a "believer" declares to have no problem whatsoever with the results of scientific research, "non-believers" don't seem to have the ability to place this within the frame of their own ideas about "believers". They still proclaim the "believer" to be mentally incapable.

Well I'm sort of with you here but I think it goes back to what I said above. If I respect someone's views and appreciate that their religion is important to them, I expect them to respect my views, or lack of them as the case may be.

I don't like hearing people making denigrating remarks about peoples' religious principles. For me, people's religion is their own business. However, if someone tries to force their religious views on me, I am not going to be happy with that and may get extremely defensive.

Make any sense?

 

[Aldebaran]

Now, this is quite obvious on some posts ie. if they're about religion, but on other things, how do you know if a post is from a believer or not.

I said in my OP that it goes about posts in discussions between "believers" and non-believers" = clearly about the quesiton "God".

I do know several Evangelical Christians and yes, the ones who believe in creationism, I would question why they take their religion to this kind of extreme

I think at least every "normal" Christian is in agreement with you here and so am I.

However, if someone tries to force their religious views on me, I am not going to be happy with that and may get extremely defensive.

With every right. I question constantly the "proselytising" practices of certain Christians. It is a command of their religion but that does not make it a good enough excuse to try to convert at all cost. (The times I was damned to hell... I could write a book on it)

salaam.

 

[winterinmoscow]

I said in my OP that it goes about posts in discussions between "believers" and non-believers" = clearly about the quesiton "God".

Ah okay, sorry. Must've missed that part!

With every right. I question constantly the "proselytising" practices of certain Christians. It is a command of their religion but that does not make it a good enough excuse to try to convert at all cost. (The times I was damned to hell... I could write a book on it)

salaam.

Well absolutely. Conversion by the damned to hell approach is a real turn off

And I think it alienates people from an interest in religion.

 

[s.norbury]

I believe in the Familiar Unseen Sisters, they're a bit like a cross between mermaids and nurses, but don't sing. As with you Alderbaran O' Eye of Taurus, I am sick of people telling me I'm wrong so I don't tell anyone much, in fact this is the first time in ages. I don't think your God Ideas exist in familiar unseen sister land, but then again no one says much

 

[Jo/Joe]

To whom are you refering Alderbaran? You can't lump everyone together. And the same descriptions could be made of a number of believers too. Why pick on the non-believers, when you may just be decribing some human traits?

 

[rich!]

2. I don't mention "religions". I mentioned the belief in what people commonly call "God", be it with different words depedning their language.

You see, there's the thing.

For me, "God" is a superstition.

"gods" are something I create as a magickal/psychological tool to control my mind/world.

"Religion" is the abuse of superstition by political-types to control populations.

Does that make any sense?

 

[TeeJay]

Yes and that would also be interesting for me to hear about.

Maybe they think religious people are utter idiots who cause untold misery in the world and they enjoy telling them to go fuck themselves?

Maybe they think something else.

I can't speak for these people because as I have said I am more of an "agnostic", or rather the concept of "god" doesn't mean anything to me - it isn't actually a feature of my mental universe, although I do believe in various things that other people might - or might not - label "god", or which occupy a similar niche in their 'mental landscape' of the universe.

I still don't buy your argument that you have not got a clue what or who "god" is, seeing as you have started a thread on the subject of "belivers" (in god) and non-believers (in god).

Your original post simply doesn't mean anything if you don't have a concept of what this "god" thing is. It is literally gibberish.

 

[Aldebaran]

Maybe they think religious people are utter idiots who cause untold misery in the world and they enjoy telling them to go fuck themselves?

They must have a reason for that.

I can't speak for these people

I didn't ask you to do so either.

I still don't buy your argument that you have not got a clue what or who "god" is,

I said nobody can know since nobody is God but God. I said that a human even can't know an other human because he is not that human.
What is so difficult in understanding this very basic very simple thing everyone knows (or should know)?

seeing as you have started a thread on the subject of "belivers" (in god) and non-believers (in god).

Has nothing to do with the above. Everyone, "believer" or "non(believer" could have made such a thread with the very same OP.

Your original post simply doesn't mean anything if you don't have a concept of what this "god" thing is. It is literally gibberish.

1. Again: Has nothing to see with what I personally believe or not believe.
2. Again: I said that having a "concept" in mind (and I explained briefly what that entails for Islam) does not mean that you "know" God. I said it means that you describe your ideas about what God "could" be.
For Muslims this is described in Al Qur'an (and if I had to explain that briefly I would direct the reader to in surat al-ichlaas). Since it is believed by Muslims that Al Qur'an contains the Message of God as reveiled to the Prophet Muhammed that is as close as they can get to "know" what God is.
That does not suggests anywhere that "God" is limited to what is described in Al Qur'an, nor does it anywhere means to say that there is no possibility to search for getting a better or more in depth understanding (on the contrary). Yet no matter how much you think, reason, discuss, write, conclude about it as "normal" Muslim or as theologian, you shall never be able to claim that you "know" God.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

To whom are you refering Alderbaran?

I htink that is clear in my OP.

You can't lump everyone together.

Why do you believe I do that?

And the same descriptions could be made of a number of believers too.

When it comes to that group I understand (for the most part) where they are coming from with certain reactions or attitudes towards "non believers". I don't need to question what I already know.

Why pick on the non-believers, when you may just be decribing some human traits?

1. I don't ask questions about "some" human traits. I ask questions about reactions of non-believers to/on believers.
2. Why do you (and some others) take this thread as something negative while there is no such thing implied?
Is that not a prime example of the defensiveness I described and hence an example of what made me ask where this comes from?

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

You see, there's the thing.

For me, "God" is a superstition.

Why?

"gods" are something I create as a magickal/psychological tool to control my mind/world.

Why do you think that?

"Religion" is the abuse of superstition by political-types to control populations.

Religions are the practice of worshipping God. This practice asks for active engagement of the believers, makes appeal to emotions and in most cases shapes and/or influences the organisation of their societies. All these elements make religions extremely vulnarable for any type of abuse. In that sense it is indeed used by many to control people and even "populations".
Yet that is not the reason why religions where founded or why people are religious. Maybe if you could make this distinction you would also come to a more correct judgement.

salaam.