"Why are all you atheists so angry?"

[Rian]

Hey, Gary, welcome back!

[Keep The Reason]

Who is this "we" that is being victimized by theists? What you're describing when you speak of standing up to and going head-to-head against thus and so, it sounds somewhat fantastical to me, certainly it's beyond anything I myself have experienced. Are you perhaps talking about activism, organized atheist activism?

Theism as a human institution victimizes a lot of people across a lot of different venues. Are you unaware of the unfair tax burden people have to shoulder because multi-billion dollar churches have to pay out nothing? I've already mentioned how religious tenets impact things like medical safety, like in the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. Do you not remember me mentioning this? Or the interference with reproductive rights, in legislating against abortion choice. Or the crushing oppression of women in Islamic countries, and honor killings, clitoral circumcision, sexual repression, and sharia laws in general.

Overall, the robbing of rights for gays to marry gays, the obstacles to stem cell research, the constant barrage of attacks on our schools to force religious creationism into science classrooms. Not to mention the psychological impact of "Big Brother"-ism in an "all knowing god", concepts of sin, Hell and acceptance of authority without question.

Who is the "we"? You are. Me. Everyone around you. People in your neighborhood, and 10,000 miles away. These issues impact all of us.

You asked this same question some 5 pages ago, and you still need to ask it -- this tells me you're one of those people who sees life through the very filter you accuse others of wearing. In short, you seem completely ignorant of the impact theism has on social models. While ignorance is not a crime, now you cannot claim to not know these things any more.

And yes, there are politically active groups of non-believers (and believers too!) who stand toe-to-toe against these outrages, and who are working towards these things being dismantled. Who are vocal about it. Those people are often dismissed as "angry atheists".

[Dr Mundo]

Who is this "we" that is being victimized by theists? What you're describing when you speak of standing up to and going head-to-head against thus and so, it sounds somewhat fantastical to me, certainly it's beyond anything I myself have experienced. Are you perhaps talking about activism, organized atheist activism?

In general It seems to be anybody speaking out against the injustices that religion has a significant impact over. If not most of the time, a lot of the time people often religious people tend to give other religions a pass because they use the same foundational concept to accept their religion as true. Faith. I have seen and been a "Victim" of these tactics as well. Its actually very obvious, not sure why you have missed it. I don't really think you have missed it, and that you are just trying to give KTR a hard time but that's an other issue. In fact to be honest it might even be a good thing for other people to have it done to. Because there are those who have not given their position much thought and, questions like these would help them get a better understanding of where they are coming from. KTR however, has thought about it and in great detail, much more so than I, and I think myself someone who is also very upset at the dialogue we have regarding God, or anything superstitious really.

Back to the topic. I think most people are missing it. KTR correct me if I am wrong. But this isn't trying to justify the anger that some atheists have regarding religious issues. Its about the dismissal of any argument on the sole fact that an Atheist has somewhat of a tone, expressing his displeasure with the way things are in terms of religion and ideologies, and since people are uncomfortable with that tone they don't address any of the arguments, be they valid or not, right?

Either way I think I read some say that not all atheists are angry, and this that or the other thing. The truth is I don't think that is the point of this thread. If it were I would say that, Yes its true there is anger. and rightfully so. I am surprised and disappointed that the anger isn't being express with more frequency form the theistic camp as well. As far as I go as an atheist, being that I can only speak for myself, I am angry, and damn angry at that. The way I express my anger though isn't by shouting at theists at the absurdities that they believe. But by trying to explain to people why we have good enough reasons already to be tolerant and good natured towards others already. We don't need your particular God concept to be able to mange a society, at least not anymore. That we did in fact need one in the past I think is up for discussion. Some say yes, I would say I don't think I have enough information to make a good enough approximation (though I am leaning towards we didn't), but all we can do is discuss that (no way to test it now).

[Dr Mundo]

Who is this "we" that is being victimized by theists? What you're describing when you speak of standing up to and going head-to-head against thus and so, it sounds somewhat fantastical to me, certainly it's beyond anything I myself have experienced. Are you perhaps talking about activism, organized atheist activism?

Theism as a human institution victimizes a lot of people across a lot of different venues. Are you unaware of the unfair tax burden people have to shoulder because multi-billion dollar churches have to pay out nothing? I've already mentioned how religious tenets impact things like medical safety, like in the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. Do you not remember me mentioning this? Or the interference with reproductive rights, in legislating against abortion choice. Or the crushing oppression of women in Islamic countries, and honor killings, clitoral circumcision, sexual repression, and sharia laws in general.

Overall, the robbing of rights for gays to marry gays, the obstacles to stem cell research, the constant barrage of attacks on our schools to force religious creationism into science classrooms. Not to mention the psychological impact of "Big Brother"-ism in an "all knowing god", concepts of sin, Hell and acceptance of authority without question.

Who is the "we"? You are. Me. Everyone around you. People in your neighborhood, and 10,000 miles away. These issues impact all of us.

You asked this same question some 5 pages ago, and you still need to ask it -- this tells me you're one of those people who sees life through the very filter you accuse others of wearing. In short, you seem completely ignorant of the impact theism has on social models. While ignorance is not a crime, now you cannot claim to not know these things any more.

And yes, there are politically active groups of non-believers (and believers too!) who stand toe-to-toe against these outrages, and who are working towards these things being dismantled. Who are vocal about it. Those people are often dismissed as "angry atheists".

KTR I think he meant who is being victimized by the discussion tactics you were referring to, not who the victims of religious ideologies themselves were. At least it makes more sense to me that way. Other than that who the victims of those ideologies are is impossible to not identify.

[humanguy]

Who is this "we" that is being victimized by theists? What you're describing when you speak of standing up to and going head-to-head against thus and so, it sounds somewhat fantastical to me, certainly it's beyond anything I myself have experienced. Are you perhaps talking about activism, organized atheist activism?

Theism as a human institution victimizes a lot of people across a lot of different venues. Are you unaware of the unfair tax burden people have to shoulder because multi-billion dollar churches have to pay out nothing? I've already mentioned how religious tenets impact things like medical safety, like in the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. Do you not remember me mentioning this? Or the interference with reproductive rights, in legislating against abortion choice. Or the crushing oppression of women in Islamic countries, and honor killings, clitoral circumcision, sexual repression, and sharia laws in general.

Overall, the robbing of rights for gays to marry gays, the obstacles to stem cell research, the constant barrage of attacks on our schools to force religious creationism into science classrooms. Not to mention the psychological impact of "Big Brother"-ism in an "all knowing god", concepts of sin, Hell and acceptance of authority without question.

Who is the "we"? You are. Me. Everyone around you. People in your neighborhood, and 10,000 miles away. These issues impact all of us.

You asked this same question some 5 pages ago, and you still need to ask it -- this tells me you're one of those people who sees life through the very filter you accuse others of wearing. In short, you seem completely ignorant of the impact theism has on social models. While ignorance is not a crime, now you cannot claim to not know these things any more.

And yes, there are politically active groups of non-believers (and believers too!) who stand toe-to-toe against these outrages, and who are working towards these things being dismantled. Who are vocal about it. Those people are often dismissed as "angry atheists".

Look, knock it off with the supercilious attitude, will you? What's the point of that? Did my question give you any cause at all to respond in such a haughty manner?

[Keep The Reason]

Back to the topic. I think most people are missing it. KTR correct me if I am wrong. But this isn't trying to justify the anger that some atheists have regarding religious issues. Its about the dismissal of any argument on the sole fact that an Atheist has somewhat of a tone, expressing his displeasure with the way things are in terms of religion and ideologies, and since people are uncomfortable with that tone they don't address any of the arguments, be they valid or not, right?

Yes. It's a tactic used by theists to diminish the voice of athiests.

When I first became outspoken about my atheism, the tactic then was to insist that I "must be bitter about something". That was the universal response to me by theists -- even casual ones. In fact, this literally happened to me today. I was on the phone with a colleague, and Christmas came up, and I said off the cuff, "Actually, I don't bleieve in any of it." My colleague said, "You don't believe in Jesus or you don't believe in god?" I said, "I don't believe in any of it -- I'm an atheist." His immediate reply was, "Wow -- what happened to make you hate religion so much?"

These were his instant words to me. He wasn't being hurtful, it was a reflexive action on his part. It's like it's an encoded response. Knee-jerk. I'm an athiest, therefore there must be -- there must be -- something wrong with me.

I explained to him "I woke my brain up" -- lauhging as I said it, and he laughed, and tyhen I explained to him that atheism is a conclusion about existence and doesn't require one to be abused, angry, or rebellious-- it's the same way he feels about Vishnu (I asked him if he believed in Vishniu, and he replied he did not).

Now, this is not an "angry" story. He wasn't out to harm me in any way. But what does anger me is that such a response is encoded. It's no different from the person who clutches their wallet or handbag closer when a black perosn approaches. It's an ingrained bias, and it's dehumanizing by definition.

When Rian says "Baloney" -- and then chides me for being "condescending" -- she's not realizing her condescension stands primary. Mitchell calling me a "bigot" and "intolerant" or vocal atheists or Christians even "obnoxious" -- all of that is tactical horeshit, and it's meant to distract and demean one's opponent. And thiests -- in my opinion, and demonstrably so -- exacerbate this and put it to use over and over and over. Rian spun out numerous tactics trying to defend Collin's direct rersponse to Pinker's valid concern that Collins adopts viewpoints atntithetical to science, and heance might not be the right guy to head up the President's National Science Advisory Board. She adopted "the "context" tactic (Collins wasn't even addressing the statement of Pinkers!" she claims, an out and out misreading of the article. She defends the "angry atheist" attack by excusing it, and she redefines a valid critique of someone's competence to hold a particular position as "condescensicon".

Against that, theists complain that we athiests are insulting because we call their belief systems "fairy tales" and "myths" -- and that they are stupid for believing such. Well, I don't call theists stupid for believing it -- although I will out some imbecilic behavior by indivduals here -- I even get why people believe in it. But that doesn't mean I have to acknowledge their ideology as a true vision of existence. It is not. And because it is not, and instead is something else (it is mythology) -- then I am going to continue to state my conclusion that their religion is mythological in nature.

If they want to convince me otherwise, demonstrate that it's not. If you can't well, the only other options are for me to shut up (which I won't do) or you to stop believing in mythology. That's it. Those are the three options. Prove it, I shut up, or you drop the belief. There is no "Me accepting your belief as something other than mythology". That's not an option because that would be me lying. I get it that they don't think it's a mythology, but they have every right to that opinion. I have every right to mine.

Yes its true there is anger. and rightfully so. I am surprised and disappointed that the anger isn't being express with more frequency form the theistic camp as well.

I think there is a danger in traversing this ground for theists. What are they going to do about it, when their religious institutions do things that outrages even they? Ok, I get it that a lot of Catholic laity are angry about the child abuse, and demands something be done about it (good on them!), but they are deadly silent about the condom issue in Africa which is the cause of a horrifying increase of deaths on that continent. I don't see the laity turning to their clerics and saying, "Enough! This has got to stop!" They simply don't. I don't see the laity fdoing this much in Islamic countries either. And in the USA, if you're not a Christ-believing person, you aren't elected to President even if you'd be the best leader imaginable. Hell, even when you are a chrstian, Christians will claim you aren't and weren't even born here!

As far as I go as an atheist, being that I can only speak for myself, I am angry, and damn angry at that. The way I express my anger though isn't by shouting at theists at the absurdities that they believe.

The debate on whether or not god exists is a completely different animal from the activism scenario. This is about the solutions. I will note however that your use of the word "absurdities" -- while you do have every right to use it -- will likely be viewed as a condescending attack on theits. "If he says I believe in absurdities, then that means I believe in stupid things, which means he's calling me STUPID!"

You're not-- but that's they way it gets filtered.

But by trying to explain to people why we have good enough reasons already to be tolerant and good natured towards others already. We don't need your particular God concept to be able to mange a society, at least not anymore.

And Emery has pointed out (and I agree with him) that this only works when you're dealing with a rational ideology. But it doesn't work when your ideology has a core of an object of worship in it, and the denouement of belief/disbelief is that of eternal reward or eternal damnation. While it's evident we can live without god very easily, suggesting this to certain people is an insult to their deity, and therefore to them personally.

That we did in fact need one in the past I think is up for discussion. Some say yes, I would say I don't think I have enough information to make a good enough approximation (though I am leaning towards we didn't), but all we can do is discuss that (no way to test it now).

Well, whether or not it was needed is moot as it so happens we had it regardless of needing it or not.

[Keep The Reason]

Look, knock it off with the supercilious attitude, will you? What's the point of that? Did my question give you any cause at all to respond in such a haughty manner?

I misunderstood what you were asking. But the fact is, you do undermine conversations by asking left field questions, and you did ask this one (about the impact against social models theism had) in the beginning of this thread, so it's not much of a surprise that you might be trying to do more of the same.

DM notes it's a game with you as well. So while my reply didn't address your actual question-- I'm defensive agianst you because you continually play these games, and I will not let you shit on me. If you don't like superciliousness -- then don't play that game of yours, and you won't get it in response.

That said, I did reply to it at the end in citing organizations that have taken these social challenges to heart and have attempted to change things. Yes, to a large extent, they are the victims of these tactics, but then, so am I, so are you. And the real victims are those who do suffer at the abuses of theistic institutions and individuals, who continue to ply their villainy secure in the knowledge that they can get away with it because, "We are religious, after all."

[humanguy]

Look, knock it off with the supercilious attitude, will you? What's the point of that? Did my question give you any cause at all to respond in such a haughty manner?

I misunderstood what you were asking. But the fact is, you do undermine conversations by asking left field questions, and you did ask this one (about the impact against social models theism had) in the beginning of this thread, so it's not much of a surprise that you might be trying to do more of the same.

I'm not trying to do anything, KTR. I'm just being myself.

Read some of my posts made here over the years; that should be enough to convince you that I am every bit as much an atheist as you. That doesn't mean that I must agree with everything that every other atheist says here.

Tell me to quit posting on your thread and I'll be happy to oblige.

[Keep The Reason]

I'm not trying to do anything, KTR. I'm just being myself.

Read some of my posts made here over the years; that should be enough to convince you that I am every bit as much an atheist as you. That doesn't mean that I must agree with everything that every other atheist says here.

Tell me to quit posting on your thread and I'll be happy to oblige.

No you don't have to agree with everything but you have, intentionally or otherwise, given the impression that your intent is to disrupt topics.

Here are DM's words, written without any input or coercion from me, directly to you:

I have seen and been a "Victim" of these tactics as well. Its actually very obvious, not sure why you have missed it. I don't really think you have missed it, and that you are just trying to give KTR a hard time but that's an other issue.

What do you think he's talking about? You may wish to consider how you're perceived, and not just by me but by at least one other.

As to you posting-- I don't care where you post or if you post or if you don't. All I am telling you is that I will fight back if you try to derail my topic, whether you are an atheist, a Christian, or a Crimean Rosicrucian.

[humanguy]

I'm not trying to do anything, KTR. I'm just being myself.

Read some of my posts made here over the years; that should be enough to convince you that I am every bit as much an atheist as you. That doesn't mean that I must agree with everything that every other atheist says here.

Tell me to quit posting on your thread and I'll be happy to oblige.

No you don't have to agree with everything but you have, intentionally or otherwise, given the impression that your intent is to disrupt topics.

Here are DM's words, written without any input or coercion from me, directly to you:

I have seen and been a "Victim" of these tactics as well. Its actually very obvious, not sure why you have missed it. I don't really think you have missed it, and that you are just trying to give KTR a hard time but that's an other issue.

What do you think he's talking about? You may wish to consider how you're perceived, and not just by me but by at least one other.

As to you posting-- I don't care where you post or if you post or if you don't. All I am telling you is that I will fight back if you try to derail my topic, whether you are an atheist, a Christian, or a Crimean Rosicrucian.

Okay, I pretty much expected something like that. I'll let you get back to your topic, then.

Anyway, Jeopardy's coming on.

[Rian]

KTR to Moonwood:

What ARGUMENT? You're playing games. It's a speech -- and expressing of her opinions as to why she is angry-- and you know this. she isn't making any philosophical arguments-- she's venting her frustrations. You know this too. You certainly aren't stupid -- and it's clear what she's addressing-- but you decided to change it into something it's not so you can puff your chest and offer your "deep analysis on why she is wrong"

But you said in your OP that the speech covers "why it's valid and justified to be [angry]". That's what he was dealing with - he was pointing out things that he thought were not "valid and justified". Then you start complaining and saying that she was only venting, when clearly your OP said something quite different. And your last sentence is yet another example of you being an "angry atheist" - going into insults in response to a civilized reply.

[humanguy]

KTR to Moonwood:

What ARGUMENT? You're playing games. It's a speech -- and expressing of her opinions as to why she is angry-- and you know this. she isn't making any philosophical arguments-- she's venting her frustrations. You know this too. You certainly aren't stupid -- and it's clear what she's addressing-- but you decided to change it into something it's not so you can puff your chest and offer your "deep analysis on why she is wrong"

But you said in your OP that the speech covers "why it's valid and justified to be [angry]". That's what he was dealing with - he was pointing out things that he thought were not "valid and justified".

She's right, you know.

Here's what Wikipedia says: "In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion."

You yourself said that she was giving a speech. What's a speech? Isn't it an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion?

[Keep The Reason]

Even the most casual of glances would have made it clear that the speech was given at Skepticon 4 -- it was meant to give voice to a mass movement's frustrations. It was not given to an audience of religious believers in an attempt to sway them, it was given to an audience to unite them in a common cause.

Rian and humanguys position would be like saying Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech was him offering a philosophical argument. We all know that there's a philosophy behind the words that is certainly not hidden, but there's a difference between orating to gain a momentum for inspiration, versus arguing a philosophical point.

If one is preaching to a choir, one needn't argue ones philosophy to that choir. That's why they are "the choir". And yes, humanguy, it's okay for the choir to listen to a well spoken articulation of their beliefs, in order to feel united. and if religious believers hear it, and it has impact, so much the better. But to argue its a means to argue a philosophical point is just lame.

According to Rian and humanguys perspective, every sermon and every campsign speech and every war cry is an exercise in reasoned philosophical dissertation.

Such obvious, purposeful obliviousness (which I assert is done with complete conscious awareness under a specific agenda by Rian and humanguy) is getting tiresome.

[humanguy]

Even the most casual of glances would have made it clear that the speech was given at Skepticon 4 -- it was meant to give voice to a mass movement's frustrations. It was not given to an audience of religious believers in an attempt to sway them, it was given to an audience to unite them in a common cause.

Rian and humanguys position would be like saying Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech was him offering a philosophical argument. We all know that there's a philosophy behind the words that is certainly not hidden, but there's a difference between orating to gain a momentum for inspiration, versus arguing a philosophical point.

If one is preaching to a choir, one needn't argue ones philosophy to that choir. That's why they are "the choir". And yes, humanguy, it's okay for the choir to listen to a well spoken articulation of their beliefs, in order to feel united. and if religious believers hear it, and it has impact, so much the better. But to argue its a means to argue a philosophical point is just lame.

According to Rian and humanguys perspective, every sermon and every campsign speech and every war cry is an exercise in reasoned philosophical dissertation.

Such obvious, purposeful obliviousness (which I assert is done with complete conscious awareness under a specific agenda by Rian and humanguy) is getting tiresome.

There's no getting ahead with you. No matter what anyone says, you say that they're not getting it. Now you're saying that this isn't really a speech, that it is, as you say, preaching. Preaching to the choir. It's not intended to argue a philosophical point.

Then why in the pissing universe put it up here? What's there to discuss, what's anyone supposed to say? "Nice job of preaching to the choir?"

[Moonwood the Hare]

I hope to get back to you on a lot of stuff KTR but this

Child Abuse: The Quran justifies marrying and the consummating of such marriages of men to women as young as 9. Like Mohamed did with Aisha. And so, in modern times, there are child brides as young as 9 being made the wives of men 3, 4, and even more times their age. This is directly relatable to the doctrine of the religion. Do you defend the practice as someone's religious right, or are you against it as a matter of moral principle. For the record, this is an extremely easy issue for me. It's wrong. Period. The End. What say you (or will you try to avoid it)?

Is factually wrong. One of our main sources for the life of Mohamed is Abu Jafar at- Tabari who says that although Mohamad was married to Aisha at the age of 9 the marriage was not consummated until she reached puberty. Now we may think that would still be rather young but this is a cultural matter as is the matter of the relative ages of brides and grooms. Traditionally in Judaism and Islam maturity has been seen to have been reached at the age 12 that is at puberty and there are biological grounds for that as there are not for the other later ages we prefer. That is not to say there are not good reasons in our cultural context for seeing adulthood as being reached at a later age. Here in the UK there is a problem of child sex abuse by Asian men from Muslim backgrounds and the most successful approaches to countering this seem to have come from people within the Muslim culture working from a Muslim perspective and showing why the Koran and the traditions hold these things to be wrong. It is also worth noting that within our culture I am permitted by law to give condoms to 13 year old girls and have been trained to enable me to do this. I actually don't think it is a good thing that 13 year olds are having sex but I do see why the law needs to be flexible on these matters. But the kind of flexibility we have in our legal system is possible only at our stage of cultural development; I find that within Islam as within Christianity there are both liberal and conservative voices on the issue of social change and how you relate that to earlier traditions.