"Why are all you atheists so angry?"

[mitchellmckain]

Discussion boards are for DISCUSSIONS, not posting links.

[Aaron]

KTR - I was the polite one here. You're the one that blew up your own thread with your anger.

Ok, I'm done with you. This is idiotic beyond words.

LOLOLOL! Was this thread pre-planned? This is funny, that's all I have to say.

[humanguy]

KTR - I was the polite one here. You're the one that blew up your own thread with your anger.

Ok, I'm done with you. This is idiotic beyond words.

LOLOLOL! Was this thread pre-planned? This is funny, that's all I have to say.

Interesting. What is that you find funny about this thread, Aaron?

[Dr Mundo]

...Maybe some others will join in if they're interested, but I don't think I need to listen to it, because I've heard over and over and OVER why they're angry....

Could you give me a summary of why you think they (we) are angry? Be brutally honest with me, I want to know exactly what you think about their (our) Anger? Do you think its unfounded? I honestly don't know why more people are not angry, or at least more vocal about their anger. The injustices I see in the name of religion are disgusting to witness and to hear about. To top it off its based on faith driven belief, and all undemonstrated garbage that you find in the top world religions.

[Keep The Reason]

Discussion boards are for DISCUSSIONS, not posting links.

Holy shit, are you kidding me? Are you actually trying to dictate how I am permitted to post?

This from a guy who adverts two links in his signature on every post!

Here, let me clue you in. If I want to have a discussion on an issue that exists elsewhere on the Internet, then I link to it to get the discussion rolling. I know you are familiar with this concept because you responded to Brad's article link Americans: Ubdecided About God thread with nary a WORD to him about posting links but instead saying you told your pastor about it:

Well since nobody has responded I thought I would just mention that I read the article after you pointed it out and told my pastor that he should read it too.

The lack of integrity from a number of members of this board is ... Well, hell, I was going to say "startling" but we all know it's just the way forums operate. Reason To Follow was young and immature and so maybe has an excuse, but you, Rian, and humanguy don't. But, you are who you are.

[humanguy]

The lack of integrity from a number of members of this board is ... Well, hell, I was going to say "startling" but we all know it's just the way forums operate. Reason To Follow was young and immature and so maybe has an excuse, but you, Rian, and humanguy don't. But, you are who you are.

I can't speak for Rian but I definitely have an excuse. That's a tip, Keep the Reason. Always have an excuse.

[Dr Mundo]

I hope we get back to commenting more on topics that pertain to the discussions and that we see less dickishness. KTR has provided us with an interesting topic would anyone like to discuss it? I Know how internet personalities can get, Its easy to loose yourself behind a keyboard I suppose. But we are adults, and should probably act like it, No?

[JustJim]

I hope we get back to commenting more on topics that pertain to the discussions and that we see less dickishness. KTR has provided us with an interesting topic would anyone like to discuss it? I Know how internet personalities can get, Its easy to loose yourself behind a keyboard I suppose. But we are adults, and should probably act like it, No?

I think I've always been an angry person, even when I was a die-hard Christian. I don't know, and really don't care, where my anger comes from or the reasons for it. I'll leave that to the Freudians. What I care about is that I manage and control my anger, and vent it in socially acceptable ways that don't hurt people or destroy things. I'm usually successful in those endeavors.

IOW, I'm an "angry atheist" because I'm an angry person who also happens to be an atheist. I used to be an "angry Christian" because I was an angry person who also happened to be a Christian. My atheism doesn't cause me to be angry anymore than my Christianity did. They're co-related, but not causally related.

Frustration is often at the root of my anger when discussing the things we discuss here. I get frustrated when I can't make myself understood. I get frustrated when I see people seemingly intentionally refusing to admit that they can see someone else's reasoning, but that they just disagree with them. Instead, they come across as though people who disagree with them, while certainly allowed to do so, are nonetheless somehow not as smart or reasonable or tolerant or free from presuppositions and biases as they are. They talk down to those who disagree with them. They're dismissive of differing opinions. They assign evil motives to others' beliefs and disagreements. They're just plain assholes... That frustrates me, and I turn my frustrations into anger.

So, it'd be nice, I think, if Christians would not do things like assume atheists must have had something wrong with them in their formative years, or had some horrible experience(s) in their religious backgrounds, or are angry at God for letting a loved one die, or any of those other ridiculous assumptions they often make. And it would also be nice if they wouldn't ask atheists why they hate God, why they're angry at God, why they think they're better than God, or why they want to be able to do whatever they want to do (usually something disgustingly immoral) without any consequences. That kind of stuff is apt to piss an atheist off, which could, in turn, cause them to act angrily.

Instead, maybe believers could ask atheists how we explain things that Christians explain with God (like where the universe comes from, what happens to us when we die, what consequences we'll experience from our 'evil' deeds (sins), etc., and how/why they stopped believing any god plays any role in those things (if they used to believe). And maybe try really, really hard to assume that we're atheists because we've reasoned it out and that's the conclusion that makes the best sense of our worlds to us, just like, I assume, theism is the reasoned conclusion believers have reached that makes the best sense to them.

I also hope that atheists can understand that many theists, if not most, have questioned their beliefs and reasoned through them to arrive at a position that fits best for them and makes the best sense of their worlds for them - even if they don't all come to exactly the same conclusions and accept the same doctrinal beliefs. They come in a very wide spectrum of beliefs that somehow allows all of them to call themselves Christians - even when other Christians wouldn't include them. True, there are still too many Christians who haven't bothered to examine their beliefs, and so they believe because they were raised to believe, but nowadays believers like that are dwindling in number. And even when we disagree with their reasoning or scoff at what they consider to be valid evidence to support their beliefs, I think we still need to respect that their opinions do make sense to them - just as ours do.

Anyhow, I'm just rambling off some thoughts to try to help get this thread back on topic. I haven't listened to the speech, and don't intend to. I don't have that long of an attention span. I don't listen to the podcasts, either. Oh, well....

Jim

[Keep The Reason]

Thanks for the well considered post, JJ.

In fact, it's frustration that underscores the entire "anger" issue. There are many, many things one can be justifiably angry about when it comes to religion's impact on modern society, but there are two sides to this issue.

The first is that element of being justified in ones anger. Given injustice, racism,superstition, carnage, terrorism, abuse, illiteracy, sexual repression, gender repression, poverty, et al-- all of these are not only valid points for legitimate anger, to NOT be angry at them is in fact immoral. It is APPROPRIATE to be angry at these and thus the "angry atheist" is perfectly within his or her rational rights to hold such views.

The second side to the discussion is that this righteous anger is being used by theists against atheists to marginalize the atheists and dismissing their valid (and one imagines, even agreed to!) complaints. This is being done right here, in this thread.

Imagine being a Catholic who is deeply shocked at the behavior of ones church leaders in allowing and even precipitating decades of sexual abuse of children and even though you are justified in your anger and outrage, that anger is dismissed, and not only dismissed, but used by others as a way to marginalize your moral outrage into it being merely something that "you just can't get over". And imagine if the idea that YOU can't get over it is where people act as if the actual problem resides, not in the abuse itself, and not in the cover ups or facilitation of expanding the abuse.

That's insidious, dismissive, disrespectful, and this particular thread happens to have exposed a version of it. And it's not just the theists who seem to have adopted it as a tactic. Not only that, it's also apparently a source of humor for some.

The issue is valid, and so is the follow up discussion of "what is appropriate reaction to anger?" In your case, you answer it by controlling it, which is a good trait to have (channeling it productively is what others, like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. have done).
.

[Aaron]

I guess I didn't realize this thread was actually seriously considering the anger of atheists, I thought it was a joke, you know one of those common misconceptions finally put right or something (that's why I thought it was funny humanguy, I assumed KTR was trying to make the case that atheist are cool, level headed people who know how to deal with anger and then when he blew up at Rian (whether justified or not I won't speculate) I found it funny). I probably should have watched that video of KTR's but I'm with Jim, short attention span...

This is just my own speculation, but I don't think its very accurate to talk about the anger of atheists as if every atheists anger derived from the same source. Everybody is different and everybody has different backgrounds, anger could be sourced from all kinds of places. But for discussions sake from my perspective the atheists on this forum could be loosely (very very very loosely) classified into two categories: 1.) A person who doesn't believe there's a God, but otherwise just trying to live life like anyone else and 2.) A person who doesn't believe there's a God, but also wants to make that clear to everybody else, who wants to bring about a new world order in which religions are 'put in their place', people who subscribe to this sort of time-weighted justification philosophy. I'll be the first to admit such a simple classification system is probably not very realistic, but personally I keep getting that vibe.

I am having trouble seeing how the first kind of atheist would directly derive anger from their atheism, but the second, well that's another matter. I would say the second is always going to be angry as long as there are other human beings with free will. But perhaps I'm way off track here.

[Keep The Reason]

I guess I didn't realize this thread was actually seriously considering the anger of atheists, I thought it was a joke, you know one of those common misconceptions finally put right or something (that's why I thought it was funny humanguy, I assumed KTR was trying to make the case that atheist are cool, level headed people who know how to deal with anger and then when he blew up at Rian (whether justified or not I won't speculate) I found it funny).

humanguy and Rian both immediately detoured the thread -- that is what I got "angry" with; but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I probably should have watched that video of KTR's but I'm with Jim, short attention span....

I find this kind of astonishing. "Short attention span" is floated as a viable reason to not investigate issues you're all willing to spend time debating and arguing. I spent years reading the bible, listening to lectures from theists, watching videos, investigating, learning, understanding... not seeking approval, just pointing it out.

I suppose that driving lack of effort explains a lot about how this topic has gone. To recap:

humanguy: Dismissed the entire concept based on some perceived notions about the speaker, a refusal to look into it, and then engages in some weird game that he likes to play (linking to music, etc)
Rian: Defends humanguy, and misperceives the topic entirely thinking that "angry atheists" is actually most specifically about atheists, and not about a tactic used by theists.
mitchmckain: In dictatorial fashion, defines discussion forums as having to not "post links" that are intended to spark discussion (!) (?)
Aaron: Didn't even think the topic was meant seriously! (Isn't there a Humor section on this discussion forum?)

A smattering of posts from Equinox, JustJim (who, to be honest, also objects to watching the video for the same reason as Aaron), and Dr. Mundo with a follow up from Aaron (thank you for that!) -- a couple of them are relevant, others not.

Meanwhile, the "angry atheist" phenomenum is a valid social mechanism and will have direct impact on this entire debate between theists and atheists.

[JustJim]

KTR,

A couple things I feel I need to say to clarify some stuff....

The issue is valid, and so is the follow up discussion of "what is appropriate reaction to anger?" In your case, you answer it by controlling it, which is a good trait to have (channeling it productively is what others, like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. have done).

When I say I try to control my anger, I in no way mean I try to stuff it, or ignore it, or just let it fester. I always attempt to control my anger by re-directing it's energies into positive things that release my tension in appropriate ways - not unlike Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al.

I find this kind of astonishing. "Short attention span" is floated as a viable reason to not investigate issues you're all willing to spend time debating and arguing. I spent years reading the bible, listening to lectures from theists, watching videos, investigating, learning, understanding... not seeking approval, just pointing it out.

I also have spent years reading the Bible (btw, it's grammatically incorrect to fail to capitalize the first letter of Bible, even if you think it's a pile of rubbish), listening to lectures by theists AND atheists, watching videos, investigating, learning, attempting to understand, etc. As far as I'm concerned, I'm as sure as I can be that I've heard it before. I'm 65 years old, well-educated, well-read, and really, really smart. I have an excellent memory, and an extremely high reading retention and comprehension rate. I'm sure Greta Christina had many good things to say about "angry atheists," but I'm equally confident she didn't say anything I haven't already heard in different words from other people. So, if I don't want to spend an hour listening to things I've probably already heard, that's my business. I may be wrong, and maybe she said some things I haven't heard before, but I really don't give a shit. I'm not interested enough to spend an hour finding out. I don't mean to dismiss your interest in what she had to say, since that's your business, but I'm not going to let your interest coerce me into being interested, when I'm really not. And very importantly, I won't address what she had to say, since I didn't listen to it. But I WILL address what people on this forum have to say about it, since I HAVE read what they've said. That's my prerogative. You don't decide what I read or listen to. I do.

I think it's more accurate to say Aaron objects to watching the video, while I don't "object" to watching it, but rather have decided I don't want to watch it because it's probably not worth my time (even though I could be wrong). Aaron's objections are the same as humanguy's, I think. They've both decided the author is a jerk not worth listening to. That's not at all why I'm not listening to it.

Anyhow, I agree that theists frequently tend to play the "angry atheist" card as a way of excusing themselves from addressing the issues atheists raise. They attack the 'anger' they misperceive, rather than answer the points the atheists make. In my opinion, that's because they don't HAVE any good answers....

Jim

[humanguy]

Hey Jim, I just want to thank you for explaining to Keep the Reason my reason for not watching his video.

I guess it never occurred to your well-educated, well-read, and really, really smart mind that I'll bloody well read, listen to or watch what I want when I choose to.

That is, after all, my prerogative, no? You don't decide what I read or listen to. I do.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Well the libertarian stuff at the beginning included a lot of stuff I could agree with. What I don't accept is her claim that these things happen because 'religion' as defined by her is epistemologically inferior to naturalism of various kinds. A few months ago someone put a link to another piece by Greta Christina in which she said about a certain view

'It cannot be shown to be false therefore it cannot be shown to be true, therefore it's worthless.'

That seemed to me like the kind of muddled thinking you might hear from a bright sixth former so I asked a bright sixth former to confirm for me that this was nonsense which they did and explained why. So I had assumed that to be making that kind of mistake she must be a lot younger than she is. Once you get behind the rhetoric of which there is an awful lot her argument seems to be the same one we have heard over and over again from Keep the Reason and Dr. Mundo that religion has no reality checks and so cannot be verified. As neither of them has so far responded to the simple questions I keep asking about why we should accept this kind of epistemology I don't suppose KTR will answer for that now. Just to check though. Can you see why Greta Christina's view as given above is nonsense and if so can you wee why the epistemological basis of her critique of religion does not hold? And that seems to me to be the case; I understand what she is saying and I think it could be developed into a challenging argument but I think it flounders because religious believers are not the only people who must hold beliefs that are not solely based on objective evidence or as she would call it proof.

But Keep the Reason Can I know challenge you to listen to something by one of the great Christian political thinkers of the present day on a related issue http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/203464-5 That's Os Guinness.

[Keep The Reason]

When I say I try to control my anger, I in no way mean I try to stuff it, or ignore it, or just let it fester. I always attempt to control my anger by re-directing it's energies into positive things that release my tension in appropriate ways - not unlike Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, to be clear as well. I'm glad though you were thoughtful enough to expand though-- thanks.

I also have spent years reading the Bible (btw, it's grammatically incorrect to fail to capitalize the first letter of Bible, even if you think it's a pile of rubbish), listening to lectures by theists AND atheists, watching videos, investigating, learning, attempting to understand, etc. As far as I'm concerned, I'm as sure as I can be that I've heard it before. I'm 65 years old, well-educated, well-read, and really, really smart. I have an excellent memory, and an extremely high reading retention and comprehension rate. I'm sure Greta Christina had many good things to say about "angry atheists," but I'm equally confident she didn't say anything I haven't already heard in different words from other people. So, if I don't want to spend an hour listening to things I've probably already heard, that's my business. I may be wrong, and maybe she said some things I haven't heard before, but I really don't give a shit. I'm not interested enough to spend an hour finding out. I don't mean to dismiss your interest in what she had to say, since that's your business, but I'm not going to let your interest coerce me into being interested, when I'm really not. And very importantly, I won't address what she had to say, since I didn't listen to it. But I WILL address what people on this forum have to say about it, since I HAVE read what they've said. That's my prerogative. You don't decide what I read or listen to. I do.

I'm not trying to coerce. I simply listed the responses from a factual position, fairly, as to what people said here in this thread.

It's also my prerogative to be surprised by that response.

While you aren't obligated to explain your choice (you're free to make any choice you want after all) what surprised me was the explanation of "I don't want to watch it, I have a short attention span" that both you and Aaron used. That reason is quite a bit different from this reason you list here. Choosing not to watch something is perfectly fine (although as you also pointed out to hg, to not watch it and then to go on and pontificate about it is basically ignorant bloviating); saying "I don't want to watch it because my attention span is short" is a surprise given the amount of study people like us tend to do (and as you clearly outline above) on this topic. So in reality, you don't have a short attention span -- you simply don't care about it which is a legitimate -- but different -- kind of a reaosn.

I think it's more accurate to say Aaron objects to watching the video, while I don't "object" to watching it, but rather have decided I don't want to watch it because it's probably not worth my time (even though I could be wrong). Aaron's objections are the same as humanguy's, I think. They've both decided the author is a jerk not worth listening to. That's not at all why I'm not listening to it.

Well, I can only predicate my response on what people said. He said he too has a short attention span. Should I believe him, or should I assume there's a different reason? See the problem? I merely took your own statement as your reaosn, and now I find out that it wasn't that reason at all. Rhetorically speaking (rhetorical because I know what to do, just ask him) -- what should I do about Aaron's stated reason? Believe him, or not? If "not" -- well, I'll be happy to stop believing anything the theists say as they're saying it merely to exalt their position due to lack of any solid answers, but I will be surprised when the atheists do the same thing.

Anyhow, I agree that theists frequently tend to play the "angry atheist" card as a way of excusing themselves from addressing the issues atheists raise. They attack the 'anger' they misperceive, rather than answer the points the atheists make. In my opinion, that's because they don't HAVE any good answers....

Jim

Well, I certainly agree with that. And I can see it first hand, right here, primarily from thiests but also from humanguy. But honestly, I don't know what hg's story is-- frankly, he kind of comes off as an unstable sort of person IMO, and I know he's reading this, and I know it'll be perceived as an ad hominem or "remote psychoanalysis" or whatever you want to call it, but what do you say to a guy who actually asks, "I don't understand that sentence, the one that's in boldface. Give me an example of religion's sway over social direction."?