brighid

Yes, this is too true, but at least when one makes a deliberate and reasoned attempt to attack arguments, etc. one can be satisfied in knowing that he is not guilty of the accusation of insult.

Brighid

Biff the unclean

Obviously dado it is easier for you to insult people than it is to defend yourself.
Either you are "self-thinking" or you have faith in the Bible. Pick one or the other because you cannot have both at the same time.
When I follow an instruction manual I certainly do not bluster about being "self-thinking." I cannot suddenly decide that I do not like what the book says about replacing the car's timing belt, I'll just leave it out because I never liked it anyway.
If you are making this religious nonsense up as you go along at least admit that you are. Stop pretending to draw authority from the Bible while you are claiming it says things which it does not.

wildernesse

My husband is an atheist. I find it interesting that you think that the internet is a poor way to know atheists, since many atheists on this very board say that this board is the only place that they have ever met like-minded people. So, the atheist community (such that it is) seems to think that interacting with atheists here is a good way to know about atheists.

Plus, this does not address my point that the negative views I hold about atheists come from how some describe treating their spouses when there is a conflict in beliefs. In the cases I'm thinking of, the atheist's actions only show arrogance, immaturity, and a desire to control other people and bend them to his (and it usually is a man) will. It's amazing, since these are the negative things that most here despise about organized religion--and yet, in some instances, they have become what they've hated.

Overall, I don't think that atheism really causes these negative traits, but that some people lack the appropriate means of interacting with others. This goes for theists who act this way as well. I guess I don't think that there are negative things about atheism per se, just that atheists tend to be jerks and jackasses in the same proportion as the general population.

King Rat

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean
Originally Posted by dado:
Biff raises a great point about the cherry picking and convenient interpretation of biblical passages by hucksters that we all have seen on t.v. Hinn, Falwell, Graham, Robertson, and other such dickwads. Why exactly are you insulted by Biffs post?

I'm genuinely confused.

Starboy

The bigotry of theists against atheists is mosty the results of the fear, intolerance and deciet sowed by theists.

Reagan lives on through words

Starboy

brighid

Just as Stalin and Lenin do not speak for all atheists, Regan does not speak for all theists which included quite the plethora of belief systems.

Brighid

Starboy

Good point. Just how many theists do you think agree with Reagan?

Starboy

brighid

I couldn't even begin to estimate how many of the tens of billions of theists all over the world agree with Regan. I do know many, many theists in this country and worldwide that couldn't disagree with him more. So I reserve my judgement of individual "theists" based upon their expressed notions and actions and not simply brand them all in the same stripe because some, even many may agree with such ridiculous sentiment as comes from the mouth of Regan. To do so would seem to be doing now better than those who so quickly brand atheists as unpatriotic, angry, etc.

Brighid

Anitra

Just because it is common does not mean it is "human nature." It is "human nature" for a social animal to expect feedback from others in the group, approval or disapproval. We need critical feedback from others, because we've all got blind spots. Those who thrive best are those who seek out their own errors, welcome and even seek criticism.

That does take, however, a certain degree of emotional security. Those who are harshly critical of others out of a low sense of self-esteem and a high sense of vulnerability to others are going to take even the mildest criticism as an attack.

All you can do is what you can do. "Criticism" is supposed to be a "serious analysis" of something. It does not have to be all negative and it does not have to be couched in abusive terms to be effective -- it is much more effective if it is not couched in abusive terms. If you do your personal best to not be condemnatory or abusive, not to attack the person instead of the idea, then at least when they whine it won't make you feel guilty.

It also seems that, for humans, the survival of ideas we have invested ourselves in sometimes feels as important as our physical survival, and a threat to them is like a threat to our life.

Plognark

Uh, true, except I mildly disagree that it isn't part of human nature to take attacks on one's thoughts and opinions as attacks on one's self. I think that is part of human nature, but that we have the capacity to rise above it.

I don't know that many emotionally secure people, quite frankly, in real life or online, but I do agree with you.

True

VERY true, in my experiences. Again, I feel this is part of human nature, although it is possible to rise above it.