Selsaral

It's a lot like the reasons that liberals debate conservatives, or people argue about whether hip hop is actually music. In fact, if you go to a guitar forum, you'll likely find threads with thousands of posts of people arguing with extreme seriousness on whether or not Hendrix was better than Clapton.

Arguing and debating like this is just what people do.

I am interested in many philosophical topics, including theism/atheism.

Unfortunately, rudeness is often times more common than politeness. This is even more apparent online, where many normal social inhibitions disappear.

I don't think it has anything to do with the topic. I see the exact same attitudes on thousands of different topics, from sports to philosophy. It's human nature.

You are absolutely correct that it's wrong for atheists to demean theists, and that it is often counterproductive.

I think you will find that on this particular forum, we try harder than at other places.

I try damn hard not to insult anyone but frustration often times leads me to be sarcastic or biting. Often times satire and sarcasm can be effective, if annoying, debating techniques.

We try to remember here that it's not just our debate opponent we are talking to. There are thousands of lurkers (unregistered people) reading these threads, so it's best to put your most polite, objective tone on and speak to the audience.

About the condescension at theists for being less educated: I can't help it. When I don't know something about a topic, I am humble and quiet. But many creationists, being completely ignorant of even grade school science, often try to tell professional scientists that they know better, and mockery is an expected result.

From my side of the issue, I find many theists to be devastatingly rude and close minded on the subject. Historically, theists have burned atheists alive for having the gall to question their assertions about magical men living in the sky. Historically, theists have burned other theists alive for having the gall to question minute points of theology.

As far as I can tell, theists have atheists beat by miles and miles on the whole hostility thing. Really, burning people alive and imprisoning them for practicing science is in an entirely different category than being condescending about someone's particular supernatural beliefs.

Personally, I was raised in a secular home (god was never mentioned, either as an actual being or as a myth), but in a small town in Virginia where my best friend's father was a baptist minister. I was indifferent on the topic until I attended college.

It's also very important to remember that an online discussion forum is a very different place than an encounter in real life. Here, we are expected to speak our minds and dispute other people's claims. In real life, politeness usually comes first, even for the most aggressive online poster.

When my elderly grandmother tells tales of God sending her messages, you can be sure I keep my mouth firmly closed. That's not the proper setting to debate the existence of God.

James Brown

Well, first off, the issues are important ones, so many people take it seriously. But I suspect you may be suffering from selection bias--namely, the atheists you know who debate God and religion happen to be the atheists who enjoy debating God and religion (or at least take it seriously). I'm certain you know people who are both atheists and unconcerned with the debate--namely, it is a done deal for them. But you don't notice them because they aren't saying anything. Simply put, atheists who discuss these subjects are a smallish subset of the larger atheist population.

For myself, I enjoy the discussions, within reason. I won't tolerate insults on either side, I don't enjoy duplicity, and I get frustrated with closed-minded stubborness. Which seques into your second question...

You are correct that we have a pot/kettle issue. I've gotten into arguments with atheists who have launched into vitriolic profane diatribes at apologists and theists. My view is that we have a responsibility to present ourselves as the calm, rational ones. I won't stoop to the red-faced indignation of my opponents, and it's typically at that point where the atheists who enjoy coining new profanities at theists tell me that I'm all wet. Some people emulate Penn Jillette; I'm more of a Carl Sagan man myself.

That said, I will admit that sometimes what appears to be insulting behavior can often just be frustration. After all, one can only be told so many times that you're going to be tortured for eternity because of your beliefs before tempers can flare.

I was born and raised in a conservative Baptist church with a loving Christian family and friends. As an adult, I approached an online group of atheists with the hidden agenda of converting them to Christianity. I quickly learned that my new cool arguments were actually old and stale. When they pressed back on me, I read a lot, learned a lot, and decided that I would remain a Christian, but I had no right to try to witness. I retreated into respectful silence. Before long, I asked myself, "What's the difference between a God that can't be demonstrated and a God that doesn't exist?" Shortly after that, I was an atheist.

So no, no bad experiences for me. No priestly abuses, no personal traumas---just argument and enlightenment. My spouse, my parents, and some of my closest friends are still passionate believers, and I don't get angry with them over it. When someone mentions their religious belief, I may inwardly groan, much in the same way I groan when someone cites astrology as a reliable means of information. You can now say that you know of an atheist who doesn't get bent out of shape when considering the question of God.

DancesWithCoffeeCups

Welcome to IIDB, Walrus

I spend time here because it's a board that supports an atheistic worldview.
I don't have to study to refute creationists as their view is a minority view in the real world. I spend plenty of time with family and friends. I have lots of time. What I would like to see you demonstrate is where on this particular board the atheists are gathering to discuss how strong the pull back to theism is. Any one thread will do.

There are rules at this discussion board. One of those rules is that "name-calling" isn't allowed. When someone here loses their cool they usually get called on it. If they continue to exhibit childish behavior they don't last long. Again, I'll ask you to show me a thread where the unedited text supports your claim. As far as I can tell in the past three years that I've been lurking here, far more theists have been banned for being unable to follow the rules than atheists. If you'd like some back up data you can check out the banned users area.

I was raised christian (lutheran or if you prefer catholic-lite). It's impossible to have a bad experience when one is a lutheran. I started asking questions during my confirmation process (around 11ish) and got some of the most bizarre answers I'd ever heard. I then began looking into all religions for a number of years. I went from agnostic to weak atheist to strong atheist. (I'm 48 now). A natural progression as far as I'm concerned based on the profound lack of evidence for any of the 2800+ claimed gods. I've never been hostile about or towards gods in general as it's difficult to harbor that intense a feeling about something that doesn't exist. I will say that specific gods, like the OT bible god invoke moral repugnance from me.

I hope this helps and I hope you enjoy your stay.

DW

Hedshaker

Welcome to IIDB WalrusGumBoot,

Your questions seem to have been adequately dealt with so I won't bother with them but would like to ask you a quick couple questions.

Do you now accept evolution? If so, how does that gel with your theism?

Thanks

Autonemesis

Why do you think atheists spend an inordinate amount of time on the topic, relative to the amount of time spent on any other topic of interest? Creationists are trying to affect the public school curriculum in ways not conducive to giving kids a proper science education. You don't think that deserves some amount of effort to refute? You think atheists shouldn't concern themselves with that?

What makes you think atheists don't do those things?

You mean believers keep bringing it up.

Why do theists assume atheists have no social life and spend all their time thinking of ways to destroy the church? If you kept encountering that kind of stereotype over and over again, wouldn't you develop a little impatience with someone who mindlessly repeated it to you once again?

I realized God doesn't exist. Simple, really.

Well after being asked to consider it again and again, for the thousandth time, can you blame them? So many theists seem to think their proselytizing is the first any atheist they've just met has ever heard of The Word. Trust me, The Word is out. You cannot avoid It, It is everywhere. There isn't any part of The Word that atheists haven't heard or don't understand. We "get it." But it's a myth, not reality.

chapka

I think this, and this:

may frankly indicate a certain lack of perspective on your part.

First, I'm going to make some assumptions about the particular brand of Christianity you believe in, based on your statement that learning about evolution "shook your faith." (since evolution is only in conflict with certain extreme forms of American Protestantism, and most Christians in the world have no issues with it). So I assume that you at least started out as a literalist fundamentalist who believed that you had a duty to evangelize and that salvation came only through grace.

That being the case, you need to realize that many of the things you might say in arguing with atheists are likely to be seen as extremely insulting, even if you don't intend them to be, much like complimenting a black man by calling him "articulate" is often received as an insult ("boy, what a surprise that you don't speak some media caricature of ebonics!").

I always recommend that fundamentalists who want some perspective on what we hear when they talk about grace and salvation read one of the most famous and influential sermons in the history of American religion, Jonathan Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. If you Google around you can find it online in many versions. In it, Edwards makes clear what is often hidden in modern, touchy-feely Christianity: the entire basis of the doctrine of salvation through grace is that humanity needs salvation; that without salvation, humanity deserves not just death but unending torture after death; that merely because someone is not a Christian, that no kind of torture, even extended for eternity, is not just allowable but just. When you tell me I need to be saved, you're looking me in the eye and telling me that you think I currently deserve to be tortured for eternity. And I'm not supposed to find that insulting?

We get variations on this one all the time. People ask, "Without God, what stops you from going out and raping and killing people all the time?" as though "atheist" is equivalent to "sociopathic monster devoid of ordinary, natural human emotions." People accuse us, as you come close to doing in your third question, of actually knowing that God exists but just desperately trying to deny it because we want to sin so badly. People accuse us of not being fully human or of lacking some fundamental capacity because we don't happen to agree with them. And people constantly assume that our lives are necessarily meaningless and that we can't possibly care about the world or about anything that happens after we die.

Meanwhile, of course, atheists are pretty universally recognized to be the most hated group in the United States. More people say they would never vote for an atheist for President than say they would never vote for an openly gay person. And yet, Christians constantly seem to act as though they're a persecuted minority being oppressed by a vast atheist conspiracy.

So from our perspective, the most common situation that gets us riled up is when a Christian who thinks he or she is a brave, lone voice in the wilderness, but who is actually backed up by the majority of voters in his or her state and is therefore able to impose his or her will on me by law, informs me that I am a wretched, sex-addicted, subhuman liar who should be grateful to be rescued from the eternal torture I so richly deserve, and that therefore I should stop my powerful atheist allies from persecuting all of the brave Christians.

Can you see how that would annoy someone a little bit?

Headache

1. Simple! Because the overwhelming majority of people are religious and use all their time to promote their ideas, implement their laws etc. All this needs to be met with an opposition and with knowledge and not name calling. Hence, study of religion is important in order to counter religious arguments.

2. I'm not an asshole, so I don't retort to name calling.

3. Been an atheist all my life, i.e 50 years.

Vicious Love

Heya. Welcome to the boards. As far as I can tell, I mean. Your join date is six years ago, but I haven't seen you around any of my hangouts.

Speaking only for myself, most of the reading I do on biology, physics and whatnot is out of a desire for knowledge, and much of the debating I do is purely for argument's sake, so to speak. It's fun, it's (ideally) challenging, it gives me a chance to exercise my thinkin' bits, and I might even learn something. With particularly irrational interlocutors, there's also an element of morbid fascination involved; it takes a special kind of insanity to look you straight in the eyes and tell you that you don't exist, or that the earth is flat, or 10,000 years old, or that an all-loving, all-powerful God permitted or commanded full-scale genocide for the Greater Good of Humanity, and part of me refuses to disengage from that sort of debate until I can finally understand how these people can be so goddamn stupid. Erm... clearly, the above does not refer to any current members of these boards.

Beyond that, there's that minor issue of theistic beliefs being used to justify the oppression of minorities, the teaching of dogma and absurdity in public schools, the impeding of valuable research projects, the termination of literally lifesaving sex-ed and birth control programs in developing countries in favor of sub-moronic "abstinence only" programs, the flying of planes into towers, the defrauding of the gullible for millions of dollars, the voting for warmongering psychopaths, and other such trifles.

Still speaking only for myself, I try not to do so when the theists in question are polite, sincere, and at least marginally reasonable. If it seems possible to engage in a meaningful conversational exchange, I do so. If this is not the case, I sometimes settle for a spot of mockery, since it's just plain fun.

And then there are those times when I'm faced with the kind of theist who uses Hovind-grade arguments to support a Phelps-grade philosophy. The kind who would lynch fags over a pyre of biology textbooks because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits information accumulating the flood deposit which Darwin identified on his deathbed. I feel it is my ethical obligation not only to annihilate any point such a person raises in a debate, but to fan the flames of contempt for everything for which they stand, through rant and ridicule alike. For assholes to triumph, all that is required is for good folk to sit idle. On top of that, it's really, really fun to fuck with such morons' heads.

Nothing close-minded about calling an idiotic argument idiotic, so long as you actually take a moment to consider and point out why it is so (or so long as it is so batshit insane that anyone who does not immediately recognize it as idiotic is beyond hope). As for intolerance, I tolerate others' right to be intolerant, but I don't tolerate their right to act upon their intolerance and harm those whom they do not tolerate, and I certainly tolerate my right to condemn their desire to act upon their intolerance, as well as my right to expose them for the lunatic misanthropes they are, Godwin's Law or no Godwin's Law, run-on sentence or no run-on sentence, trying to extend this sentence even further or no trying to extend this sentence even further. I hate Illinois Nazis.

That's me.

All the time. 'course, there aren't all that many atheists, and being an atheist is tantamount to political suicide in many parts of the world, so comparatively few of them actually form overtly atheistic parties or political groups, but there are still more than enough of those in the far left of those political theatres with which I'm familiar.

Mind you, most of said atheists strive for secularism and freedom of religion, rather than for universal atheism, so they're not really comparable to the would-be theocrats that dominate the American right (or the bona fide theocrats that dominate the Iranian right, for that matter). Still, to imply that atheists are necessarily apolitical is simply misleading.

That's because you don't presently see that many atheists with the power to create havoc in war-torn countries. They might not have been Secular Humanists, they might not have been True Atheists(tm), they might not have been sane, but Stalin, Pol Pot, and others were all atheists.

Neither do most theists. Though I imagine they would've, just a few decades back, were said soldiers openly gay or Communist or some mix of the two. But that's sheer speculation.

That they aren't.

Again, Stalin comes to mind. Killing in the name of an atheist utopia isn't that far from killing in the name of atheism. Granted, we're free to question whether he really had any interest at all in pursuing Marxist ideals, but by that same token we might ask how many of the major political players behind the Crusades were really in it out of sheer piety, and not lust for wealth, power, and a place in history.

There's no doubt in my mind that theism is overall a bad thing (not without its good side, but far more harmful than beneficial), but we must be wary of oversimplification and partisan dogma. A juvenile "good vs evil, us vs them" worldview is one of the definitive attributes of theists of the very worst kind.

ELECTROGOD

On a regular basis I get accused of that by theists in discussions when I haven't done or said those things. It's more often than not their own perception that, because I don't accept their claims and seem to know more about certain topics and can articulate my knowledge, I must then be treating them in an uncivilized manner.
I find that theists often feel insulted simply because we don't buy their claims without question.

I also find that in instances when they insult us first and I give it back (if that's the level of discourse they prefer), they ignore their role and see fit to accuse us of what they did first.

David B

Well, Walrus, I've been somewhat politicised by the time I've spent on boards like this one, other internet recourses, (those websites set up to aid those who have escaped from such traps as mormonism, the JWs, Islam, and fundamentalist religion generally contain much that is harrowing), and books - like those I read on line by Dan Barker, to name just one, and on paper by Richard Dawkins and others.

While some religious beliefs and organisations are clearly more pernicious than others, I take the view that some are really very pernicious - not only insofar as blind faith can encourage mass suicide, flying planes into buildings, witch-hunts, the demanding of theocracies, but also much damage to individuals in their everyday lives, especially when one member of a family either converts to or deconverts from, some religion.

I see it as tragic if a child is lost to Hare Krishna, Militant Islam, fundamentalist Christianity, and tragic if someone seeing sense is spurned by his loved ones in consequence.

I see it as tragic when people - and there are many accounts of this - feel obliged to keep their lack of faith a secret because of the consequences they anticipate if family members, friends, employers....were to discover their lack of faith.

Just as one little example, I'd ask you to look down a few pages of this thread. I say one little example - but of course to the people involved it is not little at all. But they are a very few among very many, even if the problems are better expressed than most such cases.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=195015

I don't go out in the streets proclaiming the virtues of lack of superstition, but if someone brings the topic up, I regard them as fair game.

I don't generally visit christian discussion boards to try to pick arguments.

If the religious and/or superstitious, christian or otherwise, come here, then they are also fair game. Some prove themselves moronic. Some are very inventive and articulate in their rationalisations of their faiths. Some lose their faiths, or have to adapt their faiths to a large degree, as it seems you have already done.

Well done to you for that.

But have a look at that link, if you want understand something of at least one persons distaste for Christianity, especially the fundamentalist strains of it.

David B (escaped from a non christian cult some decades ago)