It is utterly fascinating the reactions and responses that some theists give to the concept of atheism and to atheists in particular. Most theist appear to take the attitude that atheists are afflicted with something and many have a revulsion toward atheists. Atheists often are faced with discrimination:
http://www.nbc5.com/news/4538008/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65193
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/atheist_fired.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
etc.
But atheists have even faced severe harassment and ridicule from theistic people in response to learning of their atheism or of their opposition to public display of religious belief at the expense of taxpayers:
One has to wonder what motivates these believers (I think it's safe to assume "Christians") who ridicule, harass, insult, and even assault atheists. And, indeed, we've seen some of the same behavior here in this very forum, for instance in the "I Hate Christians" thread.
That's not to say that the believers don't receive their fair share of "bashing." It is completely understanding why a believer of any supernatural force, be it UFOs, god, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Osiris, or ESP would find it offending when those skeptical of their beliefs criticize them. It is even going a bit too far when the skeptics, including myself, suggest delusion to explain their beliefs –but this is truly what the skeptics of religion perceive: that theists are deluded. But the definition of "delusion" is "anything that deceives the mind with a false impression; a deception; a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things, esp. as a form of mental derangement (OED 1989)."
However, it goes far and beyond simply creating an offense of casual association, as with the criticisms of one's belief, when directing unfounded and direct insults to the character of the atheist in the form of ad hominem remarks that some anti-atheists (or, as one sciforums member describes himself, "antiatheistites") resort to.
Such forum members might be a minority among the theistic believers in this and other forums, but I suggest that these people have a purpose and an agenda. They appear to seek to discourage intellectual discussion and debate regarding atheism as it compares and contrasts to theism, especially Christianity. And this appears to be their motivation in behaving in the manner that they do. What isn't apparent, however, is the motivation behind their desire to sabotage a discussion that includes serious comparisons between theism and atheism.
To that, we can only speculate. Perhaps there is a fear, either recognized or unrecognized, of the atheist position and atheists in general; perhaps they were offended by an atheist at some point to the degree that they cannot forgive, much less forget; perhaps they believe it to be the will of their god(s); perhaps they consider this behavior justified in their "crusades against atheism" in much the same way the bomber believes he/she is justified to blow up abortion clinics in that crusade; and so on.
One sciforums member, in the "I Hate Christians" thread asserted that all of the atheists in the thread were "self-righteous, fanatical, imposing, etc." When this point is argued, the response is direct, harsh and rude insults that go well beyond dealing with the issue of atheism and are clearly meant to attack the individual on a very personal level.
Why?
Why resort to that level of attack? In looking at the "I Hate Christians" thread, it's clear that in fourteen pages, there are, perhaps, only three or four pages of substance when the silly banter, "flames," "trolling" remarks, and responses to these are removed. The overall effect was to discourage posting in the thread and to mask the serious posts with unrelated diatribe.
In a society that in which being publicly atheist can cause you to lose a job, be inundated with obscene phone calls from Christians, or even physically attacked by them, discussion forums like this are wonderful places to speak out and explore your beliefs and the beliefs of others with certain anonymity. But even here, there are those that would seek to disrupt that since it runs counter to their own beliefs and worldviews.
What encounters or evidence do others see of "anti-atheism" either on the internet or in society?
Do theists (i.e. Christians) receive unfair amounts of "bashing" or are atheists who are publicly critical merely offering a fair counter-position to the publicly open nature of Christianity?
If Christianity is open and vocal in public forum and it's worldviews well-represented, shouldn't it be fair that atheists and humanists likewise make their worldviews known?
I'm not interested in creating a thread that explores whether atheism or theism is more tenable (i.e. an atheism vs. theism debate), but rather a discussion on the extent to which these two positions go to counter each other and if one or both go to far.
http://www.nbc5.com/news/4538008/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65193
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/atheist_fired.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
etc.
But atheists have even faced severe harassment and ridicule from theistic people in response to learning of their atheism or of their opposition to public display of religious belief at the expense of taxpayers:
One has to wonder what motivates these believers (I think it's safe to assume "Christians") who ridicule, harass, insult, and even assault atheists. And, indeed, we've seen some of the same behavior here in this very forum, for instance in the "I Hate Christians" thread.
That's not to say that the believers don't receive their fair share of "bashing." It is completely understanding why a believer of any supernatural force, be it UFOs, god, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Osiris, or ESP would find it offending when those skeptical of their beliefs criticize them. It is even going a bit too far when the skeptics, including myself, suggest delusion to explain their beliefs –but this is truly what the skeptics of religion perceive: that theists are deluded. But the definition of "delusion" is "anything that deceives the mind with a false impression; a deception; a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things, esp. as a form of mental derangement (OED 1989)."
However, it goes far and beyond simply creating an offense of casual association, as with the criticisms of one's belief, when directing unfounded and direct insults to the character of the atheist in the form of ad hominem remarks that some anti-atheists (or, as one sciforums member describes himself, "antiatheistites") resort to.
Such forum members might be a minority among the theistic believers in this and other forums, but I suggest that these people have a purpose and an agenda. They appear to seek to discourage intellectual discussion and debate regarding atheism as it compares and contrasts to theism, especially Christianity. And this appears to be their motivation in behaving in the manner that they do. What isn't apparent, however, is the motivation behind their desire to sabotage a discussion that includes serious comparisons between theism and atheism.
To that, we can only speculate. Perhaps there is a fear, either recognized or unrecognized, of the atheist position and atheists in general; perhaps they were offended by an atheist at some point to the degree that they cannot forgive, much less forget; perhaps they believe it to be the will of their god(s); perhaps they consider this behavior justified in their "crusades against atheism" in much the same way the bomber believes he/she is justified to blow up abortion clinics in that crusade; and so on.
One sciforums member, in the "I Hate Christians" thread asserted that all of the atheists in the thread were "self-righteous, fanatical, imposing, etc." When this point is argued, the response is direct, harsh and rude insults that go well beyond dealing with the issue of atheism and are clearly meant to attack the individual on a very personal level.
Why?
Why resort to that level of attack? In looking at the "I Hate Christians" thread, it's clear that in fourteen pages, there are, perhaps, only three or four pages of substance when the silly banter, "flames," "trolling" remarks, and responses to these are removed. The overall effect was to discourage posting in the thread and to mask the serious posts with unrelated diatribe.
In a society that in which being publicly atheist can cause you to lose a job, be inundated with obscene phone calls from Christians, or even physically attacked by them, discussion forums like this are wonderful places to speak out and explore your beliefs and the beliefs of others with certain anonymity. But even here, there are those that would seek to disrupt that since it runs counter to their own beliefs and worldviews.
What encounters or evidence do others see of "anti-atheism" either on the internet or in society?
Do theists (i.e. Christians) receive unfair amounts of "bashing" or are atheists who are publicly critical merely offering a fair counter-position to the publicly open nature of Christianity?
If Christianity is open and vocal in public forum and it's worldviews well-represented, shouldn't it be fair that atheists and humanists likewise make their worldviews known?
I'm not interested in creating a thread that explores whether atheism or theism is more tenable (i.e. an atheism vs. theism debate), but rather a discussion on the extent to which these two positions go to counter each other and if one or both go to far.
