Some atheists are just like religious fundamentalists

Kellisness

Registered Senior Member
It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.
 
I get really tired of hearing this from theists. Atheism is based on logic and reason, and theists cannot handle it. They have no good arguments anymore.
 
I get really tired of hearing this from theists. Atheism is based on logic and reason, and theists cannot handle it. They have no good arguments anymore.




Sir I approached you on some scientific items, tou were not able to answer "I am an artist " Heve you worked on some development project ? There is a good amount of faith in the outcome , which means believe ( you cross your finger for the outcome )
I am a believer in my work , I approach my work with knowledge , I don't trow things together and hope an angel will mix and make a miracle.
If this is how you think of us believers in science , you are wrong.
 
I get really tired of hearing this from theists. Atheism is based on logic and reason, and theists cannot handle it. They have no good arguments anymore.

Translation :

Atheism is true and therefore you theists are wrong and therefore stupid.

All you atheists ever do (some of you) is whine about how other people's methods of coming to their conclusions differ from yours. It's you who can't handle it, not us. You can't stand the idea that not everyone agrees with your views, so you preach and preach and call it "debate" when really all you want to do is get everyone to agree with you. You're insecure.
 
All you atheists ever do (some of you) is whine about how other people's methods of coming to their conclusions differ from yours. It's you who can't handle it, not us. You can't stand the idea that not everyone agrees with your views, so you preach and preach and call it "debate" when really all you want to do is get everyone to agree with you. You're insecure.
Ha! Who's whining? :D
 
There are some people who preach to the opposite side of the spectrum from both sides.
I think it's best to say where you sit on the fence and why, offering reasoning and logic.

I like to ask questions out of genuine curiosity. Unfortunately some people from the opposite side sometimes see this as preaching.

Translation :

Atheism is true and therefore you theists are wrong and therefore stupid.

All you atheists ever do (some of you) is whine about how other people's methods of coming to their conclusions differ from yours.

Its hard for a lot of people to grasp how others got there though. Reasoning, logic and probable causes seem to be avoided a lot from some people.
 
Sir I approached you on some scientific items, tou were not able to answer "I am an artist " Heve you worked on some development project ? There is a good amount of faith in the outcome , which means believe ( you cross your finger for the outcome )
I am a believer in my work , I approach my work with knowledge , I don't trow things together and hope an angel will mix and make a miracle.
If this is how you think of us believers in science , you are wrong.
I suppose you think that my atheism is based on science having a full and complete explanation of the origin of life? I would be an atheist without that for many other reasons.

Translation :

Atheism is true and therefore you theists are wrong and therefore stupid.

All you atheists ever do (some of you) is whine about how other people's methods of coming to their conclusions differ from yours. It's you who can't handle it, not us. You can't stand the idea that not everyone agrees with your views, so you preach and preach and call it "debate" when really all you want to do is get everyone to agree with you. You're insecure.

Is every method of investigation equally valid? I suggest that logic and reason are not simply cultural differences, but are indeed more valid than "methods" of faith in making models of the universe because the results are evident. Of course I want people to agree with me, that's the whole point of debating things. If I were insecure, I would say as you do that perhaps everything is true no matter how outlandish and unsupported.
 
Some atheists are just like religious fundamentalists

I think that's true, but probably not in the sense that you intend.

It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.

You seem to be implying that atheists should remain silent while Christians (or Muslims or whatever) preach. But why should an atheist be passive? Why shouldn't they state what their own position is and argue vigorously for it?

Having said that, I do agree with you that some fraction of militant atheists do resemble religious fundamentalists. One simularity is both groups' burning passion about religion.

Huge numbers of nominal Christians are more interested in football than in church on Sundays, while most secular unbelievers don't pay a whole lot of attention to religion and aren't particularly interested in it. There isn't a whole lot of difference between these two groups and they get along fine together.

But the bible-waving fundies and the fire-breathing atheists do care. They care a whole lot. That's an important simularity between them.

Many of the louder atheists seem to spend an inordinate amount of time studying their bibles and quoting bible verses. But the intention now is to discredit Christianity, not to preach it.

More subtly, some of the militant atheists seem to read and understand their bibles in fundamentalist ways. These atheists are staunch upholders of biblical literalism and vocal opponents of allegorical forms of hermeneutics. Atheists can be just as opposed as the fundamentalists are to what both dismissively call "picking and choosing" which bible verses to believe and honor.

I still recall the rather memorable experience of being lectured by atheists on an atheist discussion board on what "true" Christianity is and isn't.

My own theory is that many of these louder and more militant atheists are former fundamentalists who subsequently lost their faith. That sense of loss and oftentimes a sense of betrayal are what fuel their passion and sometimes their anger. And perhaps more often than they are aware, their thinking about religion still follows the old familiar channels of their youth.
 
Good post.
Kellisness should take note. Especially this bit:

Huge numbers of nominal Christians are more interested in football than in church on Sundays, while most secular unbelievers don't pay a whole lot of attention to religion and aren't particularly interested in it. There isn't a whole lot of difference between these two groups and they get along fine together.
 
Of course some atheists have an axe to grind about theism, but it's because we are paying attention to it's evils. There is nothing wrong with being an activist for your cause. The problem with fundamentalism isn't that they want to change people's minds, it's a problem with the fundamentals of their religion.
 
It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.

Have you only just worked this out?

jan.
 
Typical theistic projection. They don't understand the roots of science, reason, or logic, so they conclude atheists are just as irrational as they are. It's like confusing a police SWAT team with an execution squad, they see only the surface qualities and have no conception of context.
 
You seem to be implying that atheists should remain silent while Christians (or Muslims or whatever) preach. But why should an atheist be passive? Why shouldn't they state what their own position is and argue vigorously for it?

And why should they state what their own position is and argue vigorously for it?
 
I think that's true, but probably not in the sense that you intend.



You seem to be implying that atheists should remain silent while Christians (or Muslims or whatever) preach. But why should an atheist be passive? Why shouldn't they state what their own position is and argue vigorously for it?

Having said that, I do agree with you that some fraction of militant atheists do resemble religious fundamentalists. One simularity is both groups' burning passion about religion.

Huge numbers of nominal Christians are more interested in football than in church on Sundays, while most secular unbelievers don't pay a whole lot of attention to religion and aren't particularly interested in it. There isn't a whole lot of difference between these two groups and they get along fine together.

But the bible-waving fundies and the fire-breathing atheists do care. They care a whole lot. That's an important simularity between them.

Many of the louder atheists seem to spend an inordinate amount of time studying their bibles and quoting bible verses. But the intention now is to discredit Christianity, not to preach it.

More subtly, some of the militant atheists seem to read and understand their bibles in fundamentalist ways. These atheists are staunch upholders of biblical literalism and vocal opponents of allegorical forms of hermeneutics. Atheists can be just as opposed as the fundamentalists are to what both dismissively call "picking and choosing" which bible verses to believe and honor.

I still recall the rather memorable experience of being lectured by atheists on an atheist discussion board on what "true" Christianity is and isn't.

My own theory is that many of these louder and more militant atheists are former fundamentalists who subsequently lost their faith. That sense of loss and oftentimes a sense of betrayal are what fuel their passion and sometimes their anger. And perhaps more often than they are aware, their thinking about religion still follows the old familiar channels of their youth.


I'm not implying that atheists should remain silent while theists preach. That's your interpretation of what I said, but it's not the case at all. I'm pointing out the fact that some atheists are preachy. I can see that you agree, but I'd like to point out a couple of things.

You ask, why should atheists be passive? You make it all sound as though there's some kind of battle going on. There isn't, not if you don't want there to be. If you want a battle against people with opposing views, you'll almost always find one, because preachy, self righteous people are everywhere and you'll always find a partner to do battle with. The typical error is when a preachy self rightous person assumes that everyone with an opposing view to theirs sees it as they do (a battle), and it makes them uncomfortable when they realise that their efforts to engage in battle are in vain.

You ask, why shouldn't atheists state their position and argue vigorously for it? Atheists are welcome to state their position. If they feel passionate and certain about their views, they are welcome to express themselves so. But many atheists cross the line and become preachy, and instead of just expressing opinions, they start arguing "for" their position, as though it's a game or a battle to be won or lost. It isn't. Seeing it in terms of a battle is the first sign of missing the point entirely. There really is nothing at stake, except pride for those who see it that way.


I love this paragraph of yours :


"My own theory is that many of these louder and more militant atheists are former fundamentalists who subsequently lost their faith. That sense of loss and oftentimes a sense of betrayal are what fuel their passion and sometimes their anger. And perhaps more often than they are aware, their thinking about religion still follows the old familiar channels of their youth."

Very well put. They've left the religion, but the fundamentalism is still a part of their character. And it's amazing just how oblivious they are to that. They honestly don't see it. If we were to take a religious zealot and turn them into an atheist, because of their zealous character, you'd only notice the difference because the lingo would change. These militant atheists and religious fundies are not opposites, they are opposames. Moderate people, that means atheists and theists who have their views but don't feel any compulsion to convert the world are in the middle of the spectrum, while atheist zealots and religious zealots are on the extreme yet they are the same.

And you can usually tell a zealot a mile off because when this is pointed out, it is they who respond angrily.
 
It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.

Dogma is made up all at once and set into stone, squashing any and all mystery, whereas science finds the real truths as it goes along, exulting in mystery and the solving of it. Atheism is both informed by science and by noting that theistic belief has nothing to inform it.

Dogma is for those ‘relying’ on nothing. Atheism doesn’t do this. To claim so is just a bad trick, which only really exposes it as the basis for believers, for that is where they got it.

The karma of paradoxes runs over the dogma of the Godma, ever the preordained result of making groundless pronouncements.
 
You ask, why shouldn't atheists state their position and argue vigorously for it? Atheists are welcome to state their position. If they feel passionate and certain about their views, they are welcome to express themselves so.
Versus:
But many atheists cross the line and become preachy, and instead of just expressing opinions, they start arguing "for" their position

So, on the one hand, it's okay and on the other it's really not.
(And you're still somewhat unclear of the meaning of "preach").

Do you think people should just express an opinion and leave it at that?
 
Back
Top