Something that really gets on my nerves...
- Thread starter mountainhare
- Start date
Voodoo Child
Registered Senior Member
I wonder if this isn't an elaborate and skillfully crafted wind-up. This person seems a little too annoying. Call me sheltered, but I can not imagine her existing in real life. I think she/he is probably just taking the piss.
This is exactly why us atheists can't stand holier-than-thou smart-ass, judgemental dumbasses like yourself.
Do you personally know any atheists Jan? Have you even bothered to read our opinions? Do you bother to even get to know us?
Do you think atheists are arrogant because they have a opinion different to yours? Do you hate them because they actually have good arguments that you can't respond to? Do you fear them because you know deep down that they are right?
What gives you the right to generalize, and say that all atheists act like "Little Miss Soapbox Know-Nothing" describes us as? I don't generalize theists. Most of my teachers and close friends believe in God, and I respect their opinion. This is because he does not critisize atheists, and does not force his religious values on me. I respect them because they do not say "Oh, atheists are arrogant, have ego problems, are fearful, enjoy getting women pregnant and deserting them, love to take drugs, have power problems, hate authority, are rapists, are murderers, are illogical, are vain, are immoral, and are just freaks because they don't worship some invisible god that has not made his presence known.
"Little Miss Know-Nothing" did not comment on what atheism is. She told us what a few individuals who are atheists acted like. Maybe, just maybe Jan, I will play that know-nothing's generalization game. Several Christain priests have molested children recently. Therefore, theists are all child molesterors. You may jump about and scream that this isn't true, but that is exactly what that know-nothing is doing to the common atheist.
Please Jan, we don't want to hear your trash. I am not saying that you don't post it, but by doing so you will only gain our contempt and righteous anger.
And please, all atheists, don't try and call theists cultists, and generalize theists. It is only making Jan and people like her look victimized and innocent, which they are not. Let her babble, generalize and victimize. It won't get her far, except expose her ignorance.
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
mountainhare:
- "us atheists" ?
- "we don't want" ?
- "our contempt" ?
Sorry. I only meant the atheists who are insulted when theists generalize and insult us. If you are not insulted when theists label us, fine.
I'm sorry I'm not very good at speaking for 'us', but I'm the only one who seems to be doing so. If I'm doing so badly, maybe you should put your brain in gear, and speak for me, smart ass. If I am doing so poorly, you should be striving to correct me, instead of wasting space on this thread.
Not every atheist has the time to waste trying to defend themself against generalizations, prejudice and labels. I am trying to defend atheists as a whole, and you are putting me down because of it. How hurtful.
Last edited:
But when you attempt to and purport to speak for "us" aren't you, in actuality, labeling us?
I prefer to speak only for myself, and have no one speak for me.
I also generalize sometimes, but I try not to.
I am not an atheist.
I am agnostic.
I do like to share my opinons with others and listen to theirs in an attempt to learn (and possibly teach) but I do not wish to be a member of any single minded group mentality.
That is one of the inherent problems with organized religion, in my opinion.
If you create some Society of Atheists, or whatever, and speak with a single mind and voice, you just turned Atheism into an organized religion.
I don't want to be a part of any "us" I am just "me".
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Why would I wish to speak for you?
This is a fair comment. That depends who I mean by 'us'. By 'us', I mean that I am defending atheists who have been generalized and shown prejudice.
But I understand what you are saying. I apologize. I did not know that you would all be offended. I was only trying to do what I thought was right. *sighs* Oh well.
Fair enough. Once again, I apologize.
This is not exactly true. Religion requires a god or idol.
I also think, that if a society of atheists was created, it would not have hard rules which would offend certain member. There would be beliefs that would agree with every atheist. These are
- Freedom to worship
- No belief in the supernatural and/or gods without being given evidence.
- No forcing of religion on members of society.
- Seek to battle prejudice
- Promote tolerance
- Promote free thinking
- Promote free will
- Believe whatever you want, as long as it hurts no one else (this includes members of the Atheist Foundation, as long as they believe in the above 'belief's)
These are the basic values, and the only ones that would be active in the Society of Atheists. We actually have a Foundation for Atheists here in Australia, which seeks to ensure that religion is not forced on people. And they are successful. Australia is nowhere as bad as America, where Creationists are forcing Evolution out of classrooms.
I am sure that these basic atheist 'beliefs' are what every atheist would follow. And if not, I think those rules could be negotiated. Also, atheists wouldn't have to join. Please note the second-last rule "Promote free will". I would also make it clear that the society of atheists does not represent EVERY atheist.
You say that you wish to speak for yourself. But look around you. Atheists are thick on this board. If one atheist had popped in, expressed his opinion, and popped out, he would have been forgotten. No one would have cared, life goes on. But because there are so many, the message is stronger and not forgotten.
Why are religions so successful? Because people with common beliefs, ideas, and social values band together and promote those values. One person can rarely make a difference, but many people united can.
I respect everyone's right to individuality. Just because you are a member of a group does not mean your individuality is stolen, or shattered.
What are you talking about? There is no church of atheists.
mountainhare,
you said: This is not exactly true. Religion requires a god or idol.
an idol can be anything, including science, many athiests seem to have idolized science and therefore it can be called a religion as there is an idol for many! besides, everyone idolizes something!
you said: This is not exactly true. Religion requires a god or idol.
an idol can be anything, including science, many athiests seem to have idolized science and therefore it can be called a religion as there is an idol for many! besides, everyone idolizes something!
mountainhare-
No need to apologize.
I was not offended, I was just voicing my opinion.
But than you for the consideration of the apology.
Religion does not necessarily equate to Theism.
It often does, but that does not mean it is a requirement, it just means that it is a common belief among mankind.
Besides, as New Life pointed out, the "Idol" could very weel be science and rational thought.
However, I do not agree with New Life that everyone idolizes something.
I, along with many atheists and other agnostics I have met, list Dogmatic law as one of the major problems with organized religion.
By telling people that they are free to believe what they may, as long as it fits into these confines, it is inherently restrictive.
Maybe not as restrictive as some religions, but restrictive none-the-less.
The point, for me at least, of not belonging to one specific set of beliefs set forth by someone else, is the absolute freedom to seek individual truth from all sources without being confined to either; a predertermined set of views set forth by one organization or; the restriction of not believing in a concept because it is set forth by another organization.
I realize your last rule was that people should be free to believe what they want to, but when a group of people start speaking with a singular voice, that freedom, at least to some extent, is repressed.
If the voice of a society of Atheists became loud enough, people would view it as the voice of all Atheists, whether or not they become a member.
Basically, what I am saying is that I have nothing against you starting AN organization of like minded people to have a louder unified voice, but you shouldn't call it The (anything) of Atheists.
It should have a different name or people will associate it with the voice of Atheists.
Secular Humanists is a perfect example of a religion/organization that have VERY loose rules and freedom of the members to believe of worship whatever they wish.
Generally the members are Atheists and Agnostics (almost all of them are) but they speak for Humanists, not Atheists.
If you called it something like Humanist Gnostics (or something like that which does not specifically align it with a collective Atheist voice) it would be different.
Go start your own religion (I have actually condiered it myself in the past, and the idea is not completely gone yet), but, as I stated, what I take issue with is associating your dogma with Atheists, and taking it upon yourself to band them all together against their will.
No, not necessarily.
However, if you are associated with a group and their beliefs that you may not agree with, then you have.
Call it the mountainhareists.
No need to apologize.
I was not offended, I was just voicing my opinion.
But than you for the consideration of the apology.
That is not true.
Religion does not necessarily equate to Theism.
It often does, but that does not mean it is a requirement, it just means that it is a common belief among mankind.
Besides, as New Life pointed out, the "Idol" could very weel be science and rational thought.
However, I do not agree with New Life that everyone idolizes something.
First of all, by making these rules (which you incorrectly assume that ALL Atheists agree with) you are confining the group to a Dogma.
I, along with many atheists and other agnostics I have met, list Dogmatic law as one of the major problems with organized religion.
By telling people that they are free to believe what they may, as long as it fits into these confines, it is inherently restrictive.
Maybe not as restrictive as some religions, but restrictive none-the-less.
The point, for me at least, of not belonging to one specific set of beliefs set forth by someone else, is the absolute freedom to seek individual truth from all sources without being confined to either; a predertermined set of views set forth by one organization or; the restriction of not believing in a concept because it is set forth by another organization.
I realize your last rule was that people should be free to believe what they want to, but when a group of people start speaking with a singular voice, that freedom, at least to some extent, is repressed.
But it WILL represent every Atheist in the eyes of those it speaks to or against.
If the voice of a society of Atheists became loud enough, people would view it as the voice of all Atheists, whether or not they become a member.
Basically, what I am saying is that I have nothing against you starting AN organization of like minded people to have a louder unified voice, but you shouldn't call it The (anything) of Atheists.
It should have a different name or people will associate it with the voice of Atheists.
Secular Humanists is a perfect example of a religion/organization that have VERY loose rules and freedom of the members to believe of worship whatever they wish.
Generally the members are Atheists and Agnostics (almost all of them are) but they speak for Humanists, not Atheists.
If you called it something like Humanist Gnostics (or something like that which does not specifically align it with a collective Atheist voice) it would be different.
If what that individual said was not worthy, someone would likely take note.
I agree, in large part, but that is the point (which I am sure you have gotten by now) I don't want to be part of someone else's religion unless I find that I agree with them 100%.
Go start your own religion (I have actually condiered it myself in the past, and the idea is not completely gone yet), but, as I stated, what I take issue with is associating your dogma with Atheists, and taking it upon yourself to band them all together against their will.
No, not necessarily.
However, if you are associated with a group and their beliefs that you may not agree with, then you have.
Call it the mountainhareists.
You are right one raven, I've tried to make that point before.
Some atheists think of themselves as "atheists" and they use the standard atheist arguments. They are exactly like theists only they happen to disagree.
They aren't thinking for themselves. Take the facts and gather them for yourself and see what conclusion YOU come to. Nobody would be a christian if they did that. Most would technically be an atheist of some kind but each would have his/her own reasons and explanations.
Some atheists think of themselves as "atheists" and they use the standard atheist arguments. They are exactly like theists only they happen to disagree.
They aren't thinking for themselves. Take the facts and gather them for yourself and see what conclusion YOU come to. Nobody would be a christian if they did that. Most would technically be an atheist of some kind but each would have his/her own reasons and explanations.
Everytime they go on about occams razor is what pisses me off.
1.william of okham(occam) was a theologian frier in the 14th century(a devout catholic).
2.it was based on logic relating to science,he intended it as separate from theology.
3.the atheist argument is based on the two principles which were
According to Ockham, the simpler an explanation is, the more preferable it ultimately is!.
In other words, if it is not necessary to introduce certain complexities or hypotheticals into a situation or explanation, then don't do it.
He did not actually say the simpler explanation is more likely,thats a load of rubbish for a start.
The two hypothesis relating to atheism are thus:
1.there is a universe
2.there is a universe and there is a god who created the universe
The first hypothesis is obviously simpler than the second. Thus, without sufficient reason, the first is preferable to the second. That doesn't mean that the second hypothesis is wrong - it does, however, mean that we should not simply assume the second.
4.occam did not believe god could be proven or disproven with logic,the razor was a logic tool and helps science and philosophy in many cases but not a be all and end all answer.
Atheists in the group would not be required to believe in Evolution, Big Bang, certain arguments, etc. They would only require a disbelief in God, which is basically what an atheist is.
If you really are unhappy with the beliefs I set above, then the foundation for atheists would have only 1 belief. And that is that they disbelieve in any Gods that cannot be proven.
I think that every atheists would agree with this? Isn't an atheist someone who does not believe in a higher power?
I agree. It is also contradictory to an atheists beliefs. It is MUCH easier to understand that some higher power created the universe than it is to understand physics, chemistry, evolution and the big bang.
The argument is weak. Just because a statement is more complex than another statement does not mean it is not true.
one_raven, you are a genius. But themountainhareists is a bit long, and not everyone will like the name.
Also, when people are browsing through the yahoo groups, how will they know that my groups welcomes atheists? It is very hard to get atheists to join my group if they don't know it is for atheists.
Actually, The Mountainhareist's has a ring to it! hmmmm.