Touche.
We need to stop with the hasty generalizations here, just because one is an atheist does not mean they are a communist. Just because an individual is a woman does not mean she is pregnant etc. Are we all not collectively intelligent enough to get past this point?
I thought this thread WAS about generalizations.
The first thread included this:
I think athiests have a couple of hurdles that contribute to the low (as polled) perception by broader society;
Touche. I will STFup now!
One of the prblems for atheism is the difficulty religious people have in reconciling the idea of having no higher source for morality. It appears, rightly or wrongly, that atheists feel free to just make up whatever moral code suits them best, which is dangerous, and makes most people uncomfortable.
As I’ve said before, I’m a deist in that a believe in a higher power beyond our comprehension. I guess, in religious terms, that makes me an atheist. To get any more specific than that in terms of existential beliefs is just an exercise in guesswork and really crappy assumptions.
We’ll find out who’s right eventually. I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it though. Or not.
There’s also the historic associations that are a hurdle, USSR or China Communism and enforced or oppressive athiesm.
but but…the inquisition!
You’re either kidding, or being an example of the second problem I listed.
One of the prblems for atheism is the difficulty religious people have in reconciling the idea of having no higher source for morality. It appears, rightly or wrongly, that atheists feel free to just make up whatever moral code suits them best, which is dangerous, and makes most people uncomfortable.
Yeah, that's part of the first item I listed; a difficulty in being able to attach any kind of code to a person leaves the a blank and scary slate. Probably why any pol, even if they were an athiest, would pick a religion that the majority was comfortable with to call themselves. The point here also, is that if one wants to be true to themselves and their atheism, it is a longer and more difficult road of explanations and allowing others to get to know them before they can get the same trust as the "liar" athiest that puts on the raiment of religion.
Obviously you have no reading comprehension or avoid reading the multitude of atheist literature that clearly proves the point you are poorly making as completely false.
And in my haste of bitching you out for poor comprehension and poor articulation I create the above catastrophe of a sentence!!!
One of the prblems for atheism is the difficulty religious people have in reconciling the idea of having no higher source for morality. It appears, rightly or wrongly, that atheists feel free to just make up whatever moral code suits them best, which is dangerous, and makes most people uncomfortable.
If people are ignorant, that’s really their problem. Morals values are based on love, compassion, reason, justice, altruism, empathy, honesty, and a few other things that are present in humans, with or without a god.
That view point expressed by some religious folks that atheists have the only the morals values that best suit them is just a crap cop out to give them a reason to not like a specific group. I find it very ironic that of all
the western countries, the country that was born out of escaping religious persecution happens to be the one with the worst view of atheists.
…
The second difficulty is more of athiests own doing, and is the air or position of condescension and arrogance that they automatically take in any discussion of faith.
I think this only the case with “radical” atheist same for any religion. There will always be a group, maybe small but vocal group that will take that position. But there are a lot of quiet atheist’s out there who, don’t care to make converts.
Hey we are right we know it and if the rest want to believe in fairy tales that is there delusional choice.
Are there quiet Aheists? I am inclined to think the quiet ones are agnostics. I know of lots of quiet christians who are afraid to say anything religious. And in some settings like the office, most everyone are quiet.
I was an atheist for 5 years. I had an atheist roomate. 1/3 of my friends were atheists. Atheists were not quiet about it at all. We hounded our christian friends to death. I do think we thought of ourselves as intellectuals and supieror. And arrogance was par for the course when we were discussing things. Now that I am a christian, I have to say in general christians are more humble. they have opinions, but not always answers to all questions. The bible tells us certain ways to live but we also leave god be god and supply the answers in due time which might be after we die. We don’t put limits on god.
But I agree, that some religions also have what might be called zealots, forgive me if i use this word incorrectly, but people like some Christians who believe all science is wrong or evil and there was no evolution now or ever. But I think this is more of a fringe group.
I get to play the “No true Scottsman” card on you!
You obviously were not a true atheist, you did not truly grasp the reason and logic behind the lack of belief required to be an atheist. Therefore your example holds no weight in this conversation.
Item 1 - I don’t think its a “fear of the unknown” as much as it an inability to believe in something which cannot be definitively proven. We live in our own “mental box” that has been shaped by our life experiences and environment and not anecdotal evidence passed down approximately two millenia ago when definitive proof of existential events was, at best, flimsy.
Item 2 - air or position of condescension and arrogance that they automatically take in any discussion of faith. This is called a defense mechanism. Thanks religion for trying to shove a belief system down our throats when its unwanted. What responses did you expect in return?
You are very precise in your figures; you were an atheist for five years, 1/3 of your friends are christian. I find that mildly disturbing.
that is all.
There’s also the historic associations that are a hurdle, USSR or China Communism and enforced or oppressive athiesm.
but but…the inquisition!
You’re either kidding, or being an example of the second problem I listed.
Or he is pointing out there are historical examples of forced conversion on both sides.
And as to making a federal case out of things. I used to be a very quiet atheist. You leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone. But I wasn’t left alone. So now I don’t leave you alone.
I’ll bet one of the things that chaps your ass is the opposition to nativity scenes on the courthouse steps. It does seem trivial and I used to think that going to court to remove them was silly. But then you have to ask why it was so important to get that nativity scene there in the first place. There are a billion places in town to put it, why the courthouse? Any individual can put it on their own property that wants it. So why the public property? The only logical answer is that it is there is as a governement endorsement of that religion. Otherwise you would put it in the front yard of your house.
In fairness, he did qualify what he said with the phrase “rightly or wrongly.”
.
The second difficulty is more of athiests own doing, and is the air or position of condescension and arrogance that they automatically take in any discussion of faith.
Dave, I think the word you are looking for is UPPITY.
This is the very same argument used to rationalize any oppressed minority. If you revisit the billboard post, Brick had used an athiest billboard as an example of why athiests aren’t liked. For every billboard that you can find that one might find offensive from an atheist, you can find more that are at least as offensive from Christians. For every Richard Dawkins interview or Christopher Hitchens interview you can find that you think are haughty, arrogant, and put down Christians, you can find more that are at least as bad from Christians.
The difference is, a Christian isn’t offended when another Christians puts down an atheist…so they don’t notice and don’t care. They only notice it when an atheist makes a similar attack on them. You guys are concerned about billboards and books. What about us? We’ve got Presidential candidates AND Presidents who publicly declare that we are not Americans. Your answer is that we bring it on ourselves because we’re arrogant?
Every movement has been answered with, “If you guys would hust be nice and friendly and take it, people will start accepting you.” That NEVER works.
There’s also the historic associations that are a hurdle, USSR or China Communism and enforced or oppressive athiesm.
but but…the inquisition!
You’re either kidding, or being an example of the second problem I listed.
yes
.
Well then I guess I was simply clarifying the ambiguity. : )
One of the prblems for atheism is the difficulty religious people have in reconciling the idea of having no higher source for morality. It appears, rightly or wrongly, that atheists feel free to just make up whatever moral code suits them best, which is dangerous, and makes most people uncomfortable.
Let’s explore this a little further.
Sure, in THEORY someone is able to make up whatever moral code suits them best. However, this isn’t limited to atheists - you could easily find Christian A and put him next to Christian B, and they could have starkly differing moral codes. Interpretation of scripture is funny like that - there’s a ton of wiggle room.
On the other hand, it’s incredibly difficult for someone to live and thrive in modern society with a moral code which doesn’t at least approximate the moral code of those around him/her. You could say ‘I think killing people is OK’ but it would quickly result in you being a social outcast and (if you let this guide your actions) would probably result in you being forcibly removed from society.
It’s just not easy to go through life with a different moral code from the majority, no matter where you think you got it from.
Well then I guess I was simply clarifying the ambiguity. : )
I think there are at least three issues tied up here.
First is the mistaken notion that an atheist can have no moral underpinning.
Second is the notion that an atheist’s moral underpinning is less compelling to the atheist than the moral underpinning of the faithful which is divinely dictiated or inspired.
Third is the understanding that identifying someone as an atheist tells you nothing about their moral underpinning.