# Some atheists need to reconsider their behavior



## Mr Bacon

I believe that atheists are fighting for a good cause, and I'm on their side. However, I have a problem with certain individuals' displayed attitude. Again, and again... I read so many posts by atheists on the internet (and even sometimes here) who display such arrogance, such a childish behavior, it makes me cringe.

The following is purely representative of my own opinion, feel free to disagree.

Here are some suggestions:

1.* We should only present a fact as fact if it is backed up by studies/objective evidence. *Many internet atheists just pull arguments out of their *sses and assume the veracity of certain societal facts which haven't been proven. Anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence. We all have a biased view of the world based on our own opinions - while we are seeking an objective truth. True knowledge is power.

2. No insults. No arrogance in the form of harsh belittling. Religious people do it all the time, but it shouldn't matter. Be the better man.

3. Don't look for the speck of sawdust in your opponent's eye. It makes me laugh whenever I see this: some atheists will simply refuse to read between the lines. They will quote separately EACH AND EVERY sentence of a Christian's post, take them out of context, and utterly crush the original 5 line post with a massive 1-2 page dissertation, analyzing every minor detail, including the phrasing used, and irrelevant jokes the Christian made. Nobody wants to read a dissertation - even less a dissertation written by a childish poster who refuses to read between the lines and to just refute the original arguments GLOBALLY. *Who cares about the opponent's phraseology? *It's a detail.

4. Be open-minded. Many just stick too much to their preconceived "role". "_If this argument comes from a Christian, I have to play my role of atheist and I absolutely need to refute this argument_" - No! Some arguments are worth thinking twice about! No argument should be shunned automatically because it comes from someone who is religious.


----------



## moloko

Agreed, except with number 3.

I'd add a number 5: don't preach atheism. It's not a religion.


----------



## ugh1979

Mr Bacon said:


> I believe that atheists are fighting for a good cause, and I'm on their side. However, I have a problem with certain individuals' displayed attitude. Again, and again... I read so many posts by atheists on the internet (and even sometimes here) who display such arrogance, such a childish behavior, it makes me cringe.


Some statements are worthy of disdain and can be dismissed out of hand. If that comes across as arrogant to some people then tough. I don't see a way round it. If someone is talking nonsense then a strong dismissal which highlights the ridiculousness of what they have said is appropriate.

What examples of childish behaviour have you noted? I don't see how the below points relate to childish behaviour.



> The following is purely representative of my own opinion, feel free to disagree.
> 
> Here are some suggestions:
> 
> 1.* We should only present a fact as fact if it is backed up by studies/objective evidence. *Many internet atheists just pull arguments out of their *sses and assume the veracity of certain societal facts which haven't been proven. Anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence. We all have a biased view of the world based on our own opinions - while we are seeking an objective truth. True knowledge is power.


I agree with this. Bear in mind that sometimes there can be confusion between what one is stating as well evidenced knowledge and what is just their opinion. Disclaimers can be omitted/missed on occasion by accident.

I'd say theists are far far worse for pulling arguments our their *sses, as they are typically using anecdotal evidence and personal experience, which as you correctly say is not credible evidence.



> 2. No insults. No arrogance in the form of harsh belittling. Religious people do it all the time, but it shouldn't matter. Be the better man.


As I say, some statements are worthy of disdain/dismissal. Respect is earned, not given out freely for any wild/dangerous/harmful idea that someone has.

A more heated debate also often increases the entertainment value which can make threads more interesting and active, so there is value there, as long as there aren't mindless personal attacks.



> 3. Don't look for the speck of sawdust in your opponent's eye. It makes me laugh whenever I see this: some atheists will simply refuse to read between the lines. They will quote separately EACH AND EVERY sentence of a Christian's post, take them out of context, and utterly crush the original 5 line post with a massive 1-2 page dissertation, analyzing every minor detail, including the phrasing used, and irrelevant jokes the Christian made. Nobody wants to read a dissertation - even less a dissertation written by a childish poster who refuses to read between the lines and to just refute the original arguments GLOBALLY. *Who cares about the opponent's phraseology? *It's a detail.


I don't see how dissecting an argument and providing long detailed replies is childish. Quite the opposite in fact. There are some people here who seem unable to form coherent compelling arguments which i'd say is the childish position.

The reply per point style isn't for everyone, I appreciate that, but I find it far more useful and workable than replying with a huge block of text where you have to repeat the points you are addressing. Doing that actually opens the door to an increase in straw manning, so can be less productive. I prefer to respond to exactly what they said, or ask for further clarification of their position.

You say nobody wants to read a "dissertation" but what you must mean is that _you _don't want to read a "dissertation". You can't know what level of detail all other people want to contribute and read in.

Regarding the global points you mention; I often find it impossible to decipher what they are, as religious beliefs are often so ambiguous. Therefore, intricate dissection is often the only option so the proponent can clarify what they are trying to say.

If anything is then taken out of context it's up to the proponent to state so.

Also, bear in mind that these extended detailed replies can be a far more entertaining way of responding than simple summary replies. Plus there can be tactical reasons for doing it which may go unrealised. 

We've got no word limit or deadlines here, so extended replies can be appropriate.

You seem to be proposing ignoring the smaller details and just responding to the general message. Why not do both if we have the time?



> 4. Be open-minded. Many just stick too much to their preconceived "role". "_If this argument comes from a Christian, I have to play my role of atheist and I absolutely need to refute this argument_" - No! Some arguments are worth thinking twice about! No argument should be shunned automatically because it comes from someone who is religious.


Anyone who follows science should in theory be the most open minded while remaining coherent and credible in their beliefs. Everything is open to scientific inquiry and assessment. As a result of that there are many ideas which can simply be dismissed out of hand. A line must be drawn between the plausible and implausible to hold a functional useful worldview.

I have to say though, this post comes as a surprise after the kind message you sent me yesterday. :?


----------



## Droidsteel

I don't know, I think we're generally pretty polite and articulate on this forum. There are one or two people who's posts seem to just reiterate '**** religion' over and over but other than them I think what everyone else is doing is fine :?


----------



## Mr Bacon

*@ugh *- My post isn't directed at this forum in particular, I am talking about religion-related arguments I have seen all over the internet. I'm not talking about Richard Dawkins either. I probably didn't make it clear in the original post. Internet debates are my aim here. And I think this forum is rather courteous compared to others.

*#3 seems to be mainly the point you disagree with.* My take on this argument, is that it makes internet atheists sound like they take themselves too seriously. I doubt that responding with big essays to small insignificant posts is a great way to further the dialogue between the religious and atheists. Going as far as analyzing the opponent's phraseology or jokes is also something I think is far-fetched and a loss of time - _you don't use an atomic bomb to put an end to a small neighborhood riot_. However, replying with dissertations to dissertations sounds much more relevant to me. And yes, the quoting system comes in handy there.

Otherwise, all the points you made for *#1, 2, 4* were relevant, in my opinion.

I don't see why my post is so surprising. I certainly agree with atheism and I often try to contain the anger I feel towards irrational fanatics. I am talking about behavior and debating in this post. I want atheists to be seen as knowledgeable, courteous, open-minded individuals. And this was my take on it. I am nothing but a human who isn't immune to having faulty opinions, and I don't expect everyone to agree 100% with me on this matter.

On a side note, I am willing to think religious individuals are already less courteous than we are, and quite obviously have more of a tendency to 'pull arguments out of their *sses'.


----------



## ugh1979

Mr Bacon said:


> *@ugh *- My post isn't directed at this forum in particular, I am talking about religion-related arguments I have seen all over the internet. I'm not talking about Richard Dawkins either. I probably didn't make it clear in the original post. Internet debates are my aim here. And I think this forum is rather courteous compared to others.


Fair enough if you are talking about the internet in general rather than just here.



> *#3 seems to be mainly the point you disagree with.* My take on this argument, is that it makes internet atheists sound like they take themselves too seriously. I doubt that responding with big essays to small insignificant posts is a great way to further the dialogue between the religious and atheists. Going as far as analyzing the opponent's phraseology or jokes is also something I think is far-fetched and a loss of time - _you don't use an atomic bomb to put an end to a small neighborhood riot_. However, replying with dissertations to dissertations sounds much more relevant to me. And yes, the quoting system comes in handy there.


Responding to small insignificant posts with "essays" is usually simply a catalyst to a full interesting debate so it can serve a valid purpose.



> Otherwise, all the points you made for *#1, 2, 4* were relevant, in my opinion.
> 
> I don't see why my post is so surprising. I certainly agree with atheism and I often try to contain the anger I feel towards irrational fanatics. I am talking about behavior and debating in this post. I want atheists to be seen as knowledgeable, courteous, open-minded individuals. And this was my take on it. I am nothing but a human who isn't immune to having faulty opinions, and I don't expect everyone to agree 100% with me on this matter.
> 
> On a side note, I am willing to think religious individuals are already less courteous than we are, and quite obviously have more of a tendency to 'pull arguments out of their *sses'.


In light of your first response about it regarding the entire internet as opposed to just here I understand.


----------



## Ramondo

Are you concerned that bad manners will give atheism a bad name? I find something a bit cringe-worthy about having to be on my best behaviour because I'm representing atheism and thus have to kowtow to the theists in order to prove myself, and to fit in. But I can understand how atheists might feel that way in some sections of some countries.


----------



## Mr Bacon

Ramondo said:


> Are you concerned that bad manners will give atheism a bad name? I find something a bit cringe-worthy about having to be on my best behaviour because I'm representing atheism and thus have to kowtow to the theists in order to prove myself, and to fit in. But I can understand how atheists might feel that way in some sections of some countries.


Do as you wish. I'm not the 'pope' of atheism. Just a guy with opinions - and I think debating in a civilized way is for the best.

It'll most likely take more than bad manners to give atheism a bad name. We already have rationality on our side.


----------



## slider

Everyone will turn to atheism given they are educated enough, it just takes time.


----------



## hdth

atheists are just as guilty with the arrogance. I think its just human nature. "My way is better than your way" type of attitude on religious people and atheists combined. If we can just all learn to get along people wouldn't need to die for stupid reasons and peace on earth can finally arise.


----------



## ugh1979

Hadron said:


> I don't care about religious people whatsoever. I never even try to argue with them. And I definitely don't think my way is the better way. In fact, I think being an atheist sucks. If someone was able to brainwash me to believe there is something better than this ****hole, I'd happily let them brainwash me. Unfortunately, I have never came across a religion that wasn't bullcrap.:roll


I'm happy that you seem unable to be brainwashed, but a bit disconcerted by your desire to be brainwashed.

You are a reluctant atheist.


----------



## VagueResemblance

somename said:


> I'd add a number 5: don't preach atheism. It's not a religion.


Are you sure?

I've met atheists every bit as rabid and preachy as the worst fundamentalists. Some on this forum.


----------



## arao6

Where do I begin...

#4 is a good point, and something that I should take more seriously. Having been raised in multiple religious environments, my perspective on religion is likely to be different. I've learned so much about so many different religions, I almost instantaneously reject any post that uses religion as a means of evidence. 

#2 - Define 'belittle.' Some religions ought to be criticised (otherwise how will it improve?). On a scale of subjective morality, each religion ranks differently; from an utilitarian perspective, some religions are worthy of condemnation-- there are people, in this day and age, killing themselves and others in the name of God. All religions have had their faults with this, but there is currently only one that refuses to evolve with the changing tides of ideology. If criticizing a religion to the fullest extent comes across as arrogant, then perhaps sugar coating the truth is not.

Religions should uphold the highest morality. If religions provide examples that have potential to do more harm than good, then I have every right to reject it. For example, Muhammed "consummated" his 6 year old wife named Aisha. What message does this give to Islam's followers? A 6 year old isn't even developed yet, let alone her ability to give consent. But I digress.

Can you give examples of #1? Thank you


----------



## nubly

Yea, atheists have a juvenile behavior online. Very embarrassing.


----------



## IndieVisible

There are two kinds of atheists, noisy ones and invisible ones. Just like there are two kinds of theists, noisy ones and invisible ones. I prefer the invisible ones from either group, and find both noisy ones to be equally annoying.


----------



## ugh1979

nubly said:


> Yea, atheists have a juvenile behavior online. Very embarrassing.


Wrong.

There are _some _people, (atheists and theists) who behave in a juvenile nature online.



IndieVisible said:


> There are two kinds of atheists, noisy ones and invisible ones. Just like there are two kinds of theists, noisy ones and invisible ones. I prefer the invisible ones from either group, and find both noisy ones to be equally annoying.


Wrong.

There is a full scale of atheists/theists going from noisy to invisible.


----------



## Foh_Teej

Some people that don't play golf need to reconsider their behavior. The list of crimes against humanity for non golfers include, but certainly not limited to: fraud, murder, rape, drug trafficking, tax evasion, assault, theft, and speeding in a school zone.


----------



## BadGirl

IndieVisible said:


> There are two kinds of atheists, noisy ones and invisible ones. Just like there are two kinds of theists, noisy ones and invisible ones. I prefer the invisible ones from either group, and find both noisy ones to be equally annoying.


So true.:clap


----------



## marybobary

Well, some people are *******s and some aren't. Personally I feel that your beliefs (or lack thereof) should just be personal. The only time I feel the need to speak up is when some ridiculous religious belief is being made into legislation or interfering with basic human rights. But at that point I think people are just using their "beliefs" as a vehicle to, again, be an *******.


----------



## The Silent 1

IndieVisible said:


> There are two kinds of atheists, noisy ones and invisible ones. Just like there are two kinds of theists, noisy ones and invisible ones. I prefer the invisible ones from either group, and find both noisy ones to be equally annoying.


I agree with Penn Jillette on this subject in that I have no problem with religious people being "noisy" and preaching about what they believe. In fact I prefer it. I care about truth and want to live in a world where we have a market place of ideas in which people are challenged on their beliefs.

As long as religious people don't try to enforce their beliefs on me, or try and make laws based on them, I think it's good to have discussions. The fact that many people think that we should be invisible when it comes to our religious beliefs or (lack of) bothers me because its basically a way of saying "religion is off the table, don't discuss it, don't debate it, just act as though it isn't there". I know people like to say that these discussions change nothing, but the truth is they _do_, and you don't have to look far to hear from people whose lives have been changed by those who weren't willing to be invisible, but instead decided to speak up loudly so the world could hear them.


----------



## fredbloggs02

The Silent 1 said:


> I agree with Penn Jillette on this subject in that I have no problem with religious people being "noisy" and preaching about what they believe. In fact I prefer it. I care about truth and want to live in a world where we have a market place of ideas in which people are challenged on their beliefs.
> 
> As long as religious people don't try to enforce their beliefs on me, or try and make laws based on them, I think it's good to have discussions. The fact that many people think that we should be invisible when it comes to our religious beliefs or (lack of) bothers me because its basically a way of saying "religion is off the table, don't discuss it, don't debate it, just act as though it isn't there". I know people like to say that these discussions change nothing, but the truth is they _do_, and you don't have to look far to hear from people whose lives have been changed by those who weren't willing to be invisible, but instead decided to speak up loudly so the world could hear them.


I don't feel belief is necessarily an idea, though it may take the form of an idea. I am convinced much of what people believe is necessarily personal. It is clear to me there are people whose reasons in debate revolve around what they could not directly point to- a point inaccessible through any reason they give. God takes the form of an unconditional inexpressible point necessrily invisible to all but them.


----------



## Peter Attis

IndieVisible said:


> There are two kinds of atheists, noisy ones and invisible ones. Just like there are two kinds of theists, noisy ones and invisible ones. I prefer the invisible ones from either group, and find both noisy ones to be equally annoying.


This point is a little tricky. I think the "noisy" people on both sides need to exist so that we can have a free flow of ideas. Everyone, on either side of theism, should be allowed to express their thoughts and ideas openly.

The problem is that the "noisy" ones on either side tend to be *******s, and we don't get that free flow of ideas because any theism/atheism debate tends to turn into a pissing match.


----------



## The Silent 1

fredbloggs02 said:


> I don't feel belief is necessarily an idea, though it may take the form of an idea. I am convinced much of what people believe is necessarily personal. It is clear to me there are people whose reasons in debate revolve around what they could not directly point to- a point inaccessible through any reason they give. God takes the form of an unconditional inexpressible point necessrily invisible to all but them.


Having a belief means that you accept something to be true. I'm not saying that everyone should be forced to discuss their beliefs if they don't want to. I'm saying that in a larger sense nothing should be off the table when it comes to critiquing ideas. If you want to keep your beliefs personal fine, but don't then show up at a debate where people are exchanging ideas and then thumb your nose at everyone. I don't go to forums or sub-forums where people are discussing things I don't want to talk about just so I can let them know how pointless I feel such debates are. The irony of this is that people who do it often do so with the same sense of superiority that they accuse both outspoken theists and atheists of having.

As to the point of god being an inexpressible idea, thats your personal take and thats fine, but not everyone feels that way. I've also come to notice that for many people god is just synonymous with the unknown. It's like at some point people decided that something called god exists without really knowing what it is and they're almost looking for something to put the title on. They'll often say "There has to be _something_ up there", some force, some unknown, and thats what they call "god". If you're going to define god that vaguely, I guess I don't have much problem with it, I just think the word god carries with it certain connotations, that I would rather not have.


----------



## Mr Bacon

arao6 said:


> Where do I begin...
> 
> #4 is a good point, and something that I should take more seriously. Having been raised in multiple religious environments, my perspective on religion is likely to be different. I've learned so much about so many different religions, I almost instantaneously reject any post that uses religion as a means of evidence.
> 
> #2 - Define 'belittle.' Some religions ought to be criticised (otherwise how will it improve?). On a scale of subjective morality, each religion ranks differently; from an utilitarian perspective, some religions are worthy of condemnation-- there are people, in this day and age, killing themselves and others in the name of God. All religions have had their faults with this, but there is currently only one that refuses to evolve with the changing tides of ideology. If criticizing a religion to the fullest extent comes across as arrogant, then perhaps sugar coating the truth is not.
> 
> Religions should uphold the highest morality. If religions provide examples that have potential to do more harm than good, then I have every right to reject it. For example, Muhammed "consummated" his 6 year old wife named Aisha. What message does this give to Islam's followers? A 6 year old isn't even developed yet, let alone her ability to give consent. But I digress.
> 
> Can you give examples of #1? Thank you


For #2: We should definitely condemn religion by using intelligent arguments when relevant. What I personally despise are forms of insults or harsh mockery against other religious posters. It makes an argument sound much more childish. I like the way ugh responds to any personal attacks or logically wrong arguments, for instance - you can tell he's always very composed and doesn't let anger get the best of him (at least that's the impression I have so far).

As for number 1: an example I would often see is the "*there's a link between A & B, so therefore A must be the cause for B.*" For instance: _countries with a large chunk of atheist population tend to exhibit low crime rates - atheists are therefore more pacific and caring about their neighbors!_ I believe there are many social or economical factors to consider, which might come into play. Although I'll admit I haven't studied this specific argument deeply.

After all, by the same incomplete logic, I have heard the argument: _there are very few black folks selected for representing their country in swimming competitions, and historically black people suck at swimming in the Olympics - let's conclude that black people tend to be genetically inferior in this specific sport._ Well... no! The answer isn't as simple - for instance, black people in the US tend to be at the bottom of the social scale, and have a more difficult time accessing swimming pools in their neighborhoods etc... The same way swimming pools aren't very accessible in the middle of Kenya or Burkina Faso.

Something else I've heard atheists take for granted is "_Religions just relies on fairy tales, and people don't need them, they'd be just as fine without their stupid beliefs_". Well, not necessarily - atheist countries are mainly developped ones, and many tend to exhibit remarkable social security systems (mainly in Europe). I remember reading a study showing that religious folks tend be happier than their non-believer counterparts when confronted to less-than-ideal social-economical situations.


----------



## kittyxbabe

Science proved the big bang theory, end of story.


----------



## moloko

kittyxbabe said:


> Science proved the big bang theory, end of story.


It's a _theory_. It's not proven fact.

edit: I mean, it is the best we have by far. But still... It's not a 100% certainty.


----------



## ugh1979

Mr Bacon said:


> For #2: We should definitely condemn religion by using intelligent arguments when relevant. What I personally despise are forms of insults or harsh mockery against other religious posters. It makes an argument sound much more childish. I like the way ugh responds to any personal attacks or logically wrong arguments, for instance - you can tell he's always very composed and doesn't let anger get the best of him (at least that's the impression I have so far).


Thanks. 



> As for number 1: an example I would often see is the "*there's a link between A & B, so therefore A must be the cause for B.*" For instance: _countries with a large chunk of atheist population tend to exhibit low crime rates - atheists are therefore more pacific and caring about their neighbors!_ I believe there are many social or economical factors to consider, which might come into play. Although I'll admit I haven't studied this specific argument deeply.
> 
> After all, by the same incomplete logic, I have heard the argument: _there are very few black folks selected for representing their country in swimming competitions, and historically black people suck at swimming in the Olympics - let's conclude that black people tend to be genetically inferior in this specific sport._ Well... no! The answer isn't as simple - for instance, black people in the US tend to be at the bottom of the social scale, and have a more difficult time accessing swimming pools in their neighborhoods etc... The same way swimming pools aren't very accessible in the middle of Kenya or Burkina Faso.


Indeed, so we have the scientific method to test varying slides on to the projector



> Something else I've heard atheists take for granted is "_Religions just relies on fairy tales, and people don't need them, they'd be just as fine without their stupid beliefs_". Well, not necessarily - atheist countries are mainly developped ones, and many tend to exhibit remarkable social security systems (mainly in Europe). I remember reading a study showing that religious folks tend be happier than their non-believer counterparts when confronted to less-than-ideal social-economical situations.


Indeed, so what it infers is that religion is for the poor, needy and unsecure people in society. Many of us have thankfully developed beynd that stage.


----------



## BadGirl

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed, so what it infers is that religion is for the poor, needy and unsecure people in society. Many of us have thankfully developed beynd that stage.


poor, needy and unsecure? i guess that applies to many of us on SAS,


----------



## twitchy666

*Absolutely agree*

It's not evil to have your own opinion. I saw religion as incredibly weak and fragile for all the old and the very young. I decided not to stand in throngs of people holding a book or piece of paper looking upwards singing the same words.

From mindblasting health intensive care requirement to stay alive is a good reminder. I can change my approach towards any way to live. A lot of my life... pending... has shown me a lot of surprises. I'm not evil. I look out for myself. Don't need help. If any lifeform was about to expire as I watch, my action depends on my own survival more than theirs, but I might sacrifice something if I wanted to.

It's never arisen so far but if my job would be culled and I'd get rejected if the boss or institution required stern religious faith, I'd go for it. There's more priority in life than just just my original atheist view. Income of a prospective wife of a different religion, I'd just swap, because.. errr.. religion is a very lo priority back burner of itself. Oops. I'm strongly opiniated but nothing is a binary yes/no to me. Subjective

Following the herd is what I don't like. I like to carve my own rut

BadBye

cos not everything is perfect


----------



## Fruitcake

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed, so what it infers is that religion is for the poor, needy and unsecure people in society. Many of us have thankfully developed beyond that stage.


I feel like I'm missing something and I don't understand the point of saying this. There are poor, needy and insecure atheists as well. I know from my personal experience of being one.

If that's what you meant, isn't that a similar kind of insult to the kind that you earlier said didn't have any value in debates? Not a personal attack but a seemingly mindless insult to people who feel they have a need for religion, that implies that they all share these negative traits that aren't relevant to the argument and can't be helped the way closed-mindedness or douchebaggery can be. It's beside the point and unconstructive.

I don't know if I have anything against insults, but I think that people who insult during debates are probably being motivated to do so by something other than their desire to convince the people they are debating with of their opinion. That is unless they have actually thought it through and decided that creating a negative environment for religious people will cause more of them to denounce religion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. Most of them seem to deny this or be unaware of it, perhaps because I'm entirely wrong about it.



Mr Bacon said:


> Original post.


I think this is how many would behave if their main objective was always to convince religious people to think rationally, but I'm not sure that is the main objective for a majority of atheists who take part in debates/arguments.


----------



## fredbloggs02

The Silent 1 said:


> Having a belief means that you accept something to be true. I'm not saying that everyone should be forced to discuss their beliefs if they don't want to. I'm saying that in a larger sense nothing should be off the table when it comes to critiquing ideas. If you want to keep your beliefs personal fine, but don't then show up at a debate where people are exchanging ideas and then thumb your nose at everyone. I don't go to forums or sub-forums where people are discussing things I don't want to talk about just so I can let them know how pointless I feel such debates are. The irony of this is that people who do it often do so with the same sense of superiority that they accuse both outspoken theists and atheists of having.
> 
> As to the point of god being an inexpressible idea, thats your personal take and thats fine, but not everyone feels that way. I've also come to notice that for many people god is just synonymous with the unknown. It's like at some point people decided that something called god exists without really knowing what it is and they're almost looking for something to put the title on. They'll often say "There has to be _something_ up there", some force, some unknown, and thats what they call "god". If you're going to define god that vaguely, I guess I don't have much problem with it, I just think the word god carries with it certain connotations, that I would rather not have.


I'm convinced neither debate nor reasons can possibly decide everything because religious convictions are often inexpressible. However, that is not to say they don't influence how religious individuals behave in relation to that inexpressible point from the deepest way; or, that it is not obvious they are influenced by that indefinable point to the grave. It is evident to me when someone is influenced by certain truths from everything about them, without their ever attesting to it. It is "nothing"; and equally, it is in all their behaviour, everything.

"Unknown" is not equatable with "nothing" to me. The statement: "Faith is belief in the invisible" is deeply substantial to me. What conviction could run deeper? What more expressive or positive in contrast to everything surrounding one?


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed, so we have the scientific method to test varying slides on to the projector
> 
> Indeed, so what it infers is that religion is for the poor, needy and unsecure people in society. Many of us have thankfully developed beynd that stage.


No, there is no universal slide. There is the unconditional. I feel treating religion as a phenomenon that presupposes remediable want is a mistake. We are all ascetics in some sense; but clearly: that is not what motivates religion in every case!

No, often for successful and benevolent individuals, profound thinkers, and exuberant hearts. I could not live without them. Thankfully, they exist! I'm growing rather tired of your attempting to categorize, reduce, and generally besmear religion with criticism.


----------



## ugh1979

Fruitcake said:


> I feel like I'm missing something and I don't understand the point of saying this. There are poor, needy and insecure atheists as well. I know from my personal experience of being one.


Poor, needy and insecure atheists wouldn't use religion as a crutch (unless they converted).



> If that's what you meant, isn't that a similar kind of insult to the kind that you earlier said didn't have any value in debates? Not a personal attack but a seemingly mindless insult to people who feel they have a need for religion, that implies that they all share these negative traits that aren't relevant to the argument and can't be helped the way closed-mindedness or douchebaggery can be. It's beside the point and unconstructive.


I think you've misunderstood. I wasn't saying the traits were exclusive to religious people. They are just traits some humans have, and some people use religion as a treatment for them.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> No, there is no universal slide.


Indeed. Which is why we use the scientific method to assess reality. Every slide needs to be considered in context with every other slide. Slides can't be taken at face value in isolation.



> I'm growing rather tired of your attempting to categorize, reduce, and generally besmear religion with criticism.


That's unfortunate for you.


----------



## The Silent 1

fredbloggs02 said:


> "*Unknown" is not equatable with "nothing*" to me. When someone like Goethe says, "Faith is belief in the invisible", to me, that statement itself is deeply substantial. What deeper conviction could there be? What more expressive in relation to everything surrounding them.


I don't equate those two things either. I can think of many convictions that rival religious faith for some people, but I think one of the greatest victories that organized religion has managed to win for itself is to inject into our culture the idea that faith is a virtue. In other words not only is believing in something unseen, undetectable, and without evidence required, but it is actually noble to do this, something to be proud. Something that should be placed along side with things like courage and honesty. I've always found that idea very interesting.


----------



## Beingofglass

I'm curious about these "Atheists". How can they become some sort of new religion? because in my vocabulary, a TRUE Atheist is absolutely indiffrent to religion, wether it is there or not, should not be an atheists concern unless they are directly affected by it.


----------



## IndieVisible

ugh1979 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> There are _some _people, (atheists and theists) who behave in a juvenile nature online.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> There is a full scale of atheists/theists going from noisy to invisible.


it's still noise and equally annoying.

I really don't care if some one is a atheist or theist. But when they have to talk about it it bothers me. Both of them.


----------



## ugh1979

IndieVisible said:


> it's still noise and equally annoying.
> 
> I really don't care if some one is a atheist or theist. But when they have to talk about it it bothers me. Both of them.


I can only assume you have forgotten you are in a forum for atheism/agnosticism. Or does it bother you when people in the sports forum talk about sports and people in the science forum talk about science as well?


----------



## ugh1979

Beingofglass said:


> because in my vocabulary, a TRUE Atheist is absolutely indiffrent to religion, wether it is there or not, should not be an atheists concern unless they are directly affected by it.


It's actually an apatheist who is indifferent to religion, but an apatheist is also an atheist (by default).

However, some atheists are concerned about how religion effects them and/or society/other people so rightfully openly criticise it.

If nobody concerned themselves with anything other than their own direct interests we'd live in an awful world.


----------



## fredbloggs02

The Silent 1 said:


> I don't equate those two things either. I can think of many convictions that rival religious faith for some people, but I think one of the greatest victories that organized religion has managed to win for itself is to inject into our culture the idea that faith is a virtue. In other words not only is believing in something unseen, undetectable, and without evidence required, but it is actually noble to do this, something to be proud. Something that should be placed along side with things like courage and honesty. I've always found that idea very interesting.


Is that sarcasm or genuine wonder? Or perhaps the first combined with the hope of drawing me into argument?... I can see many problems with belief in things unseen. I could conceive of it leading one to dampen or neglect one's physical attributes or consider them of lesser importance than internal attributes. "I profess my absolute conviction in the things unseen whatever reason and evidence have to say" is not dishonest at all. Unless you would have people feel guilty because, so certain others would have it, only what the majority profess to know is honest, or that knowledge must necessarily make hypocrites of those whose belief tramples both reason and understanding underfoot. That is a pragmatic notion of honesty lol.

I don't believe rivalry in this human quality is possible.

I will say reasons are conditioned, and therefore closer to nature. Man is drawn towards collective knowledge by his social instinct, and therefore to whatever the majority of people happen to think; but to believe is contrary to that collective instinct when alone in opposition to it; and to believe unconditionally, against nature. I see great power, courage, and virtue in those who demand more than nature provides. I see a demand higher than reason and empirical evidence involved in it. But this, as I said would be the case, is only one inadequate expression of belief I find particularly laudable.


----------



## ugh1979

> In some ancient systems I see belief was valued higher than knowledge. After all, reasons are persuasive. Man is drawn by conversation and his social instinct towards collective knoweldge, and thus to whatever the majority of people happen to think; but to believe differently is contrary to that collective instinct, and to believe unconditionally, surely antinatural. Belief understood in the Christian sense is against the nature of men. I can see great power and virtue in anything man does against the collective nature he seems to have accepted of late, alongside the rise of collective everything else.


Indeed in general we are wired to conform with the collective knowledge, but fortunately there are enough people who rebel against the "norm" and formulate their own ideas and theories.

It's only since we developed the scientific method that individuals could prove whole institutions alleged claims of knowledge wrong, which has been a revolution in the development and exponential progression of knowledge.

This article outlines mankind's transition from what was the typical _argumentum ad populum_ model of knowledge to the far more credible evidence based model many of us adhere to now.



fredbloggs02 said:


> I see no reason belief should not take its place about knowledge.


It does. Knowledge typically emerges from belief.

The importance difference is in what kind of belief. It's between those that cling on to long discredited unplausible beliefs and those that develop and hold beliefs which are plausible and can hopefully be falsifiable upon further investigation, and quickly disregarded when shown to be unplausible or false.

Belief in the latter respect is of course essential. Without it we would struggle to progress our knowledge.

The concept comes before the confirmation.


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed in general we are wired to conform with the collective knowledge, but fortunately there are enough people who rebel against the "norm" and formulate their own ideas and theories.
> 
> It's only since we developed the scientific method that individuals could prove whole institutions alleged claims of knowledge wrong, which has been a revolution in the development and exponential progression of knowledge.
> 
> This article outlines mankind's transition from what was the typical _argumentum ad populum_ model of knowledge to the far more credible evidence based model many of us adhere to now.
> 
> It does. Knowledge typically emerges from belief.
> 
> The importance difference is in what kind of belief. It's between those that cling on to long discredited unplausible beliefs and those that develop and hold beliefs which are plausible and can hopefully be falsifiable upon further investigation, and quickly disregarded when shown to be unplausible or false.
> 
> Belief in the latter respect is of course essential. Without it we would struggle to progress our knowledge.
> 
> The concept comes before the confirmation.


Belief in the sense I describe depends on no one to confirm it, for it is internally apprehended. It refers to its own immediate apprehension of the knowledge of truths unseen.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> Belief in the sense I describe depends on no one; for it is internally not externally apprehended.
> 
> It refers to its own immediate apprehension of the knowledge of truths unseen.


I know. Which is is why I made the distinction, as there are beliefs that are credible and beliefs that are not.


----------



## The Silent 1

fredbloggs02 said:


> Is that sarcasm or genuine wonder? Or perhaps the first combined with the hope of drawing me into argument?... I can see many problems with belief in things unseen. I could conceive of it leading one to dampen or neglect one's physical attributes or consider them of lesser importance than internal attributes. "I profess my absolute conviction in the things unseen whatever reason and evidence have to say" is not dishonest at all. Unless you would have people feel guilty because, so certain others would have it, only what the majority profess to know is honest, or that knowledge must necessarily make hypocrites of those whose belief tramples both reason and understanding underfoot. That is a pragmatic notion of honesty lol.
> 
> I don't believe rivalry in this human quality is possible.
> 
> I will say reasons are conditioned, and therefore closer to nature. Man is drawn towards collective knowledge by his social instinct, and therefore to whatever the majority of people happen to think; but to believe is contrary to that collective instinct when alone in opposition to it; and to believe unconditionally, against nature. I see great power, courage, and virtue in those who demand more than nature provides. I see a demand higher than reason and empirical evidence involved in it. But this, as I said would be the case, is only one inadequate expression of belief I find particularly laudable.


There was no sarcasm or hidden meaning in my post, nor was I trying to draw you into an argument. Obviously I don't think faith is something that is laudable and I find the idea that it is now considered a virtue even more absurd, which is why I consider it such a victory for modern religion that they've managed to convince people that it is. I've seen another poster on here romanticize faith as an actual "ability", the ability to believe in the unseen or something like that. Now think about that for a second, an ability is usually defined as a talent or a skill and religion has injected this idea into our culture that faith is among these. That the very act of believing in something without evidence is a "skill", to be refined and honed and commended. I was never accusing anyone of dishonesty, its just an interesting concept to me.


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> I know. Which is is why I made the distinction, as there are beliefs that are credible and beliefs that are not.


I am talking about what is beyond all human means of verification and inaccessible to reason. It is therefore credible and surpasses all objections you might ever raise, and no doubt infinitely more. It simply is.

Belief may seem implausible, improbable, even impossible to one who believes, and yet is.


----------



## ugh1979

The Silent 1 said:


> There was no sarcasm or hidden meaning in my post, nor was I trying to draw you into an argument. Obviously I don't think faith is something that is laudable and I find the idea that it is now considered a virtue even more absurd, which is why I consider it such a victory for modern religion that they've managed to convince people that it is. I've seen another poster on here romanticize faith as an actual "ability", the ability to believe in the unseen or something like that. Now think about that for a second, an ability is usually defined as a talent or a skill and religion has injected this idea into our culture that faith is among these. That the very act of believing in something without evidence is a "skill", to be refined and honed and commended. I was never accusing anyone of dishonesty, its just an interesting concept to me.


Indeed the brainwashing that has led to faith being labelled a "virtue" by some is apparent.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> And that is a fatuous remark without relevance to anything I've said I am talking about something beyond all human means of verification. Belief is inaccessible to reason. It is therefore credible and surpasses all objections you might ever raise, and no doubt infinitely more.
> 
> This is as important as what is "credible."


It has clear relevance to what you have said.

I've already made the distinction between beliefs that are and aren't falsifiable. Beleif in that which is inaccessible to reason falls in to the former category.

Those kind of beliefs are frequently ridiculous/non-credible, as anyone can make up something that is unfalsifiable, such as the existence of undetectable invisible pink sky unicorns.


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed the brainwashing that has led to faith being labelled a "virtue" by some is apparent.


I was not raised Christian or brainwashed by anyone. Both my parents are atheists. I live in a culture unlike the most of yours where I was comparatively free to fly in any direction. If anyone has had more chance to be brainwashed or forced in the wrong direction on the subject of religion, it is quite apparently not me.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> I was not raised Christian or brainwashed by anyone. Both my parents are atheists. I live in a culture unlike the most of yours where I was comparatively free to fly in any direction.


I didn't say you were. I said "by some", which didn't necessary mean you. I actually hold you in higher regard than being brainwashed so easily.


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> It has clear relevance to what you have said.
> 
> I've already made the distinction between beliefs that are and aren't falsifiable. Beleif in that which is inaccessible to reason falls in to the former category.
> 
> Those kind of beliefs are frequently ridiculous/non-credible, as anyone can make up something that is unfalsifiable, such as the existence of undetectable invisible pink sky unicorns.


If by unfalsifiable you mean inapprehensible to any second arbitrary party you might name, I agree: belief is unfalsifiable. I have already asserted religion is (in my view) above reason and evidence.

Of course they can. So what? Bring up any quantity of vain imaginings you will, a belief is true despite its resemblance to all of them. The believer has every way of apprehending the truth within them, and moreover, expressing it through all their actions without a word.

Truths inaccessible to reason may still be self-evident.

And if you now feel inclined to say: "Well, this settles it. You are irrational and therefore unable to distinguish the difference between fiction and reality," I believe I have beaten you to it. It would be a false inference.

Logic and what is demonstrable are both obviously insufficient. F u c k Alfred Ayer and all Chameleon logic weasels.. Stupid blackguards!! They too are obviously insufficient!

I've finished responding now.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> If by unfalsifiable you mean inapprehensible to any second arbitrary party you might name, I agree: belief is unfalsifiable.


No I mean unfalsifiable as in unfalsifiable (i.e. not capable of being proved false).



> I have already asserted religion is (in my view) above reason and evidence.


As you frequently do, and I frequently disagree with. It's a core theme to most our debates.



> Of course they can. So what? Bring up any quantity of vain imaginings you will, a belief is true despite its resemblance to all of them. The believer has every way of distinguishing the truth within them.


Let us establish that I'm talking about objective truths. Not the subjective truths anyone can dream up with no need for justification or evidence if they choose not to.



> And if you now feel inclined to say: "Well this settles it. You are irrational and therefore unable to distinguish the difference between fiction and reality," I believe I have beaten you to it... only it would be a false inference.


Well of course you would claim that. Such as a man who claims to be Napoleon _believes _it to be true.


----------



## Beingofglass

ugh1979 said:


> It's actually an apatheist who is indifferent to religion, but an apatheist is also an atheist (by default).
> 
> However, some atheists are concerned about how religion effects them and/or society/other people so rightfully openly criticise it.
> 
> If nobody concerned themselves with anything other than their own direct interests we'd live in an awful world.


Thank you for clarifying. I did'nt know about the term "an apatheist". That would be what I am then.
Getting a Little wiser every day.


----------



## ugh1979

Beingofglass said:


> Thank you for clarifying. I did'nt know about the term "an apatheist". That would be what I am then.
> Getting a Little wiser every day.


No problem.

This is how we learn friend.  There are many interesting things to be learned on the subject here if you are interested. I know I've learned much in my years of reading these parts of the forums. There are some very intelligent and enlightening people here.


----------



## always starting over

somename said:


> agreed, except with number 3.
> 
> I'd add a number 5: *don't preach atheism. It's not a religion.*


seriously!!!


----------



## Hornbeam

Some atheists need to reconsider their behavior??? !! are you joking ? Do they upset you by pointing out the blindingly obvious ? How about the behavior of some religious folks, I don't go banging on your door at daft O'clock on Sunday morning to enhance my chances of getting a place in heaven like Javohas Witnesses. I don't sentence Iranian Christians to 80 lashes for drinking communion wine. I have no hatred of gays, jews or muslims. I don't wage holy war or ban women from a job because they're women.
Before you start picking on atheists bad behavior, for god sake get your own house of god in order.


----------



## inerameia

I think preaching logic is fine. People have the choice to accept or reject whatever is being proclaimed. If they want to discuss then that's fine too. It shouldn't be taboo. People shouldn't be so anal and narrow-minded about it. Listen to what is said too. That helps.


----------



## Ramondo

Hornbeam said:


> Some atheists need to reconsider their behavior??? !! are you joking ? Do they upset you by pointing out the blindingly obvious ? How about the behavior of some religious folks, I don't go banging on your door at daft O'clock on Sunday morning to enhance my chances of getting a place in heaven like Javohas Witnesses. I don't sentence Iranian Christians to 80 lashes for drinking communion wine. I have no hatred of gays, jews or muslims. I don't wage holy war or ban women from a job because they're women.
> Before you start picking on atheists bad behavior, for god sake get your own house of god in order.


Did you even bother to read the original post? Or are you just freestyle ranting in response to the subject title?


----------



## RRAAGGEE

People with religion are EXACTLY the same.


----------



## PressOnBrah

Don't tell me what to do, OP.


----------



## Espirito

All you up and coming Atheists and aspiring debaters could really learn a thing or two from Mr Bacons brilliant post.


----------



## diamondheart89

Ah, I'm glad ugh got to this thread already.


----------



## apx24

moloko said:


> Agreed, except with number 3.
> 
> I'd add a number 5: don't preach atheism. It's not a religion.


This


----------



## CEB32

Religion effects us all regardless of belief and always has, which is something most religious people don't seem to understand and apparently some atheists after reading this topic, which is equally as worrying 


Some of every group need to reconsider their behaviour, not just one


----------



## Eterminal

Religion caused nothing but dissension and agony...
It never ceases to amaze me how even a well-elaborated
graduate believes in a higher power. There is no god. Deal with it!


----------



## cursedLife

Though I generally agree with OP on how atheists should conduct themselves, this is not practical in reality. The assumption would be that everybody can reason and understand in a logical manner, when in truth people are more motivated by emotions than objective reasoning. It takes a great deal of working knowledge to not only muster up a fact based argument, but to actually disseminate these arguments into something the mass can comprehend. Most people are not willing to do the research. As in any circle, their will always be the core experts that leads the group and sets the norm, while everybody follows along. So in short, I would say I am much less optimistic that this level of conduct can be achieved in society. The more sensible solution is to have atheists with working knowledge penetrate discussions on subject matters too advanced for most people and let it be translated into simpler terms that can understood by the masses.


----------



## Freyja

fredbloggs02 said:


> I am talking about what is beyond all human means of verification and inaccessible to reason.


This is literal non-sense. How can you reason that something is "inaccessible to reason"? And if it is, how can you talk about it? How can you conceive something which is beyond human reasoning? Are you super-human?
How can you even _create_ something which is beyond reasoning?

I know the whole "god is beyond human reasoning" is used as a cop-out, but it's internally contradicting and quite possible the least sane statement I've ever witnessed.


----------



## ugh1979

Freyja said:


> This is literal non-sense. How can you reason that something is "inaccessible to reason"? And if it is, how can you talk about it? How can you conceive something which is beyond human reasoning? Are you super-human?
> How can you even _create_ something which is beyond reasoning?
> 
> I know the whole "god is beyond human reasoning" is used as a cop-out, but it's internally contradicting and quite possible the least sane statement I've ever witnessed.


I quite often see theists making similar claims, and yes it is a cop out.

It appears "god is beyond human reasoning" when they want it to be in certain discussions which challenge them, but at other times within human reasoning when it suits them, such as when they are making claims to what their god does and doesn't approves of for example.


----------



## TicklemeRingo

Pierre's got a point. Some people can be twats.


----------



## Umpalumpa

"We need to behave"
"We need to be more open minded"
"After all...we already have rationality on our side"

Lol...


----------



## HelpfulHero

Droidsteel said:


> I don't know, I think we're generally pretty polite and articulate on this forum. There are one or two people who's posts seem to just reiterate '**** religion' over and over but other than them I think what everyone else is doing is fine :?


**** religion :yes


----------

