Follow TV Tropes

Following

"Aggressive" atheism versus "gentle" atheism...

Go To

neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#1: Apr 16th 2011 at 5:25:14 PM

A common claim in the thread about atheism being a flame magnet was that people were not upset by atheism, but by aggressive atheism.

To those making such claims, how do you respond to this article?

AllanAssiduity Since: Dec, 1969
#2: Apr 16th 2011 at 5:26:55 PM

You mean "flame magent".

Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#3: Apr 16th 2011 at 5:29:17 PM

Vuvuzelas? Yeah, I can see the death penalty being appropriate there.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#4: Apr 16th 2011 at 5:29:24 PM

While I believe that all religions create moral individuals, I do believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition often promotes a system of divine morality that may not match exactly with the moral systems used by atheists. As such, I believe the two need to conflict—not violently, but in mutual attempts at conversion. After all, if you really believe what you say, why not try to convince others of it?

And @ the article: I've stopped taking any Americans seriously when they start talking about how they're oh so oppressed and everyone hates them, because I have yet to find a group of Americans that doesn't use that line.

edited 16th Apr '11 5:30:45 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#5: Apr 16th 2011 at 5:29:34 PM

I think it's an article that belongs on the opinion pages.

They print them every week.

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#6: Apr 16th 2011 at 5:32:25 PM

Intolerance isn't a religious thing, it's a human one.

That said, I agree with most of the article - atheists are verbally attacked more simply because they're outnumbered. Nor do I see how an Atheist Marching Band is more of an assault on Christmas than Black Friday sales, celebrating nothing more than the almighty consumer culture.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#7: Apr 16th 2011 at 5:52:27 PM

As a polite atheist, I have had a friend start an argument with me about it with no prior provocation at all. (He wasn't particularly coherent either; he kind of babbled on about how atheism didn't seem to make any sense to him but never delivered an argument that didn't boil down to that.)

Now, I've seen atheists start arguments with religious people before too, so maybe this doesn't mean anything. But I've never had a conservative start an argument with me out of nowhere, either.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#8: Apr 16th 2011 at 6:00:40 PM

While I'm sure it's true for some people, there's enough people who define "aggressive" as being "visible", that it makes it very difficult to really accommodate them. It's hard to differentiate between the two sometimes.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#9: Apr 16th 2011 at 6:00:52 PM

[up][up]That's more a problem with the person than the belief, I can find such persons among all stripes.

Clarifying who I was replying to, since a post jumped in.

edited 16th Apr '11 6:06:40 PM by blueharp

Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#10: Apr 16th 2011 at 6:05:51 PM

No, it's a problem with the privilege. One of the things that repeatedly came up in the other thread, and I think it's the core of what we should be talking about in terms of this, is the double standard.

People make a big deal when atheists do what religious groups do regularly. There really is a strong double standard with this sort of thing. Or to be more precise, religious groups/individuals I think created a lot of the rules/guidelines for this sort of thing, by and large atheists in terms of promoting ourselves follow those guidelines, and yet it's controversial. If the guidelines are wrong (and they might very well be) wouldn't the best thing to do be to pull back groups with more cultural/social power first, in order to establish new guidelines?

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#12: Apr 16th 2011 at 6:36:47 PM

"Now, I've seen atheists start arguments with religious people before too, so maybe this doesn't mean anything. But I've never had a conservative start an argument with me out of nowhere, either." - Black Humor

"Either"? I get the impression that one part or another of that post was misworded.

Wicked223 from Death Star in the forest Since: Apr, 2009
#13: Apr 16th 2011 at 7:04:41 PM

He could show me a religion that is nothing but sweetness and light, happiness and good thoughts and equality for all, and it wouldn't matter: the one question I would ask is, "Is it true?" It wouldn't matter if he could show empirically that adopting this hypothetical faith leads to world peace, the voluntary abolishment of crime, the disappearance of dental caries, and that every child on the planet would get their very own pony — I'd still battle it with every fierce and angry word I could speak and type if it wasn't also shown to be a true and accurate description of the world. Some of us, at least, will refuse to drink the Kool-Aid, no matter how much sugar they put in it.

Uh. Wow. fanatic much?

You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#14: Apr 16th 2011 at 7:13:21 PM

Yeah, a lot of atheists take "Truth is axiomatically good" pretty seriously.

I subscribe to that axiom, but tend to temper my Truth Seeking with pragmatism.

BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#15: Apr 16th 2011 at 7:17:28 PM

@neo: The either is supposed to take the "maybe it doesn't matter" and "never had a conservative argue with me" as its arguments.

@Wicked: No, it's pretty much my position on this. The only thing that has any impact on whether or not you should believe something is whether or not it's true.

It doesn't matter if you'd feel really nice if you believe the earth is flat; all that matters is the earth isn't flat.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#16: Apr 16th 2011 at 7:22:23 PM

Black Humor: That, again, is holding the axiom that "Beliefs should perfectly, or as perfectly as is possible, reflect the truth of the matter, to the exclusion of all other criteria."

That is, indeed, a radical position. I don't think it's wrong necessarily, but it's not the position I myself hold.

Meophist from Toronto, Canada Since: May, 2010
#17: Apr 16th 2011 at 7:24:43 PM

I'm a/n (soft) atheist, and I don't put much emphasis on "truth" as I see the idea being subjective.

In any case, I try not to push any of my ideas onto other people although I'll explain them if asked. Unfortunately, there's a Christian at my work who... talks a lot about God, and ever since he learned I was an atheist, he's been somewhat pushing those ideas onto me. It gets kinda annoying.

Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.
BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#18: Apr 16th 2011 at 7:36:48 PM

@Tomu: The reason I hold it is:

Suppose you want to be happy, and False Belief X will make you happy if you believe it. So you try to believe False Belief X for the sake of the warm fuzzies. But alas, as you know X is not true from the outset, you cannot honestly believe X, and if you don't honestly believe X you don't get the warm fuzzies. And similarly, if you already believe X, you can't not believe in a counterargument; if you come across a convincing enough counterargument, you will cease to believe in X no matter what you want to believe.

So therefore, in order to get warm fuzzies, you must utterly ignore the warm fuzzies and believe X on its merits. Since you must believe or not believe X on its merits, you should evaluate X as if it was any other hypothesis, and reject it if there isn't enough evidence same as any other hypothesis.

edited 16th Apr '11 7:37:01 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#19: Apr 16th 2011 at 7:41:30 PM

I'm rather torn on this issue. I feel that there is a clear double standard in place, and I don't like it - but at the same time, the most visible atheists do tend to be pretty confrontational (that's why they're visible, of course), and I do find that attitude somewhat irritating, even if the atheists themselves might not regard it as aggressive.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Beholderess from Moscow Since: Jun, 2010
#20: Apr 16th 2011 at 8:10:34 PM

This one thinks that there is definitely a double standard here. Of course militant atheists are annoying, but if theists were held to the same standard, then most of their public figures would be considered militant also. It is not an excuse, of course, but it is something worth paying attention to.

People make a big deal when atheists do what religious groups do regularly.
Exactly.

edited 16th Apr '11 8:11:52 PM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#21: Apr 16th 2011 at 8:12:08 PM

Well, I think there's plenty of people who do find such annoying, it's just not been the subject of any of the threads here, so it's not come up directly.

TheMightyAnonym PARTY HARD!!!! from Pony Chan Since: Jan, 2010
PARTY HARD!!!!
#22: Apr 16th 2011 at 8:13:36 PM

I'd say it comes down to arrogance.

Naturally though, said arrogance is overwhelmingly present on either side.

Given that I'm a fan of Eliezer Yudkowsky*

, I'm pretty much able to ignore it by now. Arrogance and hypocrisy don't magically invalidate what people have to say, regardless how annoying they are.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#23: Apr 16th 2011 at 8:28:20 PM

Black humor: What you believe is presumably a factor of electrical and chemical impulses, not a factor of the merit of a position. Ergo, if believing in unicorns makes you happy, you'd theoretically want to see a biopsychologist about getting chemical injections to believe in Unicorns.

Vyctorian ◥▶◀◤ from Domhain Sceal Since: Mar, 2011
◥▶◀◤
#24: Apr 16th 2011 at 8:56:58 PM

You can defiantly put me down in the aggressive atheist category. It's the only way to combat Radical Religious BS.

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com
thatguythere47 Since: Jul, 2010
#25: Apr 16th 2011 at 9:00:41 PM

Threadhop: -thinking as I read article- hey this is a pretty good opinion piece, a bit whiny but so far I haven't found anything to silly

It's hard not to see this as theocracy being threatened.

theocracy being threatened.

theocracy

...

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Total posts: 1,038
Top