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

That's possible, I'm using God to refer to whatever element, essence, or being created everything that exists to us and beyond.

I prefer to avoid the definition you gave, because you can worship anything, and it doesn't necessarily make it God, in addition to my belief that being the Supreme Architect alone does not merit worship.

Anyway, we're getting wayyyy off-topic.

edited 17th Apr '11 10:15:58 AM by Barkey

Ah. Yeah, I'm not a creationist, so I don't tend to regard that as a fundamental aspect of Godliness.

And, shit, you're right, we've drifted. Sorry.

Well, I suppose, relating this back towards types of atheism, I think there is this commonly stated view that "because God said so" is some kind of thought-stopper, which I think is greatly oversimplifying the issue and leads to disagreement and aggression, or perceived aggression.

edited 17th Apr '11 10:18:44 AM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

To be honest, one of the main reasons it seems wrong to this one is because even the people of same face cannot agree with each other about exactly what did their god say. So their version of god turns out to be saying what they'd prefer him/her/it to say suspiciously often. Please understand that I am not accusing anyone of dishonestly! It is a natural human reaction, nothing wrong with it. But it does put an unverifiable argument. Appeal to authority is a fallacy in itself, but when the other side has no option of asking said authority directly or otherwise making sure that they've indeed said what they are claimed to say, it becomes way too subjective to even take as an argument.

Another reason this one is not fond of this rationale is that it sounds suspiciously like "might makes right". If one day Cthulhu appeared for all to see and said that sacrificing people to him is a good thing, it won't become a decent thing to do, would it? Granted, it might be a prudent thing

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

The fact that disagreement exists suggests to me that people aren't blindly following Cthulhu, but following the God that they think is morally right.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Of course! And that's the point. Either people are following whatever god says, right or no, or they are in fact following their own moral code which they assume their god shares.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Someone whose decrees are arbitrary cannot be "morally right".

Whoever wields that kind of authority is by definition a tyrant. Why worship a tyrant?

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Good thing nobody advocated arbitrary laws, then!

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

^^^

I wouldn't quite go that far. I have my own moral code regardless of what God feels.

I don't see why people have this compulsory need to have the same feelings as God and try to please him in any possible way. Is it because theists who believe in heaven have that as their carrot for good behavior? What's the deal?

I'm me. God's God. He hasn't made any sort of public decree or statement to us that he approves or disapproves on any real form of behavior, not any decree that is a proven fact anyway. Everyone seems to have this driving need to align right and wrong with what God may or may not believe.

edited 17th Apr '11 10:51:17 AM by Barkey

If God wasn't right, why would they worship Him?

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Ahem, I was speaking about those who claim that "because god said so" is a good enough reason. Obviously you are not one of them.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

One other thing is that you have to understand the various reactions to the idea of "'cos God said so" to something you disagree with.

First, you can take the theological route. Basically "No, he didn't".

Second, there's the immediate blunt response. Well, your god is a bit of a dick isn't he?

Third, you can just ignore that aspect and play to the crowd and explain why you think the idea is wrong. The person you're talking to doesn't care but the goal is to sway 3rd parties. (I usually go this route)

Basically "'cos God said so", is something that I don't feel is fit for public consumption. Playing the card is basically trying to start a stalemate type fight right off the bat. To put it simply, it's aggressive and it's rude.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

God will be around regardless of if humans worship him, I just don't see the tangent between if you believe God exists, that you obviously must worship him.

I believe in God, but I don't worship him. I consider him a factor in the universe, for all I know he could be an active factor that actually does influence events that we can grasp, or he could be watching the show and not giving a damn, or he could just not be watching whatsoever.

Regardless of any of that, I believe in such an entity, but I have been given no reason to feel any positions it would have deserve merit or worship from me as an individual. And to keep on topic, as a result of that I don't see why believers in various religions feel it is their duty to make others, regardless of if they recognize God or not, believe that the moral system they attribute to God is the one that they should have.

edited 17th Apr '11 10:56:48 AM by Barkey

I'm a Pagan, and I used to be an agnostic. Now I'm a firm believer in the fact that The Gods Must Be Lazy.

edited 17th Apr '11 10:57:05 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

But Barkey, you are a deist. You are not worshipping a God. I am not saying that if you believe in a creator of the universe, you must worship them. I am saying that if you do worship a God, you must respect their opinions.

@ Karmakin: I think the third response is the most sensible, though I'll admit that the first two are responses I've given to that in the past. But I suppose you're right, "because God said so" is not a great thing to say in an actual argument, because it remains an opinion.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Oh yeah, I've done the same, of course. Usually I start with 3 and then if they keep it up I go to 2 :p

The point of it all is that a lot of the things that we see as "aggressive" atheism are just natural reactions to situations and environments that some theists are creating via their actions. It's like every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and we're getting all over the reaction without saying anything about the original action itself.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Agreed so very much

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Karmakin, that is true, but on the other hand, some atheists will verbally attack religion without provocation, and disparage the intelligence of people just for being religious.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

The point, though, at least of this thread, is that many religious people see that in even gentler forms of atheism, which suggests that even if aggressiveness is a major part of the problem, it still isn't quite as major a part of it as is made out to be.

^^What do you mean by that? Is that someone who writes a book? Puts up an essay on the website? I agree, that someone going up to someone else and saying you're a moron for believing this stuff. I agree! That's rude. You shouldn't do that. However, if I say that it's simply isn't true, and there's no reason to believe it, that equals calling someone stupid. And that's the point. Don't read offense where it's tried to be avoided. I entirely understand that the offensive language is baked in...just like it is for pro-religion statements. So either we ban it all in public or we grow up and understand that disagreement to a degree is natural.

One thing I will and have done, is when I am casually offended like that...say at a funeral. I'll go and talk to the speaker and explain that as someone of no religious belief that some of what was said was offensive to me. I've been apologized to and I've been told to basically GTFO and I've been told to repent my sick soul. Is my approaching the speaker improper? I'm reacting to some offense. I'm not blaming the individual. I understand tradition is comforting to some people. I'm not calling them stupid or evil. I'm saying that exclusivist language is hurtful to some people.

Is that wrong to you?

Edit: I lost my original point :p

The thing is, to someone like Dawkins, the attacks on teaching evolution in schools is provocation for him. To Harris, 9/11 was provocation for him. For me, the idea that god chooses winners and losers and we have to respect, and even enforce his choices is provocation for me. These things are often not unprovoked. So when someone writes a book or a blog post or whatever attacking religion. They're not unprovoked. And that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not always aggressive. Is it overly defensive. Now that's a more interesting question.

edited 17th Apr '11 11:27:56 AM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

No, Karmakin, I don't think that is wrong. But I'm talking not so much about bloggers as about people I have met, people I know personally, who will make negative or provocative comments at people just for mentioning religious beliefs. I think religious people are right in considering that aggressive - though I suppose from the perspective of the atheists in question, they may perceive themselves to be acting defensively.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Karmakin - Without knowing all the details of each instance, it's impossible to judge whether you were right or wrong to say that you'd been offended. However, I'm not sure a funeral, specifically, is a great time for saying anything remotely controversial, given that there's already a charged atmosphere. I appreciate that's probably difficult if you feel someone's made an offensive remark.

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

Well, there's also the question of what constitutes "offensive" to bear in mind. Again anecdotal, but back when I was an atheist, I found it pretty upsetting when people would talk about how wonderful it was to be saved through their faith in Jesus, because I would hear that as "You don't have faith in Jesus, therefore you are going to fry, and serve you right!". Immature? Perhaps. But whether I was justified or not in that interpretation, I don't think I'd have been justified in approaching somebody and saying "Can you please not talk about being saved by Jesus, that is offensive to me".

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Response to both up above. Well that's the point. To me, the statement that one can only be a good person by being a Christian IS a controversial statement (That's what I responded to at the funerals), or at least it should be seen as such. Likewise, discussing atheism in response to a statement of theism is only rude if the original theistic statement is seen as being rude as well. Of course there can be differing degrees of rudeness, without having all the details it's impossible to tell which is which.

The problem is the privilege. The double standard we have surrounding theism and atheism is a good example of said privilege.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

I think, once again, the problem is that both sides are doing the "best defense is a good offense" sort of thing.

I'm not going to crash sermons or anything, but if someone starts sharing their religious beliefs with me, I'm not going to refrain from telling them mine. Unfortunately, this is often seen as an attack, even if I'm perfectly civil about it. That's part of the problem.

Yes, I tend to assume that religious people are misguided at best, and are usually dicks. I started to question God when I was living in a fundamentalist family in the middle of the Bible Belt. I have been physically attacked for my lack of belief, and that tends to color my views of everyone else that holds the same faith.

However, I also realize that there are moderate religious who aren't vocal with their faith, who would be just as offended if I did the exact same thing as the evangelicals.

edited 17th Apr '11 12:40:32 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

@Bobby G: Man, people have known "it's good 'cause God said so" is a bad argument since friggin' Socrates.

If good things are things that God likes, than goodness is arbitrary and changeable, which means there's no reason to like good things any more than there is to like things the PM likes.

On the other hand, if God likes things that are already good, than they must be already good for some reason besides that God likes them and therefore "God said so" is not a convincing argument.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1