Generally in earlier times, it was exclusively the religious people who were amazingly staunch in their beliefs. It was the religious people who attempted to convert--but not only that--it was the religious people who would insult and scream at those who refused conversion. Of course, in many parts of the world, and probably many parts of Canada, this still goes on. However I have found, as of late, that the tables have turned. It is now the non-believers--the non-religious--who have become so very staunch and pushy in their beliefs. It is the new breed of athiests who push their points of view on others, and will rip apart and insult to the death those who won't agree with them. Because of course, if someone doesn't agree with an atheist, they are ignorant. They have blocked off a part of their brain. They are flat-out dumb. Blind, even. Of course...
True, to this day there are probably MORE religious people who push their beliefs on others. In no parts of the world are people getting stoned to death for believing that there is no God (not yet, at least). But that does not change the fact that there is an interesting, budding kind of athiest, who is pushy and argumentative about his beliefs. (Or hers, if I offended anyone!)
It isn't only those who believe in God who are stupid. It is also those who support the very idea of faith or institution of religion. Anyone who suggests that religion has done some good in the world is an idiot, immediately, and without question or an opportunity to defend themself. If any of your fingers are pulsing with comebacks to this post about how the Bible is a fairytale, or how religion has caused all of the wars, you just further prove my point. I'm not arguing on behalf of religion. I'm arguing that the tables have turned in terms of who is pushing their beliefs on whom.
When your super-Christian friends try to talk you into coming to church with them, at least you know that from the bottom of their heart they are only doing it because they believe it is in your best interest. They believe that they are saving your soul; something they sincerely want to do because they care about you. This does not make it right, perhaps, but at least it's coming from a good place. When an athiest pushes his beliefs on you, it is hardly ever coming from a good place. Perhaps it is to tear you from what he believes is a state of helpless naivety. Perhaps he doesn't want you to stay as blissfully unaware as he thinks you are. But mostly, it is just to prove that he is, without a doubt, right. And that you are, without a doubt, a moron.
People pushing their beliefs on others is NEVER a good thing. But I simply find it interesting how the roles have shifted and I now find way more athiests trying to convert me than religious folk. (And no, this is not because I am among the religious folk all the time. Has a Jew ever tried to convert you? Probably not, unless they wanted to marry you or have you marry their son or daughter. Otherwise, they really don't care.)
I've been told that I am "blinded by my faith," for simply saying someone was disrespectful to rip apart someone elses' religion in front of them. Seriously? First of all, I've never made it clear that I'm even religious. Second of all, calling someone disrespectful--even an athiest--is a completely different thing than defending religion. Regardless, the shift is a neat one, and the new breed of atheism is actually converting more and more, quite quickly. I don't know if this is good or bad. It's generally obnoxious and pushy. In most cases, the worst thing a religious person trying to convert you will say is that you're going some place you don't believe exists after you die. But an atheist trying to convert you will insult your core belief system and tell you you're stupid.
Like I said, forced conversion to a belief (assimilation is a different thing, so let's not go there) is NEVER, EVER a good thing, in my opinion. But the role reversal is interesting to witness, none the less.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Where to begin :)
Let's try here:
"It is now the non-believers--the non-religious--who have become so very staunch and pushy in their beliefs."
Ah, yes. All those non-santa-claus believers are pretty pushy about their beliefs too. Pack of ignorant asses they are. Every time I tell someone that I believe in Santa, they laugh at me and call me an idiot. The nerve of some people!
"Because of course, if someone doesn't agree with an atheist, they are ignorant."
No - if someone professes to know something that they do not, then they are ignorant. If, on the other hand, they claim no proof but only "faith", then they are irrational. Both of those words have clear definitions. Using them when they are called for is not insulting - it is a simple statement of fact.
"They have blocked off a part of their brain."
What else would you call it when an otherwise rational person insists on holding an irrational belief?
"Anyone who suggests that religion has done some good in the world is an idiot, immediately, and without question or an opportunity to defend themself."
I have never seen ANYONE behave in such a manner. At worst, an Atheist will tell you that the "good works" are irrelevant.
Nobody will contest the fact that religion has done some good in the world; however, whether or not it's done good is irrelevant to the question of whether or not IT'S TRUE. Those are completely separate questions. Even if we accept it as a valid line of argument, it also says nothing about whether or not religion is REQUIRED in order to do good. The biggest charity organizations in the world today are non-religious.
"I've been told that I am "blinded by my faith," for simply saying someone was disrespectful to rip apart someone elses' religion in front of them."
No, you were told that you're blinded by your faith because you accused a man of being disrespectful when he wasn't. If he had sat there and said that people who believe that Elvis is still alive are irrational, you wouldn't have made such an accusation, even though his message would have been nearly identical.
And, finally:
"When an athiest pushes his beliefs on you, it is hardly ever coming from a good place. Perhaps it is to tear you from what he believes is a state of helpless naivety. Perhaps he doesn't want you to stay as blissfully unaware as he thinks you are. But mostly, it is just to prove that he is, without a doubt, right. And that you are, without a doubt, a moron."
Wow. That statement says more about you than it does about atheists. You look at a group of people who are trying to explain to you the beauty of nature, science, and the human mind ... and you imagine into them horrid little egos full of nastiness and spite. do you not see how intolerant and bigoted that is?
I don't know what happened to you to so twist your perception of non-religious people, but whatever it is, I'm sorry. I really wish I could help you to see just how wrong you are.
As for atheists trying to convert you ... let me know when one of them shows up at your door with a fistfull of pamphlets.
The very idea is ludicrous. Atheism is not a religion, any more than the refusal to believe in unicorns is a religions. Atheists have no stock in converting people. We'll talk to those who are willing to listen, and we'll speak up in order to contradict someone who we know is wrong. That's called information and debate, not conversion and "being disrespectful". If you don't want your beliefs refuted, DON'T VOICE THEM IN PUBLIC. If you don't want to hear Atheist talks, DON'T LISTEN. Nobody is pushing anything at you - you've constructed a complete straw man. As a college student you should understand the value of open debate, instead of shirking away from it and complaining about people being "pushy".
Militant atheists are all too common-place today. I notice the trend particularly among my peers (the 18-25 crowd). I've seen them term theists as "stupid" "misguided" or any other ridiculous insult one could imagine.
As an agnostic, I get a little annoyed by theists pushing their beliefs on me, but like you, I understand the meaning behind this. When atheists start attacking the religious, I often find myself in conflict with them(despite our similar feelings on religion), because it occurs to me that they are simply so self-righteous that they refuse to consider another person's personal beliefs.
Most ironically, these same individuals who attack religion for "forcing" beliefs on us, are doing the exact same themselves.
Enjoyed your post, I'll be sure to read more!
Alex:
"I don't know what happened to you to so twist your perception of non-religious people, but whatever it is, I'm sorry. I really wish I could help you to see just how wrong you are."
Well, I AM a non-religious person, and I agree fully(and have commented similarily on my own blog many times).
"if someone professes to know something that they do not, then they are ignorant."
professing that god DOES NOT exist IS professing that they know something that they do not. There is no fully dispelling the notion of God. You can't disprove god, and they can't prove god... If you ask me, that means that anyone who suggests the other side is somehow "stupid" or "ignorant" is hypocritical at best.
"I have never seen ANYONE behave in such a manner."
Well, I certainly have... its quite common actually. Either you haven't paid attention, or you don't care.
lol wut?
Atheism is the new hot thing on the streets . But are there missionarys who go out and preach athiesm and try to convert entire villages? pushy, i kno rite?
PS alex, you are a warrior.
Occam would have an heroed himself if he read this...
srsly now jordan, disprovability is not a good thing.
at all.
In the very least, its safer and more reasonable to assume that something DOESNT exist then to assume it does exist amirite?
Jordan,
"professing that god DOES NOT exist IS professing that they know something that they do not. There is no fully dispelling the notion of God. You can't disprove god, and they can't prove god..."
You're completely right. The existence of god CAN NOT be disproved. This lack of falsifiability however is actually a strike against the existence of god.
If I were to tell you there existed an invisible, pink (it would appear pink if you could see it) unicorn that was the ACTUAL creator of the earth and the universe would you be inclined to believe me? You can't actually prove that it doesn't exist(it is invisible after all)but I'm sure a rational person wouldn't base their entire life on its existence and go to church every sunday to appease it.
"In the very least, its safer and more reasonable to assume that something DOESNT exist then to assume it does exist amirite?"
In reality they are both inconsequential.
"Atheism is the new hot thing on the streets . But are there missionarys who go out and preach athiesm and try to convert entire villages?"
Uh... what are you and Alex doing here?
They arn't trying to convert anyone.
They have simply replied to issues that have arise in the article.
"The existence of god CAN NOT be disproved. This lack of falsifiability however is actually a strike against the existence of god.
"
As an evolutionist, even I acknowledge the holes in evolutionary theory. The possibility of the existence of a higher power is certainly there. To many there is a compelling argument for religions. In fact, there are many things that our science is unable to explain; it is hardly surprising that many turn to god to explain them.
Not my personal choice, but at least I have respect enough for those who make that choice to leave that to them.
Or perhaps you will argue that it is the duty of Atheists to inform the uninformed... Of course, that would be no different than what atheists are attacking religion for would it?
I'm not here to discuss the validity of religion(my personal beliefs lean toward atheism, so defending religion is not an easy task for me). I am commenting because I read a good piece on militant atheism, and I agree with it. It behooves us all to consider the actions of theists and atheists in religious discussions, and it is important that civility in these situations is maintained.
You are right, Jordan that there are holes in certain aspects of evolution but why does that mean "God" is the answer? Even if we assume that the theory of evolution was false, why does God when by default? Why can't there be another testable theory to take its place?
As for "attacking" religion, what makes religion off limits? Why is it that you can criticize politicians, celebrities, historical figures, etc. but religion is completely above reproach? By the way, I think it's worth noting that I am not attacking the people who hold these beliefs but rather the "logic" that they are built on.
jordan lolcock,
did i even say anywhere that i was an athiest???
btw, what is inconsequential about countless miliins of people dying over the years in the name of a possibly non-existant entity?
Dude you just insulted the memory of everyone who was slaughtered in the crusades or even in 9/11
"As an evolutionist, even I acknowledge the holes in evolutionary theory."
1. The evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.
2. The word "evolutionist" is an invention of evangelical Christians - nobody else, especially no scientist, would ever use it.
In other words, you are full of shit.
I might reply to the rest of your nonsense later, after I get back from work; I just couldn't resist pointing out the fact that you managed to display your ignorance AND tell a lie, both in the same short sentence.
"Dude you just insulted the memory of everyone who was slaughtered in the crusades or even in 9/11"
Give me a break... That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. As if that kind of violence wouldn't occur without religion. Don't be so naive.
"2. The word "evolutionist" is an invention of evangelical Christians - nobody else, especially no scientist, would ever use it.
In other words, you are full of shit."
Not very astute... and even less mature. I assure you I am not "full of shit" as you put it. Thank you for providing a "case in point" argument.
Oh, and perhaps you should look up the word in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist
You're getting all up in arms over the usage of a common term... now thats nonsense if I've ever seen it.
Funny that you claim that evolution has nothing to do with atheism... it is usually one of the first arguments used when atheists discuss religion.
"As an agnostic, I get a little annoyed by theists pushing their beliefs on me, but like you, I understand the meaning behind this."
Agnosticism is intellectual laziness at best, and dishonesty in most cases. I used to describe myself as "agnostic" for many years until I realized that it doesn't really answer the question. Realistically, I knew for a long time that the odds of a god existing were slim to none, and I knew for a fact that all the religions I had learned about were full of shit, yet I still called myself an agnostic. Why? Exactly because I wanted to avoid the kind of intolerance that you and RTG are now displaying. I didn't want to ruffle any feathers. I didn't want to be rude. I didn't want to be insulted, or ostracized for being a non-believer. I was, in other words, intimidated by the perception that there's something inherently wrong with not believing in god. You have no idea how that feels - to have to sit quietly by and listen to other people espouse their nonsense, while being too afraid to speak up and voice your own opinions. I don't want any other child to have to go through that again - to have to hide in fear for the crime of using their brains.
"Well, I AM a non-religious person"
Funny, you sure repeat a lot of religious talking-points.
You are, at best, an agnostic deist. If you are "non-religious", I'm a japanese jet pilot.
"professing that god DOES NOT exist IS professing that they know something that they do not. There is no fully dispelling the notion of God. You can't disprove god, and they can't prove god... If you ask me, that means that anyone who suggests the other side is somehow "stupid" or "ignorant" is hypocritical at best."
There's no disproving the idea that Elvis is still alive, either, but I can certainly call you stupid if you profess such a belief. Likewise, If you claim to be Napoleon Bonaparte, I might not be able to disprove that, but I can certainly look into getting you some psychiatric counseling.
"Well, I certainly have... its quite common actually."
Oh, well, sure! You've been so honest so far, how could I possibly not believe your personal anecdotes? Congratulations, sir, you have proven without a doubt that all atheists are assholes. Good job!
Seriously, if that's what passes for a convincing argument in your world, it's no wonder you're out there attacking people whose only crime is arguing against irrationality.
"Uh... what are you and Alex doing here?"
Debating. Apparently, in your world, any discussion or debate of any kind is immediately considered a disrespectful, militant attempt at conversion. You must have had a hell of a time going through school.
"Not very astute... and even less mature. I assure you I am not "full of shit" as you put it. Thank you for providing a "case in point" argument.
Oh, and perhaps you should look up the word in the dictionary"
Your assurances mean nothing to me, and whether or not the word is in common usage is irrelevant. The word "nigger" is also in common usage, but it's use is still generally restricted to a very specific group of people. Similarly, "evolutionist", "evolutionism", and "Darwinism" are words which were invented by, and are currently used by, religious people who are attempting to imply that the evolutionary theory is a religion.
If you used it in error, an admission of your error would be appropriate, and I'd suggest you refrain from using it in the future. Otherwise, my initial assessment stands.
"Funny that you claim that evolution has nothing to do with atheism... it is usually one of the first arguments used when atheists discuss religion."
Funny that you claim to be non-religious.. an attack on evolutionary theory is usually the first argument used when the religious attack atheism.
I don't know what discussions you've been watching, but generally speaking when Atheists discuss religion they usually do so by addressing the claims of the religious. You can't argue against religion by shouting "EVOLUTION!!!1!!!!11" - you argue against religion by refuting the claims which they make. Evolution usually only comes up when the religious bring it up directly, or when they state that there must be a creator in order for complex beings to form.
Anyway, you've been dishonest from the get-go, and I really have very little interest in continuing this debate. Unless the quality of your argument improves drastically, this will be my last reply to you. I suggest you put some thought into your next comment.
May I join the fray by quoting one of the last century's greatest scientists?
Does Evil exist?
Does evil exist? The university professor challenged his students with his question. Did God create everything that exists?
A student bravely replied, “Yes, He did!”
”God created everything?” the professor asked.
”Yes, Sir!” the student replied.
The professor answered, “If God created everything, then He also created evil since evil exists and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.”
The student became quiet after such an answer.
The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, “Can I ask you a question, professor?”
”Of course,” replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, “Professor, does cold exist?”
”What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?” remarked the professor.
The young man replied, “In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the law of physics what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat.
Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter transmit energy.
Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.
The student continued. “Professor, does darkness exist?”
The professor responded, “Of course it does!”
The student replied, “Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton’s prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness.
A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn’t this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when
there is no light present.”
Finally the young man asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?”
Now uncertain, the professor responded, “Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily examples of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil!”
To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil.
Evil is not like faith, or love that exists just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart.
It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”
The professor sat down.
The young man’s name - - - - - - - - - Albert Einstein
"I was, in other words, intimidated by the perception that there's something inherently wrong with not believing in god. You have no idea how that feels - to have to sit quietly by and listen to other people espouse their nonsense, while being too afraid to speak up and voice your own opinions."
......Of course no one knows how intimidation or a fear to voice their opinion feels. Only you. Reducing the argument to a pity cry was a bad choice. Regardless, most of what you've said has just proved my point further.
To say that there are no "pushy" athiests is simply untrue, or naive on your part. Just because you have "never seen anyone behave in such a manner," obviously does not make such behaviour non-existant. Saying that nobody will contest the fact that religion has done some good in the world is also untrue. But I'm wide open to you trying to prove that, if you'd like to take that on. And for the record, me saying that I was deemed "blinded by my faith" for calling someone disrespectful is the same thing as me being deemed "blinded by my faith" for calling someone disrespectful when you thought they weren't. Calling me bigoted for simply stating that people are recently pushing their beliefs moreso than in the past is pretty ridiculous. It isn't an issue of me shying away from pushy people. It's an issue of me stating that I've noticed the recent pushiness. Clearly I have no problem with people refuting my beliefs. Your believing that all non-religious people are not pushy does not make it fact, sorry.
Jordan alcock hasn't defended God--in fact he stated that he is non-religious--but he has still been jumped all over in this conversation for supposedly pushing the belief in God. He hasn't, and this has further proved my point, as well.
alex,
You have accused me often in this discussion of being far-off-base and your feeling sad about that. I appreciate your concern. However, I suggest that you sound less pretentious and accusatory in your arguments if you wish for them to be considered legit. You've accused alcock of being a liar several times. Well, I consider plenty that you've said to be completely untrue, and I actually know for a fact that much of it is, but I'm not coming out and accusing you of being a liar. This is the disrespect that I am talking about. You accused both me and alcock of being religious theists, after we've both confirmed that isn't necessarily true. I'm not sure what to do or say in order to further the debate if you're going to throw out accusations every second sentence.
Your argument has come across as extremely accusatory and extremely elitist, which is exactly the point I was trying to prove about the new breed of atheists. So thank you!
Randall: Thank you for demonstrating blind, unquestioning faith. 30 seconds of thought should have suggested to you that your little story was unlikely to be true. 5 seconds with google would have confirmed it. Instead you blindly swallow the stories which you are told, without ever bothering to question them. THAT is exactly why atheists oppose irrational belief.
TGB:
"Reducing the argument to a pity cry was a bad choice."
You've apparently confused a war-cry for a pity cry. I can't say I'm surprised.
"To say that there are no 'pushy' athiests is simply untrue, or naive on your part."
Which is why I never said it. Are we speaking the same language here? YOU said that MOST atheists are disrespectful and pushy, and that they only argue in order to be right. I said that your generalization was intolerant and bigoted. Which it is. Are we clearer now?
"Saying that nobody will contest the fact that religion has done some good in the world is also untrue. But I'm wide open to you trying to prove that, if you'd like to take that on."
EXCUSE ME? Did you SERIOUSLY just ask me to prove a negative? What the hell am I supposed to do - round up every single atheist in the world and get them to testify in front of you???
Once again - you show exactly why irrational thought is dangerous. You apparently have no concept of "burden of proof". Let me break it down for you: if YOU make a claim - such as that atheists will insult anyone who states that religion can do some good - then it's YOUR responsibility to document that claim. Even if I could conclusively prove you wrong - which, in this case, I literally can not - it still wouldn't be my responsibility to do so, because YOU are the one making an unsubstantiated claim.
"Calling me bigoted for simply stating that people are recently pushing their beliefs moreso than in the past is pretty ridiculous."
Once again you're misrepresenting what I said, which should be doubly embarrassing for you because my words are still visible on this very page. Why do you find it necessary to construct straw-men? Why can't you answer my statements, instead of rephrasing them to mean something completely different, and then attacking THOSE statements? Do you do it intentionally? Or is it just a byproduct of your emotional investment in this issue?
I'd like to address the rest of your comment ... but really, until you can explain to me why you continue to resort to straw-man attacks, there's no point. No matter what I say, you're just going to misrepresent it again and then attack me for something I haven't said. As long as you insist on creating straw-men, this discussion will continue to be a fruitless argument instead of a rational exchange of ideas.
"Nobody will contest the fact that religion has done some good in the world; however, whether or not it's done good is irrelevant to the question of whether or not IT'S TRUE."
So to get this straight, you are allowed to make this bold statement and it is up to me to prove that you are wrong? You're still stating something as fact, and facts are better if they're actually fact. If you feel that going out and interviewing every atheist is ridiculous research, which it is, then you shouldn't make such a statement that you cannot back up with evidence.
"Wow. That statement says more about you than it does about atheists. You look at a group of people who are trying to explain to you the beauty of nature, science, and the human mind ... and you imagine into them horrid little egos full of nastiness and spite. do you not see how intolerant and bigoted that is?
... Atheists have no stock in converting people."
This is where you called me bigoted for saying that people are pushing their beliefs, and also where you said that atheists aren't pushy with theirs. You spoke on behalf of all atheists--a silly thing to do. I never said that "MOST atheists are disrespectful and pushy." I said that there is a "new breed of atheists" who act this way.
Please stop accusing me of creating "straw-men," as you put it, if you're not going to argue back with truth.
"So to get this straight, you are allowed to make this bold statement and it is up to me to prove that you are wrong?"
Exactly! Why is this so hard for you to understand? You made a claim which is testable. I essentially said "I've never seen any evidence of your statement, and I think you're wrong". Ergo, YOUR response should be to prove that you're right. Instead you turn around and say "oh yeah? well prove I'm wrong!".
That's not how it works. I'm really surprised to see that you don't understand such a basic concept. If I say that Elvis is still alive, and you say that you think I'm wrong, whose responsibility is it to prove their statement?
Seriously. This is basic logic here. It's not a difficult concept. But it's a problem that I come across time and time again when arguing with true believers of any stripe.
"If you feel that going out and interviewing every atheist is ridiculous research, which it is, then you shouldn't make such a statement that you cannot back up with evidence."
:lol:
Apparently I'm wasting my time, but what the hell, I'll try this one more time:
If we went by your logic, nobody would ever be allowed to tell ther kids that there is no Santa Claus, because we could never prove it. Moreover, nobody would ever be able to make ANY negative statement. If I told you that there are psychic purple puffins on pluto, you wouldn't be allowed to disagree with me because you couldn't prove me wrong.
Once again - sorry, but that's not the way it works. YOU are making the claim that atheists will automatically attack anyone who suggests that religion has done some good. I said that I don't believe you because I've never seen any evidence of it. In order for you to prove that you're right and I'm wrong, all you have to do is cite one documented case. Bingo-presto-boom! ... my argument falls apart. But instead of citing such an example, you immediately demand proof of my non-belief. It's funny how analogous this situation is to the god/no-god debate.
"This is where you called me bigoted for saying that people are pushing their beliefs, and also where you said that atheists aren't pushy with theirs."
Apparently, your straw-man construction is unintentional, so at least I can't accuse you of being dishonest. On the other hand, I really don't know how to correct your perception problem. I mean, my words are there in black and white, and you're still insisting that I'm saying something I'm not.
Look at it again. I said, quite clearly, that it was bigoted of you to "imagine into [atheists] horrid little egos full of nastiness and spite". You responded by saying that I'm accusing you of being "bigoted for saying that people are pushing their beliefs". Do you seriously not see the difference between those two statements?
One is a commentary on motivation - the other on action. I said it was bigoted to ascribe to them motives which they do not have, while you claimed I called you bigoted for commenting on them "being pushy". Those are two completely different things.
"I never said that 'MOST atheists are disrespectful and pushy."
Well, you're partly right, and I obviously made a mistake so I apologise. But you didn't quote my complete statement, which was this:
"MOST atheists are disrespectful and pushy, and that they only argue in order to be right."
The last bit was where my emphasis lay - the first part is largely inconsequential, and as I said, I apologize for the mistake. However, you certainly did state that most atheists only argue in order to be right. I'll even quote it for you, so there's no confusion:
"When an athiest pushes his beliefs on you, it is hardly ever coming from a good place .... mostly, it is just to prove that he is, without a doubt, right. And that you are, without a doubt, a moron."
THAT was the bigoted statement. I don't much care if you think people are "rude" or "pushy", but when you start attacking their motives based on no evidence whatsoever except a personal feeling of distaste for that group, that is pretty much as close to the definition of "bigotry" as you're going to get.
"Please stop accusing me of creating 'straw-men,' as you put it, if you're not going to argue back with truth."
Stop making straw-men and I'll stop accusing you of it :)
Furthermore, I'd love to see you point out a single lie that I've told here. Go ahead, I'll wait. I'm on leave today, so take your time and document it properly. I'll check in later.
alex,
I already pointed out a "lie" that you told. You said that I said that most atheists are disrespectful and pushy. If you're going to go out and a limb, calling other people in this conversation "dishonest from the get-go," then, by that logic, you lied.
I'm not saying you're intentionally lying, though. I won't make bold, disrespectful claims like that. You're simply not telling the truth. You've made a bunch of statements and claims on behalf of all atheists that cannot be proven to be true. Unless you are the official atheist spokesperson, every bold statement you've made on behalf of the entire community is illegitimate.
The following are statements where you've spoken on behalf of an entire group of people, reserving no authority to do so, making your statements irrelevant. There are also a few random claims that you've made, with nothing to back them up:
"At worst, an Atheist will tell you that the "good works" are irrelevant."
"Nobody will contest the fact that religion has done some good in the world;"
"Atheists have no stock in converting people. We'll talk to those who are willing to listen, and we'll speak up in order to contradict someone who we know is wrong."
"You have no idea how that feels - to have to sit quietly by and listen to other people espouse their nonsense, while being too afraid to speak up and voice your own opinions." (say what you want about this one...I just thought it was funny.)
"You are, at best, an agnostic deist. If you are "non-religious", I'm a japanese jet pilot."
"Evolution usually only comes up when the religious bring it up directly, or when they state that there must be a creator in order for complex beings to form."
The rest of what you said has been patronizing and rude, and I have no further interest in continuing this dicussion, since you obviously can't remain civil about it. You've said that several times already (lies?!), but I actually mean it. No one wants to discuss anything with an elitist jerk.
Like I said before, though, this only further proves my point.
lol
Sure :) Thank you for proving Bill's point about "shutting off part of the brain". Not only do you fool yourself into seeing things which do not occur, but you also resort to circular logic, AND you fall far enough to resort to calling opinions "lies". It's been fascinating, being able to personally observe the self-destruction of a rational mind struggling with an irrational concept. I wouldn't have missed it for the world - it's given me something to think about for a long time to come. Thank you.
alex can we get together over a cup of tea or something?
You are great.
Well, judging by the fact that you said "tea" instead of "coffee", I take it you're from the UK? :)
If you're in England, chances are I won't be traveling there any time within the next year. But if you happen to be in the Toronto region, I'd be more than happy to get together over your preferred beverage. I'm always more than happy to meet new people, and discuss whatever comes up. I think I even extended the offer to TGB once, while she was living here. Guess she wasn't interested, for some reason :)
"Agnosticism is intellectual laziness at best, and dishonesty in most cases."
Quite the contrary... agnosticism is (in many cases) a continuous search for the truth. Agnosticism in these cases is more about the lack of evidence on either side to really make a conclusive decision. I would fit into the Atheist-agnostic grouping, as I generally believe that there is no higher power. That being said, I cannot prove that one does not exist, so I will not definitively state that one doesn't. Unlike you, I don't like to present my opinions as fact.
Just because you couldn't handle agnosticism, doesn't mean its an invalid one. Dismount that high horse my friend.
But again, you've missed the entire point in your "intellectual laziness". The point is that many atheists are becoming rude, and sometimes downright vile toward theists. You have even demonstrated this in your own juvenile arguments.
I'm not about to sit here and re-hash every conversation I've had on theism v. atheism (I've argued for both sides more times than I can remember). I understand and respect both views. That means that I have enough respect for others to acknowledge their beliefs as valid, even if I don't personally believe them. And yet, all the while you claim that I am intollerant. It is beyond irony that you use intollerance to attempt to demonstrate our intollerance. Pot... Kettle... Black.
Quite frankly, your insinuation that theists are somehow stupid makes you look like a complete fool. You wouldn't sit there and accept a theist saying the same of your values(it seems to me as if you've had conversations like that, hence your overly-defensive behaviour here. For the record, I would also defend you in such an argument - its about civility and respect.)
It is one thing to question another's religion, but the assertion that someone who disagrees with you has inferior intelligence is nothing more than utter disrespect with a fresh side of arrogance.
It has indeed been entertaining watching you prove TGB's point over and over again. You really couldn't have scripted something like this better. Even the stereotypical "cop-out" suggestion of agnosticism... perfect! You've demonstrated your intollerance of the theists, as well as the agnostics (and somehow, I'm not surprised at all) ;)
Jordan,
Once again you fail to realize that just because there is no proof for or against the existence of God, it does not mean that either side is just as likely. There is no "proof" of the law of gravity. It's entirely conceivable that if I drop the same rock over and over again, one of those times it will simply remain suspended in the air. Yet I wouldn't base my life around the notion that a falling object won't hit the ground.
I agree with you entirely that when there is a lack of evidence on either side, then the most rational recourse is to remain agnostic. When it comes to the existence of God however, this is not the case. You have one side arguing for the existence of something without any definitive proof and the other denying the claim because of the lack of proof.
Again I'd like to bring up the invisible pink unicorn to help illustrate the point that you can NOT prove a negative. If I were to make the claim that such a thing existed without any evidence would you believe me? would any rational person believe me? Probably not. It's up to me to produce the evidence that it does since I am the one making the claim.
It would be impossible for you to actually disprove my claim but does the mean the unicorn does exist? While it is possible that such a strange creature is real and we simply haven't discovered it yet, would you really remain "agnostic" on the issue of its existence?
Your unicorn idea is a good one... and it would be a great point if it were not for the lack of anecdotal support for the existence of said creature (beyond that of your own). Were there widespread belief based on such "evidence", then I would be inclined to be more "agnostic" on the topic.
I would compare this to the existence of extra-terrestrial life visiting earth. Although I lean toward the non-believer, there is much in the way of anecdotal "evidence", and I am thus rather "agnostic" on this issue.
Similarily, I am "agnostic" on the idea of intelligent life on planets other than earth. Although my particular belief is that there most likely is intelligent life in the universe other than ourselves, I understand that there is a distinct and very real possibility that there is not. Thus, I would not venture to form a definitive positive opinion on the topic, instead I will believe that there is likely life, but remain open to the idea that there is not.
The problem with your argument is that it only holds water if you have met the burden of proof to adequately support your own theories. Unfortunately, our science has not evolved to the point where it can adequately explain a great deal of things in life; cannot answer many of the questions about our creation, the creation of the universe, or even many day-to-day functions of things within our universe. That is not to suggest that the day will not come where our science will attain that level - it just has not as of yet. And because neither answer is able to prove itself, one is left wondering which is more plausable(I have already stated, I believe this to be the scientific answer). But, at the same time - without a smoking gun on either side it is not necessarily prudent to exclude either from the list of possibilities. I do not consider myself great enough to make that ultimate determination - while I may have my suspicions, I do not think that anyone has enough information to make a definitive statement one way or another.
Of course, I do respect the fact that many have chosen to make that statement; that is fine, and it is their choice alone. Be it theists or atheists, they have both made an "ultimate choice" on the state of things. What gets under my skin is the constant bickering and mud-slinging back and forth. Certainly nobody is winning anyone else over; atheists tell me I will one day turn full-blown atheists, and theists tell me I will one day be a theist. I ask my elders who share my views, and they are just as concrete in their views as I, and balk at the suggestion as I do.
It is unfathomable that people on both sides can often treat each other with such disrespect. I enjoyed this post by TGB because it is something that I have often written in great length about (often at the ire of both the religious and the non). It is ridiculous to attack each other, instead of trying to understand each other.
Blah blah blah ... alright, whatever. I don't have the patience to wade through all that, especially seeing as within the first few sentences you've already dropped the ball.
Look, the only thing you need to know is that Atheism IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM. It is the reaction to a belief. In a world with no religion, atheism would be meaningless. There are no groups of people who identify themselves as not believing in little green lizards from mars, simply because there are no groups claiming that there ARE little green lizards on mars.
A lack of belief is no a belief in and of itself. It is simply the natural state of being, in the absence of the initial claims. Your inability to understand that is the same problem that TGB has been having this entire time - extroirdinary claims require extraorinary evidence, and in the absence of such evidence the logical course of action is not to believe. We apply that in every aspect of our lives EXCEPT religion. If I tell you that I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for $1,000, you'd be a fool to believe me without evidence, and it would be almost equally foolish to be "agnostic" about the issue. You would demand evidence, and if I failed to provide it you would blow me off as a fraud or a lunatic.
That's why all of your arguments fall flat. Those horrible, rude, evil little Atheists aren't making definite claims about the nature of the universe - they are simply asking you to justify your claims, and calling you a fraud or a lunatic when you fail to do so.
And this is exactly why critical thinking and logic need to be taught in schools.
Agreed... it should. We might not be in this conversation if it were; you may have chosen to apply it to the discussion instead of being arrogant and pontificating as if you have all the answers.
I suppose one day that may change. I hope for your sake it does, lest you be seen as irrelevant.
*sigh* Nice. Real mature. "I know you are but what am I".
Please, demonstrate my ignorance to everyone. Show one segment of my argument which was either illogical or irrational. Teach me your ways, oh wise one.
When speaking in the realm of scientific fact, anecdotal evidence has absolutely no bearing. I don't accept the theory of gravity as fact because i "heard" someone once dropped something and it fell. I take it as a fact because when I drop something i can see it fall. I can hear it hit the ground. I can turn to the person beside me and ask "did you see it fall too?".
The strength of scientific theories lies in the fact that anyone can duplicate an experiment and determine the veracity of it for themself. If someone claims to have spoken to God, I can't very will test that claim for myself can I?
I'd also like to remind you that there was a time when many actually did believe unicorns, leprechauns, etc. existed because of "anecdotal evidence." If everybody believed that 2+2=5 would that make it any more true than if only one person believed it?
There was also a time when people used thunder and lightning as definite evidence of the existence of God. Once that was disprove, people took a few decades to adjust, but sure enough religion found another nook to hide in. That's why the idea that irrational claims need to be disproven is laughable. No matter how many claims are disproved, the "faithful" will always find a new way to justify their beliefs. And "agnostics" will always pretend to sit on the fence.
We have, supposedly, reached a point where our species no longer needs rely on feelings, intuitions, rumors, and anecdotes in order to understand the world around us. Yet huge segments of our population still insist on ignoring the scientific method, and relying on the the words of copper age peasants instead. That's like being given an electron microscope to help you in your research, but still insisting on using a magnifying glass. It's utterly ridiculous.
snore...
Post a Comment