Discussion of Atheism invariably leads to Questioning Theist's Beliefs

[Xaqaria]

I gotta ask, why is it that any thread on atheism is so prone to being derailed by atheists? If any theist happens to post in one, it just turns out to be a free for all of atheists questioning the theist's beliefs. Is this a sign of insecurity? That isn't some sort of insult, I really want to know. I find that as a theist, I either have to sit quietly while atheists pat each other on the back and proclaim how illogical it is to believe in a god, or enter into the discussion and immediately be barraged and harangued with demands to answer for not only my own beliefs but the beliefs of all theists everywhere.

[Spartiate]

Because many atheists want religion to disappear and that won't happen by leaving it alone.

[Descensus]

I doubt very strongly that the tendency to jump on religious folks whenever they post about atheism comes from insecurity. What would cause such insecurity? Whenever I reply to a theist's post regarding atheism, it's usually because they have what I consider to be a warped view of it. I don't think they're correct, so I reply.

[Maria92]

If I were to create a thread proclaiming the joys of being an atheist and how all who are not atheists are wrong; about how the scriptures are man-made bullshit and how abiogenesis is possible, do you honestly expect someone like Neyo to NOT jump in and stir up a ruckus? Same general principle. Besides that, arguing is fun.

[Descensus]

The "patting each other on the back" thing isn't exclusive to atheists, either. Ne-yo and Zhaylin "like" each other's posts and agree with each other all the time. I think the problem is a disproportionate amount of atheists and theists. If there were more theists willing to come and argue, I think the actions on both sides quite similar and more apparent.

[Photolysis]

I find that as a theist, I either have to sit quietly while atheists pat each other on the back and proclaim how illogical it is to believe in a god, or enter into the discussion and immediately be barraged and harangued with demands to answer for not only my own beliefs but the beliefs of all theists everywhere. Yet you seem to be conveniently looking the other way when this happens for theists, which is to say, a lot. Personally, the reason why I like reading most of the atheist posts here, is because 99% of the theist posts are full of bullshit. I can generally count on posts from atheists to be more interesting, well-reasoned, and to come up with original points of view for me to consider (particularly when we discuss other moral, ethical, scientific, and philosophical issues). Is this a sign of insecurity? Negative. Why would it be? For most of us, atheism isn't a core part of our identity. It's not like I build my life around it (unlike several theists here) That one atheism thread ended up being derailed by Ne-yo's delusional ideas that "I use Science a great deal to argue against Atheistic beliefs". That's as a result of a theist posting, not an atheist. Several atheists in that thread were also interested in discussing the views held by theists, only to be refused in Nina's case. It's kind of hard to have a discussion about the original topic if people refuse to respond.

[DrunkenArse]

I think you need to look at these threads a little more closely and take note of precisely which posts by theists spark the sort of reaction that you're talking about. In the most recent thread where this occurred, http://www.dreamviews.com/f37/there-...ion%2A-112869/, you'll note that it was this post that sparked the reaction you're talking about. You're a smart guy Xaquaria, What do you honestly expect the response to a post like that to be? Let's examine it. It has A creationist claiming to accept science An at least partially fraudulent list of scientists that are supposedly theists. (edit: and the implication that theism is to thank for their work) The absurd assertion that science can be used to prove the existence of a god. It fails on scientific and theological grounds. When a group of people that largely value clear thought and truth come across something like that, do you expect them to ignore it? For the record, it was also Off topic. Posted by somebody that's pretty plainly only here to try to convert people. Pure aggravation. My question to you is why you as an alleged theist, don't try to prevent having your good name dragged through the mud by creationists? I also think that it would help clear things up for you (and Taosaur) if you stopped projecting your relatively sophisticated and nuanced (but in my opinion, still escapist) beliefs on other theists.

[Xaqaria]

If I were to create a thread proclaiming the joys of being an atheist and how all who are not atheists are wrong; about how the scriptures are man-made bullshit and how abiogenesis is possible, do you honestly expect someone like Neyo to NOT jump in and stir up a ruckus? Same general principle. Besides that, arguing is fun. This example doesn't really apply; this thread was made specifically because the thread asking why/when people became atheists was derailed any time someone said something that wasn't strictly "I've been an atheist since ....". As a matter of fact, 3 threads have been spun off of the thread.

[Xaqaria]

I think you need to look at these threads a little more closely and take note of precisely which posts by theists spark the sort of reaction that you're talking about. In the most recent thread where this occurred, http://www.dreamviews.com/f37/there-...ion%2A-112869/, you'll note that it was this post that sparked the reaction you're talking about. You're a smart guy Xaquaria, What do you honestly expect the response to a post like that to be? Let's examine it. It has A creationist claiming to accept science An at least partially fraudulent list of scientists that are supposedly theists. (edit: and the implication that theism is to thank for their work) The absurd assertion that science can be used to prove the existence of a god. It fails on scientific and theological grounds. When a group of people that largely value clear thought and truth come across something like that, do you expect them to ignore it? For the record, it was also Off topic. Posted by somebody that's pretty plainly only here to try to convert people. Pure aggravation. My question to you is why you as an alleged theist, don't try to prevent having your good name dragged through the mud by creationists? I also think that it would help clear things up for you (and Taosaur) if you stopped projecting your relatively sophisticated and nuanced (but in my opinion, still escapist) beliefs on other theists. Right there. You did it again. Right now I'm supposed to either just ignore you challenging my position and my beliefs or allow this thread to become about A) whether or not I support all other theists, or B) Whether or not my particular brand of theism is a form of escapism. Why is that? Why do you feel the need to throw in those little subtle jabs that I either have to defend against or just accept that my silence may come across as admitting that you are correct? Because this is my thread however, I really don't care if it goes off topic or not (as long as the initial topic is addressed throughout). How is any other theist able to "drag my good name through the mud?" First of all, the tie binding all theists together is no more encompassing than the tie binding all atheists together. The only thing we share is a professed belief in a god. Because I have identified myself as a theist, why then am I lumped in with all other theists? Are you expected to answer for all the beliefs other atheists may or may not hold? Second, I call creationists, christians, wiccans, etc. out on the inconsistencies of their arguments just about as much as any atheist on here; often times much more thoroughly because not only do I have a pretty firm grasp on many scientific principles, but I have actually read the bible, (some of {i'm working on it}) the koran, and scores of other religious texts and so I can even point out inconsistencies within a person's own belief system. On to the next point, Why do you think my beliefs (of which I'm sure you are not fully aware) are a form of escapism? What am I escaping from? I have made it clear on many occasions that I believe the transcendent is natural and one of the few distinctions that you could make between my beliefs and most atheists is that I am staunchly un-materialist. To make the question plain, how does the general belief in the existence of a god allow me to escape from anything?

[Ne-yo]

The "patting each other on the back" thing isn't exclusive to atheists, either. Ne-yo and Zhaylin "like" each other's posts and agree with each other all the time. Actually that's not true. We do like each other statements but we don't feel compelled to reinforce each other in the likes on how often Atheist does it. You guys pretty much reinforce one another on random things as long as it's against a Theist. I've sent Atheist likes before even PhilosopherStoned has received a like or two from me and I don't even like the guy but he made a statement that I agreed with, which is the same case with Zhaylin except for the fact that I think Zhaylin is pretty cool. I think I even gave you one or two somewhere in the past. But you're making it seem like we're reinforcing each other all the time and thats not the case. Only when it matters. This is just pretty random to me as a way of patting each other on the back for even the most simplistic of things whenever it goes against theist.

[Xaqaria]

Yet you seem to be conveniently looking the other way when this happens for theists, which is to say, a lot. Can you give an example of me "looking the other way" or are you just using a bit of rhetoric to make me look like a hypocrite? If you are also referring to the "what do you like..." thread that philosopher mentioned, you can probably see that I made no posts in that thread and in fact hadn't read it at all until he did. I personally do not know if the off topic issue with that thread was because of atheists or theists or whatever.

[Descensus]

Actually that's not true. We do like each other statements but we don't feel compelled to reinforce each other in the likes on how often Atheist does it. You guys pretty much reinforce one another on random things as long as it's against a Theist. I've sent Atheist likes before even PhilosopherStoned has received a like or two from me and I don't even like the guy but he made a statement that I agreed with, which is the same case with Zhaylin except for the fact that I think Zhaylin is pretty cool. I think I even gave you one or two somewhere in the past. But you're making it seem like we're reinforcing each other all the time and thats not the case. Only when it matters. I think this goes back to what I said before, namely there aren't as many theists around compared to atheists. I can only speak for myself, but I don't feel "compelled" to "like" any of my fellow atheist's posts, and I don't know why I would. If there's a post I especially like, I "like" it. I think I hand out the least compared to the other atheist posters as well. *picture snip* This is just pretty random to me as a way of patting each other on the back for even the most simplistic of things whenever it goes against theist. I don't know their motivations for liking my post, I didn't intend it to be as funny as they thought it was. It was in response to the OP asking Christians if they heard the voice of God; a tongue-in-cheek way of anticipating the sort of responses.

[Photolysis]

Can you give an example of me "looking the other way" or are you just using a bit of rhetoric to make me look like a hypocrite? If you are also referring to the "what do you like..." thread that philosopher mentioned, you can probably see that I made no posts in that thread and in fact hadn't read it at all until he did. I personally do not know if the off topic issue with that thread was because of atheists or theists or whatever. Well if you've read it by now you can clearly see the off-topic issue in that thread, so it's an excellent example of theists doing it. You'll have to forgive me but I'm not much inclined to go digging through the forums for a huge list of examples at the moment. The point is that it happens both ways and I'm honestly surprised you haven't noticed. And no my "looking the other way" comment wasn't a serious accusation; I think you're more honest than that. Personally, I rarely "like" stuff or post only to reinforce what someone else has written. I only "like" stuff if I think the point has been exceptionally well made, or it's an extremely good point, or I found it very amusing. But most of the time I'll keep my thoughts in my head and you don't see the number of times I've thought that a theist has made a good point on an issue, or at least made a good post.

[Speesh]

I think insecurity has a lot to do with it, at least in my experience. I grew up in a devout Catholic family, and was brought up to believe in religion. It wasn't until taking a bible study course in the Catholic high school they sent me to that I came to the sudden realization that Abrahamic religion looked wayyy too much like a fairy tale. Suddenly the comfortable carpet of religion was stripped from beneath me and I had to deal with adapting to the harsh realities of death and a confusing world without belief. After that I was really angry. I took it out on anyone in my life who held those beliefs. I claimed that religion was one of the major fundamental problems of humanity, etc. Eventually I came to realize that religion wasn't problematic, but the rigid dogmas that accompanied it. I noticed a striking similarity between my own thinking and that of a conservative religious person. It was then that I realized that atheism and religion were two sides of the same coin. There are certainly religious folk I've met who seem far more connected to reality than some atheists I've met, and vice versa. I also realized that I'd been a massive loud-mouthed DICK to my family and many of my friends. My parents gave me religion primarily because they loved me and hold those beliefs dear, not because of my original assertion they were stupid and uninformed. They were very supportive during that phase of mine as well. I would bet that many of the more outspoken atheists who can't seem to take the beliefs of others very likely had religion in their lives growing up. If my parents hadn't been supportive (I've heard of parents threatening to kick their kids out and other stupid bullshit like that), I may still be just as bitter as I was back then. Either way I see these dogma as a result of insecurities.

[no-Name]

Surely you're just sharing personal experience, and not generalizing about every atheist on the forums.

[Photolysis]

I think insecurity has a lot to do with it, at least in my experience. I'll repeat: what is there for atheists to feel insecure about? The most anyone can do here is prove us wrong - and many of us would be glad to be proven wrong if you can provide the evidence and arguments for it. I have no reason to hold on to it because it doesn't affect my life in the slightest. It has no part in my identity. If I'm wrong, I'm just someone who wasn't convinced. That's not something to feel threatened over. Conversely it's easy to answer why some religious people are insecure, because for a lot of them is it a key part of who they are. They might have invested a huge amount of time and money in it. Their entire life might be based around it, depending on the individual. Having that attacked is devastating for most, which is why it can be so hard at times to get various theists here to even entertain thought experiments on the subject. Some might also feel threatened by the idea that forumers significantly younger than them are more intelligent and knowledgeable as well. Plenty of the prominent atheists here also had little to no religion in their lives when they were growing up. You can't generalise an entire group on such limited information.

[stormcrow]

Ya photolysis basically has been hitting the nail on the head the whole thread. I see the insecurity on the part of theists not necessarily atheists. It has been previously stated that atheists love debate and while I don't consider myself an atheist, I enjoy debate as well, this is how ideas grow. If preconceived notions were never challenged we would still be living in the dark ages. It seems to me that theists would be tremendously happier if everyone agreed with everything they say. From my perspective theists usually assume a defensive position in debate implying insecurity, while atheist (a good majority of the time) take the offensive implying confidence. Like I said I'm not necessarily an atheist (I'm more pantheist,agnostic) but theists don't really bring many valid arguments to the table, just an observation.

[StonedApe]

I gotta ask, why is it that any thread on atheism is so prone to being derailed by atheists? If any theist happens to post in one, it just turns out to be a free for all of atheists questioning the theist's beliefs. Is this a sign of insecurity? That isn't some sort of insult, I really want to know. I find that as a theist, I either have to sit quietly while atheists pat each other on the back and proclaim how illogical it is to believe in a god, or enter into the discussion and immediately be barraged and harangued with demands to answer for not only my own beliefs but the beliefs of all theists everywhere. I feel like your concept of God is hardly ever the subject of discussions on God. When people talk about God, or at least the atheists here, they are always talking about God from a deistic, "sky dude", perspective. This is sensible because this is what most people believe god is. That or some kind of force that has an independent will. The reason the threads get derailed is because this kind of view is illogical and atheism as a denial of god is only talking about this kind of god(at least as far as I can tell, I don't think it really applies to views like yours or mine because it is talking about something else entirley.). To take something that you know and real and call it God, to have reverence and awe for it, is fine. No ones gonna debate about this because it's a subjective move on your part like liking a certain kind of music. But to make something up, tell everyone that it controls the universe and we must worship(also it can both create smallpox and have love for the people it infected it with simultaeneously), pisses people off a bit and people wanna talk about that. Especially when those same people try to take away our drugs and tell women that they shouldn't wanna have sex. I also think that it would help clear things up for you (and Taosaur) if you stopped projecting your relatively sophisticated and nuanced (but in my opinion, still escapist) beliefs on other theists. Yes. I don't think your views are escapists and that's exactly why you should stop conflating them with theists beliefs which are. What you believe in is a very real thing, what most religions believe in is not, it is specifically something that is not of this world.

[DuB]

There are unavoidable moral overtones to the theism/atheism debate--they are always lurking just under the surface even when they are not the explicit focus of discussion--and its hard to think of something that generates more emotional heat than implying that someone is immoral. It's the same reason why the topic of veg*nism often becomes quite heated. There's always the subtle implication that veg*ns view non-veg*ns as immoral (even in the cases where, in fact, they don't), which of course is a heavy accusation and makes non-veg*ns predictably defensive. Similarly, there's a subtle implication that theists view atheism as immoral (even in the cases where, in fact, they don't), which of course is a heavy accusation and makes atheists predictably defensive. We're social animals that have historically depended on group cooperation to survive and prosper, so it is perhaps not surprising that we have a deep-seated psychological tendency to take issues of trust and morality very seriously. So I guess to sum up my opinion: religious discussions are morally charged discussions, morally charged discussions are usually emotionally heated discussions, and emotionally heated discussions are fertile ground for an us-them dynamic to emerge. Since atheists tend to outnumber theists on this forum, that's what we see here. Outside of the internet, we often see the opposite. E.g., I grew up in rural Oklahoma; let's just say that my views on religion were not welcome there.

[DrunkenArse]

I would bet that many of the more outspoken atheists who can't seem to take the beliefs of others very likely had religion in their lives growing up. If my parents hadn't been supportive (I've heard of parents threatening to kick their kids out and other stupid bullshit like that), I may still be just as bitter as I was back then. Either way I see these dogma as a result of insecurities. I think that I qualify as a fairly outspoken atheist and I was raised in an atheist family. So there's one counterexample. Also, I'm not the least bit insecure in my lack of belief. I would bet my life against a shiny new nickel that there is no abrahamic god. @Xaqaria. Point taken on the "subtle jab". That wasn't my intention. I'll just drop the issue if you don't want to pursue it further.

[Xaqaria]

Ya photolysis basically has been hitting the nail on the head the whole thread. I see the insecurity on the part of theists not necessarily atheists. It has been previously stated that atheists love debate and while I don't consider myself an atheist, I enjoy debate as well, this is how ideas grow. If preconceived notions were never challenged we would still be living in the dark ages. It seems to me that theists would be tremendously happier if everyone agreed with everything they say. From my perspective theists usually assume a defensive position in debate implying insecurity, while atheist (a good majority of the time) take the offensive implying confidence. Like I said I'm not necessarily an atheist (I'm more pantheist,agnostic) but theists don't really bring many valid arguments to the table, just an observation. So you think photolysis hit the nail on the head when he said you can't generalize atheists, and yet your post is basically just generalizing theists. Can you justify this contradiction? @Xaqaria. Point taken on the "subtle jab". That wasn't my intention. I'll just drop the issue if you don't want to pursue it further. I'd rather you just answer my questions about it; back up your jab with some reasoning. I see this as a thread to "hash it out" so to speak and I'm perfectly willing to put my beliefs in the spotlight if it will encourage some healthy discussion.

[stormcrow]

@ Xaquaria- The reason I mentioned photoylsis' post was because I agreed that for theists their religion is a major part of their identity and when their beliefs are questioned(or attacked depending on your perspective) they understandably get defensive(I wasn't referring to his statement about generalizing atheists.). My statement "It seems to me that theists would be tremendously happier if everyone agreed with everything they say" was a generalization but it is also an attitude I notice quite a bit in the area I live in (the deep south yay) and alot of people will outright say that the world would be a better place if everyone was a christian. My friendly southern neighbors absolutely will not tolerate any views different from their own (again Im not saying all theists are this way but I notice this attitude alot in the area I live in) which is why my nickname around town is "hippy faggot". But anyway I stand behind everything I previously said. Also Xaquaria, what exactly is your religion if you dont mind me asking?

[Marvo]

I think the problem is that atheists are right and theists are wrong. It's not fun to have an argument in which you're inherently wrong, especially when the other side can disprove anything you claim through science.

[DrunkenArse]

I think the problem is that atheists are right and theists are wrong. It's not fun to have an argument in which you're inherently wrong, especially when the other side can disprove anything you claim through science. I've been trying to find a way to express this and haven't been able to. You've sort of missed it too. We can only disprove theists using science when they make scientific statements. For example, the statement that the earth is 6000 years old is a scientific statement, which is to say that it's falsifiable. We know it's falsifiable because we've falsified it quite thoroughly. If the theists won't make scientific claims, then we can't use science to falsify it. So when they start stretching their units so that a day for god is x amount of days for humans then we can't pin them down to something. Likewise, we can logically disprove many notions of "god" but there are formulations of "god" that lead to no contradictions. So we can't disprove it with logic. So if the formulation of some god leads to no testable predictions and no contradictions, then we have no way to disprove it. EDIT: Of course I generally agree with your post. It just fails on details. Many people (especially those that I argue with) do make objectively erroneous claims and espouse contradiction based on their theistic beliefs.

[Marvo]

I've been trying to find a way to express this and haven't been able to. You've sort of missed it too. We can only disprove theists using science when they make scientific statements. For example, the statement that the earth is 6000 years old is a scientific statement, which is to say that it's falsifiable. We know it's falsifiable because we've falsified it quite thoroughly. If the theists won't make scientific claims, then we can't use science to falsify it. So when they start stretching their units so that a day for god is x amount of days for humans then we can't pin them down to something. Likewise, we can logically disprove many notions of "god" but there are formulations of "god" that lead to no contradictions. So we can't disprove it with logic. So if the formulation of some god leads to no testable predictions and no contradictions, then we have no way to disprove it. EDIT: Of course I generally agree with your post. It just fails on details. Many people (especially those that I argue with) do make objectively erroneous claims and espouse contradiction based on their theistic beliefs. If something can't be tested within the scope of science, it does not exist in a way that is relevant for humans. I fully understand the issue of arguing against something that we can't disprove, and this is my solution to that issue.