After having been a participant on the Spirituality Forum for some time, I've noticed that about 80% of the posts that contain sarcasm and personal attacks are posted by atheists and agnostics.
I've noticed the same thing about popular books about rellgion. Books written from a non-theist perspective like The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, and god is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens are dripping with sarcasm. Not only that, but none of those books that I mentioned reveal any evidence that the author's are even aware of the relevant arguments for God's existence in general or Christian theism in particular that are being advanced by serious theological writers.
On the other hand, most popular pro-theism books that I am aware of like The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and There is a God by Antony Flew take the atheistic arguments seriously and are respectful in their presentations. (The nasty Ann Coulter's book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is far more political than theological.)
In any event, has anyone made a similar observation, or am I just chock-full-of-it (as usual)?
I cannot speak for all atheists because everyone is different from everyone else.
But if you sample the last few of my public posts, you will see that the overwhelming majority of them don’t “appear” to be “personal” attacks. Even out of the ones that DO “appear” to be “personal” attacks -the overwhelming majority of them are not real “personal” attacks but merely “appear” that way because it is virtually impossible to criticise somebody’s claims or beliefs that you think are flawed without it often looking like a “personal” attack or even a deliberate insult!
I have posted many hundreds of posts and I think I have been guilty of perhaps just two deliberate personal attacks in all the months I have been on these forums and I have apologised for those two.
I think one way of looking as atheism is that atheism is not so much a “belief” as an absence of a particular belief namely the belief that “there is a god”. Looking at it that way, it is not surprising that, while theists often talk about their belief without criticising atheists, when atheists talk about their atheism, they do most often criticize theist beliefs because there is not much else for them to do when talking about their atheism!
-I mean, what else can an atheist talk about here - “I don’t believe there is a god…” …and…and…then what!? …there is no “belief” for them to discuss. And, as I have already said, it is virtually impossible to criticise somebody’s claims or beliefs that you think are flawed without it often looking like a “personal” attack or even a deliberate insult! -even when it isn’t.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI don't agree with your generalization. For example, I don't think that Dawkins is dripping with sarcasm in the way Hitchens is. (That's why Hitchens is more entertaining. Wouldn't you invite him to a party first? Make sure he brings his own drinks.)
After having been a participant on the Spirituality Forum for some time, I've noticed that about 80% of the posts that contain sarcasm and personal attacks are posted by atheists and agnostics.
I've noticed the same thing about popular books about rellgion. Books written from a non-theist perspective like The God Delusion by Richard Dawki any event, has anyone made a similar observation, or am I just chock-full-of-it (as usual)?
Note that people who are deeply invested in any belief system, such as a religious one, are liable to perceive attacks on it as maliciously motivated even when those attacks are rationally motivated. This is because to acknowledge that the attacks were rationally motivated would necessitate entertaining doubts about the beliefs on which their psychological security depends. Why would turkeys vote for Christmas?
Let's not pretend that religious beliefs, wherever they come ultimately from, are arrived at dispassionately by deriving conclusions from plausible premises. People generally entertain religious beliefs because they find them aesthetically or morally appealing. Only later do they try to buttress them with argument and evidence. In contrast, this is not generally true of atheist beliefs, which have little if any intrinsic appeal, except as alternatives to poorly substantiated religious beliefs.
Note also that, whereas some deeply religious people murder those who disagree with their religion, deeply atheistic people like Dawkins generally do not. When was the last time an atheist physically attacked someone because someone disagreed with their atheism? I think we can permit vocal atheists an odd articulate barb at the expense of farfetched metaphysics, and its sometimes deadly implications, without getting too worked up about it.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWhat a crok.
I don't agree with your generalization. For example, I don't think that Dawkins is dripping with sarcasm in the way Hitchens is. (That's why Hitchens is more entertaining. Wouldn't you invite him to a party first? Make sure he brings his own drinks.)
Note that people who are deeply invested in any belief system, such as a religious one, are liable to ...[text shortened]... metaphysics, and its sometimes deadly implications, without getting too worked up about it.
Deeply atheistic people are very passionate about their beliefs and
they have every reason to be. People like Dawkins have researched the
sheer horror of what has been carried out in the name of religion.
They are fully aware of the mental and physical mutilations that are still
going on today as a result of religion. It's not sarcasm you hear on Dawkins
voice, it's total and utter contempt.
I tell you what gaychessdude, why don't you take a holiday down deep South
in the US with your gay pride T-shirt on and come back and write dispassionately
about your experience.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckthe problem with dawkins and hitchens is that they do not see the merit of religion, they only see the downsides. they only see the harm it does to impressionable minds and the harm extreme religion does. so instead of changing the people and adjusting fundamentalism, they propose that religion is all wrong and be eradicated entirely. that is why i do not like either of them.
What a crok.
Deeply atheistic people are very passionate about their beliefs and
they have every reason to be. People like Dawkins have researched the
sheer horror of what has been carried out in the name of religion.
They are fully aware of the mental and physical mutilations that are still
going on today as a result of religion. It's not sar ...[text shortened]... ith your gay pride T-shirt on and come back and write dispassionately
about your experience.
with the mention that i respect dawkins as a scientist. i don't respect hitchens at all, not even as a journalist(hope i don't confuse him)
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat specific advantages does relgion offer over a social conscience?
the problem with dawkins and hitchens is that they do not see the merit of religion, they only see the downsides. they only see the harm it does to impressionable minds and the harm extreme religion does. so instead of changing the people and adjusting fundamentalism, they propose that religion is all wrong and be eradicated entirely. that is why i do not l ...[text shortened]... scientist. i don't respect hitchens at all, not even as a journalist(hope i don't confuse him)
Originally posted by ZahlanziI personally believe that most attacks come from people who are scared that religion is trying to overtake the political system and/or attack the scientific establishment. Although there is some merit in such concerns it is a phobia based upon generalizations and stereotypes. Once they then pick them as adversaries it is impossible for them to concede any redeming value in them at all.
the problem with dawkins and hitchens is that they do not see the merit of religion, they only see the downsides. they only see the harm it does to impressionable minds and the harm extreme religion does. so instead of changing the people and adjusting fundamentalism, they propose that religion is all wrong and be eradicated entirely. that is why i do not l ...[text shortened]... scientist. i don't respect hitchens at all, not even as a journalist(hope i don't confuse him)
Of course any political or religious group has fringe elements that negatively impact society. It is then only a question of whether they are then thrown into the same category and all labeled accordingly. This is where bigotry enters the picture.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerYou hit the nail on the head.
After having been a participant on the Spirituality Forum for some time, I've noticed that about 80% of the posts that contain sarcasm and personal attacks are posted by atheists and agnostics.
I've noticed the same thing about popular books about rellgion. Books written from a non-theist perspective like The God Delusion by Richard Dawki ...[text shortened]... any event, has anyone made a similar observation, or am I just chock-full-of-it (as usual)?
The question then, is why?
Why do the atheists feel the need to be sarcastic and insulting to the theist?
The answer is because there is a God, and because they don't know God, by definition, they (atheists) are the enemy of God.
Doesn't sound like much fun, but that's the way it is.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by gaychessplayerThat may be as true as any general statement. I personally ignore the sarcastic or heavy handed rants on both sides in favor of the few, on both sides, that have some well developed thoughts and articulate them well. I have my favorites on both sides and those on both sides that drive me nuts. But I'll skim by the nutcases for the chance to read something intelligent. 😉
After having been a participant on the Spirituality Forum for some time, I've noticed that about 80% of the posts that contain sarcasm and personal attacks are posted by atheists and agnostics.
I've noticed the same thing about popular books about rellgion. Books written from a non-theist perspective like The God Delusion by Richard Dawki ...[text shortened]... any event, has anyone made a similar observation, or am I just chock-full-of-it (as usual)?
Originally posted by gaychessplayerummm, i dunno gaychessplayer dude, it is perhaps because they are devoid of spirituality and thus seeking to advance their own ideas, it becomes like an big fat ego trip for them, why does one feel the need to demean another, lack of security, lack of anything in general, who knows?
After having been a participant on the Spirituality Forum for some time, I've noticed that about 80% of the posts that contain sarcasm and personal attacks are posted by atheists and agnostics.
I've noticed the same thing about popular books about rellgion. Books written from a non-theist perspective like The God Delusion by Richard Dawki ...[text shortened]... any event, has anyone made a similar observation, or am I just chock-full-of-it (as usual)?
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI think its more the case that people whose arguments you agree with seem respectful, while those with whom you disagree seem sarcastic. I'd wager that if Dawkins was arguing in favor of Christianity that you'd find him far less "sarcastic." You're just more favorably disposed toward people you agree with.
After having been a participant on the Spirituality Forum for some time, I've noticed that about 80% of the posts that contain sarcasm and personal attacks are posted by atheists and agnostics.
I've noticed the same thing about popular books about rellgion. Books written from a non-theist perspective like The God Delusion by Richard Dawki ...[text shortened]... any event, has anyone made a similar observation, or am I just chock-full-of-it (as usual)?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy do you feel the need to demean them, robbie?
ummm, i dunno gaychessplayer dude, it is perhaps because they are devoid of spirituality and thus seeking to advance their own ideas, it becomes like an big fat ego trip for them, why does one feel the need to demean another, lack of security, lack of anything in general, who knows?
Originally posted by Palynkalol, i didn't realize i was, i was just throwing out some of my own thoughts, as i stated i dunno why it is that people feel the need to be demeaning, is it because i said they are, 'on a big fat ego trip', if this is true it can hardly be construed as demeaning, never the less, i could be wrong and as you are aware, i am forever apologizing when i realize that i have done so, so once again if my comments are demeaning i apologize, infact, maybe after every post i make i should have a disclaimer! in fact maybe i should just stop posting comments, ...no comments please!😀
Why do you feel the need to demean them, robbie?
Originally posted by josephwAnd it's not insulting and sarcastic for a theist to accuse all atheists of a serious moral defect?
You hit the nail on the head.
The question then, is why?
Why do the atheists feel the need to be sarcastic and insulting to the theist?
The answer is because there is a God, and because they don't know God, by definition, they (atheists) are the enemy of God.
Doesn't sound like much fun, but that's the way it is.