1. Joined
    22 Aug '06
    Moves
    359
    28 Oct '08 04:111 edit
    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)?
  2. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    28 Oct '08 08:342 edits
    Are you really gay? Like laying with fellow man type of gay?

    Because if you are, I don't think you're allowed to be religious.
    OK, who's got the rule book? Hang on, we might be able to get
    you in on a technicality.
  3. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    28 Oct '08 09:182 edits
    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.
  4. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    28 Oct '08 10:051 edit
    Originally posted by gaychessplayer
    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)?
    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 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.
  5. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    28 Oct '08 10:40
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    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.
    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 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.
  6. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    28 Oct '08 11:58
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    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.
    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 like either of them.

    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)
  7. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    28 Oct '08 13:31
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    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)
    What specific advantages does relgion offer over a social conscience?
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    28 Oct '08 15:441 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    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)
    I 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.

    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.
  9. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    28 Oct '08 16:17
    Originally posted by gaychessplayer
    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)?
    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.
  10. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    28 Oct '08 16:22
    Originally posted by gaychessplayer
    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)?
    That 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. 😉
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    28 Oct '08 17:20
    Originally posted by gaychessplayer
    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)?
    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?
  12. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    28 Oct '08 17:58
    Originally posted by gaychessplayer
    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)?
    I 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.
  13. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    28 Oct '08 18:03
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    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?
    Why do you feel the need to demean them, robbie?
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    28 Oct '08 18:192 edits
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Why do you feel the need to demean them, robbie?
    lol, 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!😀
  15. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    28 Oct '08 18:46
    Originally posted by josephw
    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.
    And it's not insulting and sarcastic for a theist to accuse all atheists of a serious moral defect?
Back to Top