Who else hates evangelical atheists?

[Marou]

Seriously, where the hell are these retards coming from and when did this trend start? These people are no more educated or intelligent than the most deep woods backwards religious nut. They often quote scientific theories and "experts" as if they are scripture and prophets, irrespective of any apparent understanding the topic, and they are actively prosthelytizing people *against* believing in *mostly* the Christian god. Their god is the "state" and "experts".

These people scare the hell out of me because:
1) They are retarded
2) As such, they are heavily susceptible to propaganda and,
3) Their susceptibility to that propaganda is not tempered by belief in a higher power or authority

Back in my day something like an atheist newsgroup was where people went to discuss philosophy, morality, and human nature without the trappings of religion. Now it's just religion bash time from the same morons that a generation ago would have been trying to convert people to <insert religion here> so they won't burn in hell. That same class of self-aggrandizing retards are now telling everyone to adopt liberal socialist anti-religious views or they are morons.

Gay used to mean happy, now it means homosexual.
Atheist used to mean supernatural shit didn't fit into your world view, now it means you're religious about socialism and science.

I hate the corruption of words.

/edit: Source of tangent? I've been seeing growing numbers of comments by fucking morons that should be beaten with sticks that are both supremely ignorant and anti-religious; in news stories, youtube comments, hell, all over the place.

[Boxy Brown]

Are you talking about those douchebag reddit atheists? They're literally the scum of the planet. Everyone hates them, they give atheists all over the world a bad name.

[Ero Elohim]

They've turned Atheism into another religion. The other day, I saw a guy who made a saint's bracelet out of pictures of Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, deGrasse Tyson, and Darwin, to name what I could remember. He claimed it was a joke, but I'm sure any of those scientists would've curbstomped him for even sarcastically canonizing them.

I cringe everytime you see someone on reddit post another "I converted to Atheism today!" story. You... converted? No, you just stopped practicing religion. Nobody 'converts' to a non-athlete, you stop playing sports. Bunch of idiots trying to fluff up their own importance and feel superior, when they're the same as those they revile.

Now, of course, comes the obligatory XKCD:

[Alex Mars]

Anyone who spends their time running around trying to convince others to any point of view is an idiot.

[Zavon]

Anyone who spends their time running around trying to convince others to any point of view is an idiot.

I agree. But there is still a fundmental difference I respect between an evangelical Christian and an atheist. The Christian actually *wants* to save my soul. They believe that they are looking out for me in the long run (maybe not all the time this is true, but most of the time it really is). What could you possibly get by convincing someone to not believe? Just a selfish reflection of your belief?

[Ero Elohim]

I agree. But there is still a fundmental difference I respect between an evangelical Christian and an atheist. The Christian actually *wants* to save my soul. They believe that they are looking out for me in the long run (maybe not all the time this is true, but most of the time it really is). What could you possibly get by convincing someone to not believe? Just a selfish reflection of your belief?

I believe the rationale is similar for both parties. The Christian believes in an afterlife that's worth more than the life you're living, so they want you to spend this life preparing for the better one to follow. The Atheist doesn't believe in an afterlife, and thinks you're wasting your life by adhering to an illogical set of laws that limits your brief time alive.

[Graveworm]

Anyone who spends their time running around trying to convince others to any point of view is an idiot.

I agree if you meant only to apply this to religion, but not if you meant it in a broad sense that covers things like social activism.

[Alex Mars]

I agree if you meant only to apply this to religion, but not if you meant it in a broad sense that covers things like social activism.

Social activism is fine. Hand out leaflets, march in a parade, hold a demonstration, post videos to Youtube, put up a website about your cause, all fine. When you follow me down the street or keep coming to my door to try to make me think like you think you can lick my sweaty asscrack.

[Sillywilly]

I agree. But there is still a fundmental difference I respect between an evangelical Christian and an atheist. The Christian actually *wants* to save my soul. They believe that they are looking out for me in the long run (maybe not all the time this is true, but most of the time it really is). What could you possibly get by convincing someone to not believe? Just a selfish reflection of your belief?

^ This.

The truth is I don't think I've ever met a militant atheist or Christian/other that was one of those people that I said "ok well at least this is one of those guys/girls that knows their stuff". It seems like the loud annoying ones are always the idiots.

I believe the rationale is similar for both parties. The Christian believes in an afterlife that's worth more than the life you're living, so they want you to spend this life preparing for the better one to follow. The Atheist doesn't believe in an afterlife, and thinks you're wasting your life by adhering to an illogical set of laws that limits your brief time alive.

I can see this partially, but I don't see any altruistic motives behind most of these atheist trying to hammer down on people for their religious beliefs. It seems to be motivated by some kind of ego driven selfishness, kind of like that kid who gets caught making graffiti and rats his friends out to feel better. The atheists that I know of personally that are the most militant are complete and utter science retards. (my father in law that thinks we have close up color pictures of planets with oceans in other solar systems being a prime example). So when these people start in with their "how can you when science says" and they don't even know what science says then I have to question the authenticity of their "lack of belief in the supernatural". Again, especially when my father in law thinks it's ridiculous that Jesus could walk on water or heal the blind yet he thinks there is a Norwegian man living in the mountains that can cure cancer by breathing into peoples mouths. If you're sooo pissed off that people are "ignorant of science" that you are militant and your facebook communication is consumed by anti-theistic garble, shouldn't you at least have a grasp of the basic scientific concepts yourself?

If I can't trust your motivations for being what you are, I certainly don't trust your motivations for pushing it onto others.

[VKhaun]

I don't understand Atheism of any kind.

Every time I try to get my head around it, the reasonable definition ends up being Agnostic...

[Zoobi]

I don't understand Atheism of any kind.

Every time I try to get my head around it, the reasonable definition ends up being Agnostic...

Yeah, the logical answer is just to say you don't know because there's no concrete evidence to support either side. Always a little confusing that so many people are militant in their beliefs but what can you do?

[Boxy Brown]

I agree. But there is still a fundmental difference I respect between an evangelical Christian and an atheist. The Christian actually *wants* to save my soul. They believe that they are looking out for me in the long run (maybe not all the time this is true, but most of the time it really is). What could you possibly get by convincing someone to not believe? Just a selfish reflection of your belief?

The atheist probably believes that he's saving you from wasting the precious time in your short lifespan, as well as the money you would donate to what he feels is a corrupt institution. He's convinced the everlasting soul doesn't exist, so he'll try to convince you to stop living for the afterlife.

I've also heard it argued by atheists that religion of any kind sets back the progress of all mankind because people who would otherwise be out searching for answers to life's big questions are convinced that they already have them. Evangelical atheists have their reasons for wanting people to lose faith, just as Christians have their reasons for wanting people to start believing. I'm not saying they're good reasons, or that I agree with them, but they do exist on a slightly more tangible level than vomiting self-righteous dogma down other people's throats.

[Ero Elohim]

Yeah, the logical answer is just to say you don't know because there's no concrete evidence to support either side. Always a little confusing that so many people are militant in their beliefs but what can you do?

From a purely logical standpoint, the logical answer is "there's nothing to suggest god exists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...urden_of_proof

Scientifically, there actually isn't any way to prove something beyond a doubt. We have limited observational powers and cannot observe the entire universe at all times. What may appear to be true here, may change elsewhere. This is why we have the philosophical rules of burden of proof. For the people who won't read those two links: The default state of any argument for existence of something is the statement that the claim is false. This has to be so, otherwise we'd be operating from a scientific basis of "everything is true," and since we can't observe everything, it will always be true thanks to that doubt. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. If you cannot provide sufficient evidence to suggest that your claim is substantial, it gets dismissed.

This is illustrated with Russell's Teapot. Bertrand Russell showed the ridiculousness of assuming a claim is true until proven false by claiming a teapot exists in orbit at some distance between the Earth and the Sun. As there's an infinite amount of positions this teapot could be in and no way to reliably observe all that space, you could either give in to the goose chase and start assuming there's some cookware there, or shut down the line of thought until concrete evidence was brought forth. This doesn't mean there *isn't* a teapot somewhere in space, but that looking for one is a wasted effort until it presents itself as meaningfully observable to us.

In short, something may exist, but until it impacts the human condition in a tangible manner (i.e. leaves evidence), it has all the properties of something that doesn't exist and should be assumed as such.

Applied to the question of god, no religion has been able to provide sufficient evidence through physical remnants or metaphysical study to substantiate their claims. Therefore, for all human purposes, no god or gods exist. At least, that's the logical argument for it.

Most people don't seem to understand that science is a continually mutable, open-minded discipline. Everything outside your own mind exists in a degree of agnosticism, if you really want to open up the full measure of solipsism. What we believe to be "scientific truth" is merely the hypotheses we have the most supporting evidence for.

[Ziel]

^
Thank you. I don't know where people got the idea that atheists have to think they know 100% there's no god. The vast majority of atheists are people who lack belief in a god, as opposed to people who believe in the lack of a god. If you think a god is as likely to exist as Russell's teapot, then you're an atheist.

Reddit atheists are indeed a pain in the ass, though. I'm guessing a lot of them are people still reveling in new-found freedom from their religion, but christ...

As far as "conversion to atheism", I prefer the term deconversion, but I think it's worth a try if the subject comes up. I probably wouldn't still be here if I thought I had an afterlife in store. Hell, even if a god exists, non-belief is probably your best bet in the end.

[VKhaun]

I don't agree with all your details. The very biggest questions we can ask do not lead to teapots. I wager it would be easier to find a teapot in orbit around the sun than to build a machine to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson. If a teapot was a possible answer to why things have mass or why anything exists at all and we could solve the question by searching the skies for it in orbit, we might just try a little harder to find it...

But that aside, you still draw the same conclusion I do. You do something illogical with it though. You seem think just because you've satisfied science you've satisfied the term Atheism and that's really not true. If science can't be certain and the question remains, doesn't that make you Agnostic rather than Atheistic regardless of how far towards belief or disbelief you lean?

People sometimes try to make things into a debate about what 'Atheism' means exactly but that's flatly unnecessary. If it DOESN'T mean 100% certainty that there is no God, wouldn't it just be another word for Agnostic? Uncertainty is uncertainty.

[Sillywilly]

I don't agree with all your details. The very biggest questions we can ask do not lead to teapots. I wager it would be easier to find a teapot in orbit around the sun than to build a machine to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson. If a teapot was a possible answer to why things have mass or why anything exists at all and we could solve the question by searching the skies for it in orbit, we might just try a little harder to find it...

But that aside, you still draw the same conclusion I do. You do something illogical with it though. You seem think just because you've satisfied science you've satisfied the term Atheism and that's really not true. If science can't be certain and the question remains, doesn't that make you Agnostic rather than Atheistic regardless of how far towards belief or disbelief you lean?

People sometimes try to make things into a debate about what 'Atheism' means exactly but that's flatly unnecessary. If it DOESN'T mean 100% certainty that there is no God, wouldn't it just be another word for Agnostic? Uncertainty is uncertainty.

I agree with that summation. Not believing god exists is most certainly different from believing that he doesn't.

[Ero Elohim]

I agree with that summation. Not believing god exists is most certainly different from believing that he doesn't.

That's just confusing semantics. It's like saying "Not playing golf is certainly different from being a non-golfer."

The word "agnostic" doesn't specify religion in its formal definition. It's an adjective loosely meaning "uncertain about." Until recently, science was agnostic towards the existence of the Higgs-Boson. Its antonym is "gnostic." Originally, "agnostic" was confined to religious meaning, but it today can be applied anywhere.

Formally, I'm an agnostic atheist. Almost all of us are. You can be an agnostic theist, too, which is to say that you're uncertain about the existence of your deity, but you still practice as if it exists.

TL;DR Nobody is confusing the term 'atheist.' Everyone is confusing the term 'agnostic.'

I don't agree with all your details. The very biggest questions we can ask do not lead to teapots. I wager it would be easier to find a teapot in orbit around the sun than to build a machine to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson. If a teapot was a possible answer to why things have mass or why anything exists at all and we could solve the question by searching the skies for it in orbit, we might just try a little harder to find it...

You're misunderstanding the exercise behind Russell's Teapot, even though you hit at the answer itself: You postulate that if the teapot was an answer to a question, we'd be looking for it. That suggests some evidence that points to its existence. Before we found the Higgs-Boson, we predicted its existence based on the model of physics we'd observed. There was evidence to suggest that it existed, but nothing concrete, so we devised tests in order to bring about that concrete evidence.

The idea of the teapot is that we have nothing besides one man's word to go on. If the burden of proof lay on the rejector of a claim, science would fall apart. We would literally have to accept that everything ever speculated existed and never be able to disprove any of it, simply because we cannot ever have the precision needed to 100% disprove something.

The scientific method starts by observation. We need to observe a phenomenon before ever hypothesizing the method of its existence. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. When first bringing up his claim, he must provide the evidence that spurred his hypothesis, in order to fully investigate. Every time that someone has made the claim for god, the evidence brought forward has either been found faulty or been shown to relate to a different phenomenon.

[Zavon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...sitive_atheism

Not just semantics.

[Ero Elohim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...sitive_atheism

Not just semantics.

The way he phrased it was very, very poor because "not believing god exists" is identical to "believing god doesn't exist."

The difference between positive/negative atheism, e.g. strong/weak or agnostic/gnostic atheism, is in the assertion of that non-belief. Both doubt the existence of a deity, one is just more certain than the other. A better phrasing would be "Not believing in god." versus "Being certain there is no god." I know of nobody who fits into the latter category.

As an aside, I find the term "atheist" to be a bit strange. It's one of the only examples we have for a specific term for not participating in something. We don't have special words for non-athletes or non-scientists. I'd wager it was a term coined specifically to vilify non-believers by attaching negative sentiment to. I've actually heard the sentence "I can't get over you not believing in god. At least you aren't one of those atheists." Blew my mind at the time.

[Zavon]

Then you don't know any evangelical atheists.

[Ero Elohim]

Then you don't know any evangelical atheists.

[Bragi]

Since people are bringing up the Higgs, I was reminded of this humorous article.

Back to the original point... you've just described my problem with assholes in general.

[Alex Mars]

I find that we have no data at all to form an opinion either way on the question of a creator of the universe, but I am sure that Christianity, Islam, and any other man made religion is bullshit. Given the size of the universe, if there is a creative force out there, I would think that it works and perceives on a scale that doesn't even notice us, much less worry about our personal behaviour.

[Alex Mars]

As an aside, I find the term "atheist" to be a bit strange. It's one of the only examples we have for a specific term for not participating in something. We don't have special words for non-athletes or non-scientists. I'd wager it was a term coined specifically to vilify non-believers by attaching negative sentiment to. I've actually heard the sentence "I can't get over you not believing in god. At least you aren't one of those atheists." Blew my mind at the time.

The term atheist is a simple linguistic construction like asymmetrical (not symmetrical) or atypical (not typical) based on the term theist.

[Marou]

Since people are bringing up the Higgs, I was reminded of this humorous article.

Back to the original point... you've just described my problem with assholes in general.

Which brings my original point back to the forefront. The reason these people suck is because the vast majority of them are incapable of comprehending how a complex piece of software works, let alone advanced physics, thermodynamics, genetics, or anything else that explains how fundamental forces of the universe and life work. As a result they rely upon "experts" to interpret everything for them just like really dumb religious people rely upon priests, shamans, cult leaders, etc.

The end result is a poorly written science article (99% of them) about some new highly theoretical science "showing" very unlikely results can have a person spouting nonsense for years. This compared to your average religious person who is working from a fixed theory that while probably nonsense is at least easy enough to understand that if a priest type starts putting out really retarded interpretations of any given scripture most people will change congregations; since they have a solid basis of understanding for *why* that person is wrong.

I'm a fairly smart guy, I'm a self-taught programmer that's been writing professional software to sniff out financial, medical, and other forms of fraud for my entire adult life. I don't have the immense time required to gain a full understanding of the different scientific fields of study as they exist today, let alone keep up with all the constant changes. It's all I can do to keep up with the constantly evolving world of software design. As a result I can say certain things are very likely to be true based upon gut instinct and my rudimentary understanding, but I don't know any of those guys personally, it could be a consensus of morons, or quite worse, a consensus of people *PAID* to push an agenda. Anti-religious "preachers" aren't enlightened, they worship science and "experts".

If we discovered gods existed definitively because they started making demands from up on high and smiting people; that wouldn't rock my world view too much at all. I feel I could safely call myself an atheist because when presented with irrefutable proof gods exist I wouldn't suddenly start feeling religious or theistic (unless of course, I was made to). To me atheist means one thing, the concept of worship is so alien to you that it would take mind control or chemical manipulation to put you into a religious frame of mind. People that worship "experts" and "science" obviously don't feel the same way, since they award to humans the same blind faith others at least reserve for hypothetical supreme beings. Because humans are evil dicks and expert opinions can change more quickly than religious truth that type of "atheist" is more dangerous to liberty and freedom than your average religious folk.