AIBU to find this slightly odd behaviour from atheist friends?

[handsandknees]

I am an Evangelical Christian. People who know me well know that. I am happy to talk about it if people want to, but I don't go on about it.

Last Easter one of my friends posted a long status on facebook basically ranting against the Christian Easter message and saying that she didn't want or need Jesus to have died for her, thank you very much. Up to her what she writes of course, but the tone was very aggressive and I wondered why. I didn't comment but later she sent me a personal message asking me what I thought of her post.

Then this week another friend posted a photo on my wall which said "Proud to say I'm an atheist". I haven't responded but just wondering why would someone do this? I am not offended just find it a bit strange.

Why do you think they would do this?

Atheists are agnostic only in the sense that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Exactly.

OP, another odd behaviour you'll find in many atheists here is a fondness for philosophical waffling.

"The problem I have with the position that atheism is the absence of belief, is that means that you must claim knowledge. Which is to reject all skepticism"

No it doesn't, and no it isn't.

I read/heard all about this supposed God, and I don't find it convincing. So, I don't believe it. That is my "absence of belief".

But I'm not "claiming knowledge". There might very well be a God, but there is no proof of this supposed existence, and hence my atheism.

If we had "rejected all skepticism", we would be believers. So many people are, and we were taught as children all about God etc. It would have been easy to believe. If we didn't, that is because we used our heads, saw that there is no rational basis for belief in a God, and rejected the God hypothesis .

OP, we're atheists here. i find the amount of time devoted to Christianity at my DDs normal state school bewildering, bordering on offensive. It builds to a peak pre Easter and Christmas.

I hate my DD, aged 5, coming home and telling me that Jesus died to save us, to me that's just really weird. I imagine that you'd find it puzzling and borderline offensive if your small child despite your home life, came home and told you that the same people who teach him/her to read and do long division, also taught them that the Cbeebies Mr Maker created the planet we live on. That we celebrate Christmas because once a boy created a snowman that could fly and everyone should stand to sing "Walking in the Air".

May be your friends have a bit much of it? We get annoyed that at DDs school only Christians are mentioned in relation to ethics, morals etc.
luckily our neighbours are Christodelpians and really unpleasant, this is providing a fantastic early years experience to how some people use religion as a cloak for bullying and conflict.

Ah, there's another issue. I a quite prepared to respect people who hold beliefs. But I see no reason at all why I should respect the beliefs themselves.

Wallison - "Ah. So now I'm not only being told what I think, but also being told what my 'default position' should be. Lovely. And atheists are the intolerant ones?"

I'm not telling you what to think!!! I'm merely pointing out the obvious fact that in any issue where scientific proof or disproof is impossible, "agnosticism" has to be the default position.

That doesn't mean that it has to remain the position!

For instance, if someone says to me "I believe there is a planet made of green cheese circulating in a galaxy 12 billion light years away", I wouldn't be able to disprove it. But the issue is clearly absurd and trivial. My agnosticism is thus purely theoretical.

On the other hand, is there any human being of at least normal intelligence, who has not pondered on the mystery of existence - life, the universe, and everything?

If anyone has done so, and for various reasons has moved from "agnosticism" - in either a theist or an atheist direction - that's not a trivial matter. Whether the position reached is valid or not is a matter of argument, but the moving away from "agnosticism" clearly isn't in itself necessarily wrong.

Why are Christians allowed to be certain that God exists, but atheists are supposed to be agnostic about him not existing?

GrimmaTheNome - "But it is odd, and rude, to post something like that without a shred of context. "

Since it was my post you were referring to - would you explain why what I posted was "rude"?

I'm sorry that I just haven't the time to read all the posts in a thread, hence might not get the proper "context". The same problem would afflict most posters in these forums - unless they had a vast amount of free time to waste.

I deplore intellectual arrogance and rudeness whoever it comes from.

Nothing I have read in these threads have altered my conviction, that many atheists are just as likely to be rude to, and intolerant of, those who disagree with them as theists are.

On the other hand, there are those of most "beliefs", and none (if you define "belief" in a purely theistic way) who are basically kind, humane, tolerant, and with a degree of intellectual humility. It is these who give me some hope that Homo sapiens may have a reasonable future.

I don't think that it really matters what people think - it is simply best to ignore them if they post something deliberately provocative- they wanted a reaction - don't give them one. Ignore.

I am 100% atheist but I have several friends who are very religious. I would not like to think that my friends felt uncomfortable talking about what is a very important part of their lives. They know and respect my views and I would be comfortable to tell them if I disagreed with something they said. It shouldn't be an issue between friends.
If I had Facebook I wouldn't appriciate people posting religious messages on my wall if they knew I was an atheist. I would find that a bit pushy. I wouldn't mind receiving religious Xmas cards though.

Since it was my post you were referring to - would you explain why what I posted was "rude"?

oh Frank I'm sorry - that's not what i meant at all - that part was supposed to be referring to the chap in the OP who posted on her FB wall. Nothing odd or rude about what you said - sorry my lack of clarity lead to misunderstanding.

seeker - "Why are Christians allowed to be certain that God exists, but atheists are supposed to be agnostic about him not existing? "

If you are replying to my post, you don't seem to have understood my point - probably my fault in not being clear.

Theism (including Christianity), Atheism, and Agnosticism, are separate viewpoints. While Agnosticism may be the default position, it doesn't mean it's the only valid one.

So, of course Atheists don't have to be Agnostics! In fact, by the very definition they can't be.

I have however quite often come across people who say they are "Atheist", but whose views on closer examination show that they are in fact Agnostic.

Incidentally, however a particular dictionary defines it, "Agnostic", in customary use, simply means someone who personally is neither a theist or an atheist, not necessarily that [s]he doesn't believe it possible for them to become one or the other. And yes, these will include "apatheists", as Grimma calls them.

I was an rather apathetic agnostic with strong atheist leanings for most of the first 28 years of my life. Sometimes I rather wish that were still my position, as it would have made life rather easier if I were!

Why are Christians allowed to be certain that God exists, but atheists are supposed to be agnostic about him not existing?
Intellectual rigour Present and absent on both sides, in reality. There are many agnostic christians who will admit that they can't be certain...hence 'faith'.

Grimma - many thanks for the reply. You are such a courteous poster that I was rather surprised by what I wrongly understood in your post.

It is posters such as you which make discussion of even contentious subjects a pleasure rather than the ordeal.

As a contrast, look at the BBC thread, and see how one poster reacted to my suggestion that the BBC might be a valuable antidote to the Daily Mail and the Murdoch empire, to see the sort of attitude which makes forum posting sometimes a bit of an ordeal! (I suspect that poster might be male - as the vitriolic and intemperate hate-filled language is much more characteristic of the political threads associated with mainly male forums)

^I'm not telling you what to think!!! I'm merely pointing out the obvious fact that in any issue where scientific proof or disproof is impossible, "agnosticism" has to be the default position.

It is only the default position if you take theism as the starting-point. If the possibility of God is not raised, then it isn't an issue.

Thanks (I think I'll leave the BBC thread well alone if such a topic is inspiring vitriol!).

Humph well the term 'agnostic' was invented by Huxley so I think I'd rather stick with his definition rather that whatever it may have mutated to - he said:
'Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable'

Wallison
The problem is that the possibility, or impossibility, of God has been, for better or worse, a matter of important debate for as long as recorded history.

But - as you wish - if you want to define "default position" in such a way (and my reply to you pointed out that "agnosticism" need only be theoretical, in matters which a person regards as unimportant), so be it. It's not how I understand such a term, but can't be bothered to argue a point of semantics.

Grimma
I usually like to take definitions as originally defined, but in many cases, e.g. "metaphysical", "gay", the common use has now widely diverted from the original definition.
However each to her/his own

It's not just a point of semantics though, is it? It's to do with how the debate is framed.

Wallison
As I said, a position of agnosticism is purely theoretical if a matter is considered unimportant and unworthy of debate.

My agnosticism concerning planets of green cheese in distant galaxies is totally theoretical as a default position, as I don't consider the matter of enough importance to even bother with.

If you regard the existence of God or not to be similarly so, you are perfectly free to do so in a free country - and I would hope that if necessary, in e.g. a fundamentalist Islamic country, I would be brave enough to support you.

The crucial point is that I haven't, through my position, told you what to believe or not to believe - and I never would.

Unfortunately there are only too many people - mostly but not entirely male - who, theist and atheist, seem only too willing to proclaim that their scientifically unproven views on the life, universe, and everything, are the only possible and valid ones - and all who disagree must be uneducated, stupid, wicked etc.etc.

I think I've got it.

Atheism is not a belief because absence of belief is not belief.
Aggressive Atheism IS a belief. It is the belief that atheism is so superior to religion that those who have faith are less clever, less loving and more violent and can be mocked.

FredFredGeorge I just laughed out loud at your desciption of CofE evangelism - brilliant.

I thought 'evangelical' meant basing your faith on the bible, whereas 'evangelism' meant telling others about it. If that's so, an Evangelical Christian who doesn't go out of her way to talk about her faith would make sense. I've held that belief for about 25 years. Then I looked it up this evening and it turns out I am wrong (or maybe the word has altered in its usage).

Anyway, OP, it is a little odd, but then so are people.

Enjoying the discussion, and trying to keep up - you people are all a lot cleverer than me....

It was around the time of the CofE bishops vote that he posted the photo, yes. I am going to have to ask him, aren't I? If I'm brave enough.

Go on, we want to know if he's got any sort of excuse or if he's just a knob

Eek. Well, ok, but not sure when I'll see him.