Atheists on belief threads. Why?

[DioneTheDiabolist]

While there are sometimes interesting threads where atheists and believers discuss and debate religion, it seems to me that increasingly atheists only come onto threads here to poopoo or disrespect the beliefs of others.

Am I right about this and if not then what is the reasoning behind the posts where atheists call the beliefs of others rubbish etc?

SGB, are you saying that believers do not have rational minds?

OK, the actual quote I was thinking of from above was "atheists come here because they have faith the size of a mustard seed." To be honest, I'm not quite sure what that poster was saying. I suspect very little.

There is no burden of proof, leastways there shouldn't be.

Believers, quite simply, don't have to prove anything.

Who are we answerable to? Who should I have to prove it to?

Russell's teapot (mentioned above) is a great example to think about, because the whole idea sounds so utterly absurd. Most of us have grown up with religion around us, so the idea of it being in our lives has become normalised, in a sort of religious Stockholm Syndrome. The Teapot is one good way of trying to make the religious realise how daft their beliefs could actually sound to someone not already steeped in them. Others I've seen used are the Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn - theists tend to roll their eyes in exasperation whenever these are mentioned.

"Burden of proof" is not my phrase. It's just one which is commonly used. It means that, if you want something to be believed, you must at least offer some evidence for it - otherwise we could all go round believing any wild nonsense we wanted to. There would no longer be any distinction between what is real and what is not.

But we don't need atheists to believe what we do, therefore we do not need to prove anything.

I usually stay away from belief threads because I am an atheist.

Also have plenty of respect for people who believe in God.
Some part of me thinks 'they cannot have thought this through very well' or 'how on earth can they believe this?'

But, I have to remind myself that I have some very intelligent, entirely rational and lovely friends and colleagues that happen to be Christian,Muslim or Jewish.

But religious attitudes to homosexuality, women and a whole load of other problems that religion and religious bigotry seems to have caused really get me down.

In a sense you're right, I agree, in that there's no rule or law which says you have to provide evidence for it, or else. It's just that, if people are going to go around saying things are true, they generally have a bit more credibility if they can offer a bit of evidence. Otherwise, there's no distinction between a religious belief and, say, "Lord of the Rings".

Although, of course, some Christians would argue that getting as many non-Christians as possible to believe what they do is precisely the point. Isn't it called "evangelising"?

Well you can believe whatever you want to.

You're doing it right now, believing in nothing! As is your right.

Once again, a complete lack of ability to discuss without thinly veiled insults. I don't get it. It's unnecessarily antagonistic, or it would be if us pesky Christians were easily antagonised.

Whatkindof - you may not be trying to get other to believe what you do or impose your beliefs on others, but there are countless examples of people using their faith to do just that. Seeker has explained the UK situation with regards to Christianity. Therefore when people are asking for special privileges because of their faith, many atheists feel justified in pointing out that there is no rational basis for this.

FWIW I do not believe that faith = stupid. I know many extremely clever people who have faith. I admit I don't understand it, but I have a wealth of evidence to say that smart people can also believe in gods.

Show me the insults? I'm baffled. Why are the religious so easily insulted? can't their supposedly strong faith take a bit of rational questioning?

My point is that a belief in no gods (not the same thing at all as "believing in nothing") is the default position - or would be, were most of us not culturally conditioned to it from a young age. And it's the one consistent with all the evidence.

But I usually give up on these threads, because arguing logically with the religious is like trying to knit fog.

The fact that some very clever people are deeply, irrationally superstitious is one thing which does vex me on a regular basis. I know full well that the last Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, was a very bright chap and spoke sixteen languages or whatever. I know people with PhDs who believe in gods. It does worry me a bit, but I rationalise it as I know people use different parts of their brains for different things. I'm quite clever myself (he added modestly), but I enjoy mindless pap like "The X-Factor" and so on. I don't actually use my university education for that.

I think that this section is for anyone who wants it. I'd be completely against any form of vetting people's beliefs before they were allowed to post. And, tbh, I've had some good, enjoyable and educative discussions with atheists on here, so IMO that's a good thing. We can be very good at PARD here, and it's great when we are.

The 'fairies at the bottom of the garden / imaginary friend / nonsense / irrational / Thor / Zeus / take your pick, you know the drill...' stuff is a bit tiresome, though. I try to filter it out. Often it seems to signify that the people who say things like that aren't really interested in trying to understand any other point of view, but rather, to vent. Which might be okay, maybe. But let's take these phrases for what they are - rhetorical flourishes, not serious points to be addressed.

I find DadonIce's 'burden of proof' argument (and yes, I know it's not your phrase) fascinating from a philosophical point of view.

Nonsense, fairy tales, irrational superstition are, imo, unnecessarily antagonistic in these types of discussion.
But do continue. I'm sure it makes you feel vastly superior. I'll respectfully disagre with some people's self-appointed superiority.

To be unable to accept someone's beliefs without worrying about them, or believing that they only think that way due to conditioning, shows a distinct lack of emotional intelligence IMO.

"I don't know about CofE schools but Catholic state schools are heavily funded by the Catholic Diocese. They are not truly state in the same was as a community school."

They aren't heavily funded, the Catholic Church contributes 10% of capital costs to a Catholic state school in England - the other 90% comes from the taxpayer. I think 100% of the running costs are paid for by the taxpayer, but am willing to be corrected on that.

This BBC article about academy status is interesting - the Chief Executive of the Catholic Education Service Oona Stannard warns against Catholic schools going for academy status, and admits that the 10% the church contributes is very valuable in terms of control over which pupils they admit, who they employ etc.

Ms Stannard warned: "The funding opportunities may initially seem attractive to schools but remember there is, as yet, little precise detail on this and the payment of our 10% to capital costs at present buys our sector a degree of valuable independence along the lines of "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

Given that she is talking about a school which is 90% funded by the taxpayer, and which discriminates against pupils on the basis of religion, is this not a blatant example of religious privilege?

As I said. Knitting fog. I would invite people to look at my posts and waltermitty's and decide who is being the insulting one here...

My point about cultural conditioning (totally missed, but I shouldn't be surprised about this any more), is that anyone who was born in/has grown up in the UK in the 20th century - and I obviously include myself in this - has grown up with the influence of either the Church of England or the Catholic Church all around them, so culturally it is all perfectly normal. I don't actually have a problem with this. I enjoy looking around churches in the way I enjoy looking around all old buildings, and i can enjoy singing a good carol as I would any good folk-song. But if you had grown up on some remote island with no religion in your life, and you were suddenly told all about it, it would seem odd. That's why Russell's Teapot is so useful as a philosophical concept - it helps us gain some perspective.

Holoferneseshead - we'll agree to disagree about the "imaginary friend" stuff because for me it serves the same purpose as stuff like Russell's Teapot, but I can see it's not the kind of language everyone is comfortable with. On the "burden of proof" thing, do you agree that this rests with the person making the extraordinary claim and that scepticism is the default position (well, isn't always, but perhaps should be)?

I'm an atheist and although I've never been on a Beliefs thread at all, I can't see how you can possibly think that non-believers have less right to / reason for posting on there.

Absence of belief in something doesn't equate to absence of opinion about it. There's not a person in the world who doesn't have an opinion on religious belief, just as everyone has an opinion on, say, the death penalty, democracy, ghosts, extra terrestrial life or any other abstract concept.

On that point, despite the impression given by the extreme favour (ie legal protection) granted to religion-derived opinions in most societies, there's no logical reason why non-religious personal beliefs deserve any less accomodation. Ultimately, it's all just stuff a person happens to think. How come it gets more weight when a book that sort of vaguely backs some of it up? Why not the same protection for vegetarians, say (I'm not one, btw). It's to prove exactly this point that all those people put Jedi on the census. If enough other people all think something, that something is deserving of as much respect and allowances as any 'religious' belief, legally and morally.

It's convenient isn't it? I'm not supposed to upset believers by disagreeing with them, I'm supposed to leave them alone in their little belief bubble, but yet they seem to feel quite free to invade my world through the media, ads etc to disagree with my opinions about, say abortion, or homosexuality. Not to mention the parliamentary lobbying all over the world to try to practically influence EVERYONE's world in respect of abortion, contraception etc.

So yeah, in light of all that, I think if I wanted to come on a belief thread and tell people I think they'd got it all wrong I'd be perfectly entitled to.

Actually, yours aren't the only posts referring to conditioning.

Thinly veiled insults are still insults.

As I say, "faith", from what we're told about it, ought to be up to a bit of robust argument... But go ahead and take offence at the slightest thing, because I'm sure that will really help to progress the argument.

As other Christians have said, I'm happy to debate, and think of it as a whetstone for my ideas. I find the whole 'pink teapots/sky fairies/imaginary friend' rhetoric tiresome. I also find it tiresome when people come out with the same old hoary criticisms of theism and expect believers either never to have heard them before, or to reel in shock at them.

I find it interesting that there is so much aggression, so much rudeness. I wonder what's getting people's goat so much about God that it brings out such astonishing levels of verbal violence.

There are things that my co-religionists do that are insensitive, and uncaring, and discriminatory. That's bad, no question about it. But which of us can truly say that we have never acted in a way that we should be ashamed of? Who would like to cast that first stone? I know I couldn't.

As to the power that Christianity has, the usual subjects that come up are faith schools (which are there because the church was the first organisation to start up schools for the poor, and remain because no government has bothered to abolish them, and are a problem largely because of successive governments' choice agenda in education), and bishops in the House of Lords (again, a historical legacy, which no government has abolished because it would mean unpicking the whole of constitutional law since the settlement of 1788, which no government has the time to do). These things have their pros and cons, but they don't seem to me to make a decisive contribution to questions about whether God exists, or whether religion is a good thing. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

I'm not offended, that doesn't mean that what you're saying isn't offensive, just that I don't care about your opinion.

There is no argument to progress. Have you read the op?

Waltermitty - I think this illustrates the different perspectives perfectly. I can only speak for myself when i say that I am not trying to be antagonistic or offensive when I talk about Zeus/imaginary friends/teapots - it is an attempt to give an example and is neutral. Because you do have faith then you find it offensive to have your deity compared to an imaginary friend.

For me an analogy would be someone trying to sell a treasured possession for over the odds and someone saying "but it's just an old book". "yes, but I loved it and it has meaning and worth to me so I think other people should value it".

Of course I read the OP - that's why I came here. Others have too. Woozlebear has just summed up better than I could exactly why there is an argument, and why it is important to come here and talk about it.

It seems a little arrogant to say that you don't care what I think and that my requirement for evidence of faith-based claim is irrelevant. It's almost dangerous, in fact. Recent history shows us exactly what people with a zealous religious belief think they can do when they don't have to justify it.

I find the whole 'pink teapots/sky fairies/imaginary friend' rhetoric tiresome. I also find it tiresome when people come out with the same old hoary criticisms of theism and expect believers either never to have heard them before, or to reel in shock at them

Similarly I find the same old defences of belief 'tiresome', and the same old allegedly clinching arguments frustrating. I feel much about the Ontological Argument as you feel about the teapot I imagine.

I wonder what's getting people's goat so much about God that it brings out such astonishing levels of verbal violence.

How about homophobia, abortion legislation, the influence of religion on mainstream education, and the way society is structured to give a random belief that is 'religious' precedence over a random belief that is, well, just a random belief. Those get my goat, although I have not partaken of any verbal violence.