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?

niminy - I suspect the reason people come out with the "same old hoary criticisms" is that they have never, ever been adequately refuted. There's no requirement to present new arguments if the old ones are still watertight - that would just be re-inventing the wheel. (And, boring as it may be, it is important to keep re-iterating that no adequate answers have been given. I suppose this is what FAQs are for.)

@woozlebear but people of faith dont tend to flame 'atheist threads' with those arguments. Those arguments are generally demanded of them.

@woozlebear it is quite offensive for someone to accuse you of being personally responsible for the quirks if the british democratic system when you dont know me from adam (so to speak)

Are there any "atheist threads" here? It would seem odd to start one. I've been here a while under various names and I don't remember ever seeing one.

@dadonice no. That is my point. These boring, tiered arguments are only rolled out in response to boring, tiered arguments.

Arrogant or not, I don't care. Nor do I have to explain myself to you or anybody.

I wonder when I became zealously religious.

As I said upthread, adhering to organised religion is not the same as believing I'm god woozle and people who believe in god are not individually responsible for the official party line of the catholic curch (for example) on issues like abortion and same sex relationships.

Furthermore, as ethel said, I have rarely seen believers storm an atheist thread and snidely disparage everything and everyone on there.

ethelb Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you, but how is it relevant whether believers flame atherist threads with those arguments, or not? The context in which arguments are wheeled out doesn't make them any less tiresome or frustrating. Whether the context is rude and inappropriate is the subject of this thread and a different, albeit related, matter. The tiresomeness of the arguments themselves is a stand-alone point, and I maintain they are very tiresome.

So why ask the question if you know you arent going to like the answer?

*IN god.

I don't think I'm god.

@woozlebear it is quite offensive for someone to accuse you of being personally responsible for the quirks if the british democratic system when you dont know me from adam (so to speak)

Where have I held ANYONE personally responsible for this, let alone you (who I have only personally responded to in one post, not on this point)? My comments are clearly about believers collectively.

DadonIce, perfectly happy to have a go at a philosophical discussion. Be my guest to start one.

If it isnt targetted at beleivers on MN then what is the point of doing it? Serious q.

To be honest, I have been on here before under other names and tried, and got nowhere - so I will politely decline niminy's kind offer.

ethelb The point of my posts in general is, as you suggest, to refute some of the arguments of believers in this thread. BUT any reference to 'believers' in points within those posts I mean believers in general. Collectively. No targeting of MN believers, or you, or anyone. Just believers in general.

Why would you interpret comments clearly about believers in general as being a personal comment about you when the post in question is not even in response to a post of yours or in any way connected to you other than it being on a thread you're on? That's a serious question too, because it looks like a quite cheap attempt at discrediting someone's arguments, not by debating with them but by playing the 'taking it personally and being offended' card.

It is fine people having different views. When people start stating what someone else believes is a big pile of crap and so on, that is where it is over the line. You can have a view without being nasty about another's.

What is the problem with faith schools giving preference to people of the faith? Surely, an atheist would not want a faith education for their child so it shouldn't matter anyway. There are plenty of non faith schools.

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.

I agree with this, and I suppose can sadly understand why this statement has caused offense

It's well seen throughout MN that the hostile, disparaging, contemptuous comments almost always come from atheists Before I believed, I didn't have the least inclination to behave like that towards believers, so I can only think that they do it to be perverse or to provoke an argument

It is good to see some atheists on here agreeing with the OP.
I am a now a Christian but rarely post on these threads as it usually descends into the old unoriginal "it's a load of rubbish" .
I always say "yes it may well be a load of rubbish, but after much thought and studying, I personally now believe (note I use the word "believe", not "know"), and if it is a load of rubbish then my life has been much more fulfilling and happier for having held that belief.

Whatkindof - there are lots of places where the nearest school is a faith school. Travelling t another (even if you can get in) is expensive and inconvenient. And faith schools are hugely taxpayer funded, so why shouldn't people be able to send their kids to the local school? Why should local children be deprioritised and discriminated against in a state funded school?

Because it was about believers on MN. You may pretend its not. Pretend it is some unidentifiable group (but what would be the point?). But the fact is you were responding to a question about why it is ok to criticise the beliefs of believers on MN.

And if you were not talking about beleivers on MN, then your claim that your choice to criticise the beleif of believers on MN is valid because someone, somewhere has victimised you, is an odd argument.

To me, belief is just such an odd thing. As other atheists have said, it's strange that people believe in guff like transubstantiation or purgatory or hell for that matter. To an atheist it just doesn't make sense and I like these threads because I am trying to make sense of it.

I get very angry about some aspects of religion though and will categorically state that some of it is a pile of crap. Compelling women to cover themselves from head to toe, denying them contraception, hiding physical and sexual abuse, treating homosexuality as shameful, that is all religious crap.

I can't accept that some people cannot be priests or bishops because they possess a vagina. I cannot accept a deity who thinks that is ok. I can't accept an organisation which thinks women are not just as worthy as men.

I cannot accept a deity who thinks that is ok

No deity I know of thinks that's ok. That's why I said up thread that I think a lot of issues stem from the stances of organised religions as opposed to God IYSWIM.

I'm a god awful catholic (excuse the pun) but I believe in a god that accepts everyone as equals.

There are no non-faith schools in the UK. Every school is compelled by law to have a daily 'act of worship which must be broadly Christian in nature.' Is it really so hard to understand why rational people resent their DC being made to talk to someone else's imaginary friend every morning?

Also: quite a lot of people believe that the Earth is really under the control of disguised lizard creatures, and that Prince Philip is one of these lizard creatures, and that wearing a tinfoil hat will stop him getting you. (am roughly paraphrasing the Illuminati belief system here.) These are sincerely held beliefs. The same could be said of astrology, ghosts, pixies etc. So why don't schools start the day by reading the kids their horoscopes? Or fitting them with tinfoil hats for the school trip to Buckingham Palace?

Christians, in particular, insist not only that their mythology is the truest one (as do all the others who believe in different mythologies) but the ones on MN seem to have trouble understanding why people object to any mythology being imposed on the rational by force of law. There is no good reason at all for one brand of bullshit to be given more privilege than any other, and the best option is for it to remain a private matter with no unelected, specially-privileged power over others.

"I have rarely seen believers storm an atheist thread and snidely disparage everything and everyone on there."

Um, that would be because there are no "atheist threads". Why would anyone start a thread about not believing in something?

I didn't say you were being zealous, waltermittysmissus (is this wilful misunderstanding a trait of yours? I'm starting to think it is) - I was pointing out that thinking you don't have to justify belief can lead down that path. Very dangerous.