Do atheists fancy themselves as nonconformists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

I do appreciate you backing us up on the ridiculous linguistic issues people are throwing out.

There's a subset of theists that are anti atheist too. There are subsets of almost any population that are anti x, y, z. By making this specific point about atheists you seem to imply (IMO) that this population is significant in atheism. Significant enough to be a commonly thought of defining quality of atheism. That's wrong and shows your own bias just as much as the atheists here who bemoan their entire life is like a Justin Bieber concert they were forced to attend.

Generally people who are jerks are jerks regardless of their faith or lack thereof and it manifests itself as jerkish. People who bomb abortion clinics and the average member of ISIS aren't really that different in motivation. . Evangelical priests getting people to seems them money for their private jets over the TV aren't all that different from scientologists. Neither should represent their faith. Do atheists the same courtesy.

I was quite careful to say I think the loud-mouthed anti-theists are a subset of anti-theists who are, in turn, a subset of atheists. So, they're a small subset.

However, it's clear that the obnoxious anti-theists are louder than the rest of you. You can see this just spending five minutes on DCUM. There are a few here who spend their days trying to derail threads and stir the pot with their snark.

These obnoxious atheists have a significant, if not the most significant, presence here on threads about the trinity or Islam or other topics that arguably don't involve atheism at all. These are the atheists many people see most frequently.

We can quibble about their numbers in proportion to the atheist population. But I don't think you can argue they aren't a significant negative presence here. I think we both agree it's unfortunate. But they're probably the face of atheism for many DCUMers.

[Anonymous]

^^^ which brings us back to the point that some of the reaction against atheism is a reaction to the awful behavior of a minority of atheists.

Of course there's some bigotry against atheists.

But in a forum like DCUM, pp wasn't able to scrape together a single anti-atheist quote that didn't attack atheists' bad behavior as opposed to lack of religion itself. Thanks, DCUM atheist minority!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

I do appreciate you backing us up on the ridiculous linguistic issues people are throwing out.

There's a subset of theists that are anti atheist too. There are subsets of almost any population that are anti x, y, z. By making this specific point about atheists you seem to imply (IMO) that this population is significant in atheism. Significant enough to be a commonly thought of defining quality of atheism. That's wrong and shows your own bias just as much as the atheists here who bemoan their entire life is like a Justin Bieber concert they were forced to attend.

Generally people who are jerks are jerks regardless of their faith or lack thereof and it manifests itself as jerkish. People who bomb abortion clinics and the average member of ISIS aren't really that different in motivation. . Evangelical priests getting people to seems them money for their private jets over the TV aren't all that different from scientologists. Neither should represent their faith. Do atheists the same courtesy.

I was quite careful to say I think the loud-mouthed anti-theists are a subset of anti-theists who are, in turn, a subset of atheists. So, they're a small subset.

However, it's clear that the obnoxious anti-theists are louder than the rest of you. You can see this just spending five minutes on DCUM. There are a few here who spend their days trying to derail threads and stir the pot with their snark.

These obnoxious atheists have a significant, if not the most significant, presence here on threads about the trinity or Islam or other topics that arguably don't involve atheism at all. These are the atheists many people see most frequently.

We can quibble about their numbers in proportion to the atheist population. But I don't think you can argue they aren't a significant negative presence here. I think we both agree it's unfortunate. But they're probably the face of atheism for many DCUMers.

I think that is very unfortunate. I only come to the religion board when a thread pops up that specifically mentions atheism, because I don't see the other threads as relevant to me, so I am not exposed to these posters frankly. But just like I don't assume all marriages are in ruins after visiting the relationship forum or all people hate dogs after someone dares to post a dog thing in off topic, or all families are horrifically dysfunctional after reading family relationships, I don't make broad assumptions about a religious sect based on their representation in an anonymous online forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ which brings us back to the point that some of the reaction against atheism is a reaction to the awful behavior of a minority of atheists.

Of course there's some bigotry against atheists.

But in a forum like DCUM, pp wasn't able to scrape together a single anti-atheist quote that didn't attack atheists' bad behavior as opposed to lack of religion itself. Thanks, DCUM atheist minority!

I could argue that the question being asked itself in the OP is pretty disrespectful to the actual lack of religion. I would argue that PP's asking if I was truly able to be honest with myself about what I believed was disrespectful to my beliefs, I would argue that the PP arguing semantics about St. Anselm's proof was being fairly dismissive and I would certainly say that the one religious PP that always likes to write a diatribe about how Darwin was humble enough to call himself an agnostic so why aren't we smart like Darwin is certainly not being particularly respectful.

IMO all of those arguments are the same as the petty arguments you feel like atheists make towards you all. The anti-atheist-religion quotes are harder because it is more an implied bias in the questions we are asked. Most everything people have said about atheism in this thread is kind of equivilant (in my mind) to you asking the average american muslim man if he has any respect for women or asking a christian if they hate gay people. Reductive and not a good attempt to show actual interest in the faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

PP again. I hesitated to say this, but maybe it needs to be said. Some of the anti-theists I called "bored children" may actually have other psychological needs that lead them to vent their anger/frustration/whatever on anonymous internet posters.

None of this should take away from the legitimacy of anti-theists who got there via bad experiences with religion.

Yep, I know, I overthink these things. If you need me, you'll find me reading Borg and Crossan....)

Do you draw the same conclusion for people who call others "turds on a sidewalk"? Do you feel that any name calling takes away from the message?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists define themselves negatively, by what they don't believe in. It's inherently non-conformist. "This is what I do NOT believe in, my non belief is what defines me."

I'll bet there's lots of other things that atheists don't believe and do believe in, yet they choose to define themselves on not believing in god.

It's peculiar to define one's identity in the negative, but as one poster noted, he was raised Catholic, and he can't tell his grandparents about being an atheist. The atheism is perceived as a rejection of the Catholicism. I think most atheists who bother telling anyone about it are similar. On some level, they've all got an axe to grind.

I actually share similar beliefs to most theists, with a small exception. I don't believe in all gods. You typically don't believe in most gods.

Do you define yourself by a belief that Hera and Zeus aren't gods?

My lack of belief really only comes up when someone pushes for info or on an anonymous forum. Religion doesn't make for great conversation.

But wouldn't that be like calling ourselves "Anti-Heras"? When you are defining yourself by something you claim to be confident does not exist- well, it seems a little counterproductive, obviously.

What do you suggest?

I define myself by many other things, but how do I answer when someone asks?

I feel like saying "rational" would be taken as offensive...

I would suggest not basing any identity around "not" being into something. I don't go around telling people, "Yeah, sorry, I'm a non-Belieber", even if an ardent JB fan came up to me (this is a silly example, but sub in any other fan/enthusiast group if the Beebs bothers you). If someone brings up Justin Bieber, I don't say, "No, I don't like him, and here's all the reasons" nor do I make fun of them. It's just "Oh, that's cool, interesting." If someone has an interest or a faith in something, I think a lot of atheists take a very antagonistic view towards it, and repeatedly attempt to dismantle it (at least thats a lot of the discourse on here and elsewhere online). Of course, if someone asks you, tell them, "Oh, I'm not Christian." But to repeatedly label yourself something as the OPPOSITE of faith, as the lack of it- again, seems deliberately antagonistic.

I have no idea why Justin Bieber was the first example of a fanbase that came to mind, but I went with it. Anyway..

I think you're mistaking DCUM for the real world. An anonymous forum amplifies the a-holes of all background (or non-backgrounds). My experience in real life is that I get cornered into talking about it. I'm not out advertising it. In fact people advertise their religion all over the place. It's quite the opposite of what you're suggesting.

To use your analogy, we're in a world full of people wearing Belieber t-shirts, and only bring up that we're not Beliebers when pressed about our plain t-shirts.

To extend the analogy, and a realization I had reading this thread, I'm generally not thinking about my t-shirt at all until asked about it. I think faith and religion is a central part of many believers lives, so it's easy to think that the lack of belief is central for an atheist. But at least in my case that's not true. I don't generally think about my lack of faith at all unless engaged in a conversation, such as this one, where religion and faith is the central topic. In my day to day life it only comes up in my head when I'm in situations where I feel pressured to express a faith I don't share.

17:19 here and this all very accurately sums up my life as well. Also agree with the plain t shirt Bieber analogy. Also, to be fair, it hasn't actually come up much in my life and I've rarely been pressed. In fact, the most pressured (outside of DCUM) was a unitarian universalist friend in college who vigorously attempted to turn me away from catholicism. He was not the impetus for my losing my religious beliefs but he was a little troubled that I took it past his stance all the way to atheism. Not too many people know this about me at all honestly.

Part of the reason for different reactions to religion among atheists (and among religious people for that matter) is their personal negative experience with religion. Some were raised in restrictive religious homes that they eventually broke away from in very painful ways that resulted in them having very bad feelings about religion and/or religious people.

Other atheists were never religious or just slowly drifted away, without bad experiences or feelings. Others may not have had negative personal experiences with religion, but get really pissed off by Christian proselytizers trying to force people to conform to what seem like weird or harmful beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

PP again. I hesitated to say this, but maybe it needs to be said. Some of the anti-theists I called "bored children" may actually have other psychological needs that lead them to vent their anger/frustration/whatever on anonymous internet posters.

None of this should take away from the legitimacy of anti-theists who got there via bad experiences with religion.

Yep, I know, I overthink these things. If you need me, you'll find me reading Borg and Crossan....)

Do you draw the same conclusion for people who call others "turds on a sidewalk"? Do you feel that any name calling takes away from the message?

Sorry, but I think you'd find pretty broad agreement here that trolls are sort of like turds.

[Anonymous]

I would totally support making usernames mandatory for this forum and the political forum. I don't know if that's possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

PP again. I hesitated to say this, but maybe it needs to be said. Some of the anti-theists I called "bored children" may actually have other psychological needs that lead them to vent their anger/frustration/whatever on anonymous internet posters.

None of this should take away from the legitimacy of anti-theists who got there via bad experiences with religion.

Yep, I know, I overthink these things. If you need me, you'll find me reading Borg and Crossan....)

Do you draw the same conclusion for people who call others "turds on a sidewalk"? Do you feel that any name calling takes away from the message?

Or the poster a few pages back who said she wanted to kick us in the nuts? What's the psychological profile behind that kind of crappy attitude?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

PP again. I hesitated to say this, but maybe it needs to be said. Some of the anti-theists I called "bored children" may actually have other psychological needs that lead them to vent their anger/frustration/whatever on anonymous internet posters.

None of this should take away from the legitimacy of anti-theists who got there via bad experiences with religion.

Yep, I know, I overthink these things. If you need me, you'll find me reading Borg and Crossan....)

Do you draw the same conclusion for people who call others "turds on a sidewalk"? Do you feel that any name calling takes away from the message?

Sorry, but I think you'd find pretty broad agreement here that trolls are sort of like turds.

How do you define "troll"? Someone who disagrees with you?

Or someone who starts threads to tear down other people and call them names?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would totally support making usernames mandatory for this forum and the political forum. I don't know if that's possible.

In order to honor the Trump regime?

Is your name Big Brother?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

PP again. I hesitated to say this, but maybe it needs to be said. Some of the anti-theists I called "bored children" may actually have other psychological needs that lead them to vent their anger/frustration/whatever on anonymous internet posters.

None of this should take away from the legitimacy of anti-theists who got there via bad experiences with religion.

Yep, I know, I overthink these things. If you need me, you'll find me reading Borg and Crossan....)

Do you draw the same conclusion for people who call others "turds on a sidewalk"? Do you feel that any name calling takes away from the message?

Or the poster a few pages back who said she wanted to kick us in the nuts? What's the psychological profile behind that kind of crappy attitude?

I've said several times that I don't approve of religious folks behaving badly, either. Looked for the nuts comment, couldn't find it.

I have no sympathy for trolls and obnoxious atheists, though. When posters like you get in everybody's face, that's a problem for everybody, religious and atheists alike. If you're behaving like a jerk, then you have it coming. Note I said "you" not "all atheists."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would totally support making usernames mandatory for this forum and the political forum. I don't know if that's possible.

In order to honor the Trump regime?

Is your name Big Brother?

You need to get a grip. Good grief. I wore a pantsuit to vote for Hillary. But as you're demonstrating quite capably right now, it's impossible to have a discussion with posters like you around. For the greater good, we all, and you especially, need to own our posts with handles.

This idea really seems to threaten you Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

PP again. I hesitated to say this, but maybe it needs to be said. Some of the anti-theists I called "bored children" may actually have other psychological needs that lead them to vent their anger/frustration/whatever on anonymous internet posters.

None of this should take away from the legitimacy of anti-theists who got there via bad experiences with religion.

Yep, I know, I overthink these things. If you need me, you'll find me reading Borg and Crossan....)

Do you draw the same conclusion for people who call others "turds on a sidewalk"? Do you feel that any name calling takes away from the message?

Or the poster a few pages back who said she wanted to kick us in the nuts? What's the psychological profile behind that kind of crappy attitude?

I've said several times that I don't approve of religious folks behaving badly, either. Looked for the nuts comment, couldn't find it.

I have no sympathy for trolls and obnoxious atheists, though. When posters like you get in everybody's face, that's a problem for everybody, religious and atheists alike. If you're behaving like a jerk, then you have it coming. Note I said "you" not "all atheists."

Since you seem to know so much about me (and other PPs):
What am I like?
How specifically did I behave like a jerk?

And I "have it coming"? Really? Do you talk to people like that in real life?

Let's get the usernames so we can all see who are the people with truly mean behavior - name calling, etc. Jeff was on this thread earlier - maybe he can help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

PP again. I hesitated to say this, but maybe it needs to be said. Some of the anti-theists I called "bored children" may actually have other psychological needs that lead them to vent their anger/frustration/whatever on anonymous internet posters.

None of this should take away from the legitimacy of anti-theists who got there via bad experiences with religion.

Yep, I know, I overthink these things. If you need me, you'll find me reading Borg and Crossan....)

Do you draw the same conclusion for people who call others "turds on a sidewalk"? Do you feel that any name calling takes away from the message?

Sorry, but I think you'd find pretty broad agreement here that trolls are sort of like turds.

Said by the poster who seems to have an inside track on how most people here think about things?