Do atheists fancy themselves as nonconformists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's review the "mean" posts. Back on page 8, 16:46 had a good list started for the athiest haters. How many dozens have piled on since then? How many "mean" athiest posts on this thread? A fraction.

Why is somehow ok for the haters to be all-out jerks, but not the athiests? Hypo-f*cking-critical.

Once more with feeling: not a single person on this thread, before or after PP's list, has criticized atheists for not believing. 100% of the criticism has been about their behavior. In fact, I think it's fair to say that 100% of the criticism had been about YOUR behavior.

Clear now?

+1

I am 17:19 here and at 10:19am today I listed a lot of posts where I thought believers were being rude when questioning the atheist belief set.

And I agreed with you, some of the questions have been disrespectful. Like asking if you've ever questioned what you think. Perhaps they imply criticism, or perhaps the posters asking this are thoughtless. But to me that's it the same as saying "atheists are bad, thoughtless people."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's review the "mean" posts. Back on page 8, 16:46 had a good list started for the athiest haters. How many dozens have piled on since then? How many "mean" athiest posts on this thread? A fraction.

Why is somehow ok for the haters to be all-out jerks, but not the athiests? Hypo-f*cking-critical.

Once more with feeling: not a single person on this thread, before or after PP's list, has criticized atheists for not believing. 100% of the criticism has been about their behavior. In fact, I think it's fair to say that 100% of the criticism had been about YOUR behavior.

Clear now?

+1

Also. This entire thread is ABOUT atheists behavior. It is attempting to tie a belief system into a behavioral motivation instead of allowing it to exist solely as a belief system.

This thread isn't even posing a discussion about the logical underpinnings of atheist ideas, it starts with the conjecture that people choose to align themselves with atheist principals in order to be noncomformist.

So being proud of the fact that there aren't a lot of christians in this thread tearing down atheist logic is a disingenuous argument. This isn't about atheist logic, its about someone thinking atheists didn't make a choice based in logic but based on reputation. So most of the ensuing discussion has, yes, been about behavior and how one comports themselves rather than the actual ideas.

As I said in 10:19 though I DO think that when actual atheist ideas have been challenged here and there, it has not been done respectfully at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's review the "mean" posts. Back on page 8, 16:46 had a good list started for the athiest haters. How many dozens have piled on since then? How many "mean" athiest posts on this thread? A fraction.

Why is somehow ok for the haters to be all-out jerks, but not the athiests? Hypo-f*cking-critical.

Once more with feeling: not a single person on this thread, before or after PP's list, has criticized atheists for not believing. 100% of the criticism has been about their behavior. In fact, I think it's fair to say that 100% of the criticism had been about YOUR behavior.

Clear now?

+1

I am 17:19 here and at 10:19am today I listed a lot of posts where I thought believers were being rude when questioning the atheist belief set.

And I agreed with you, some of the questions have been disrespectful. Like asking if you've ever questioned what you think. Perhaps they imply criticism, or perhaps the posters asking this are thoughtless. But to me that's it the same as saying "atheists are bad, thoughtless people."

If you agreed with me and posted the bolded then I can't help but feel you are attempting to play both sides of the fence honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

not threatened at all
I just think it's a slippery slope.

So tell me - are you against the proposal to require voter ID?

Yes, I'm against requiring voter ID. In Takoma Park where I voted nobody asked me for ID, and they didn't ask my teen daughter either.

There's no "slippery slope" to democracy that begins with a measure to stop trolling on a mom's internet chat board. Methinks you protest too much.

same thing

ID is ID - unless, of course, we're talking about driving and purchasing alcohol.

So you're against voter ID but for accounts on the political and religious forums. I'm not being difficult at all. I'm just trying to figure out how you justify one over the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

not threatened at all
I just think it's a slippery slope.

So tell me - are you against the proposal to require voter ID?

Yes, I'm against requiring voter ID. In Takoma Park where I voted nobody asked me for ID, and they didn't ask my teen daughter either.

There's no "slippery slope" to democracy that begins with a measure to stop trolling on a mom's internet chat board. Methinks you protest too much.

same thing

ID is ID - unless, of course, we're talking about driving and purchasing alcohol.

So you're against voter ID but for accounts on the political and religious forums. I'm not being difficult at all. I'm just trying to figure out how you justify one over the other.

Different PP. Because one is a constitutional right and another is a private chat website who's forums' use dramatically differs depending on whether or not usernames are used. Posting anonymously on DCUM is not some god given right dude.

Could you please end this ridiculous sidebar. Take it up with jeff in website feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

not threatened at all
I just think it's a slippery slope.

So tell me - are you against the proposal to require voter ID?

Yes, I'm against requiring voter ID. In Takoma Park where I voted nobody asked me for ID, and they didn't ask my teen daughter either.

There's no "slippery slope" to democracy that begins with a measure to stop trolling on a mom's internet chat board. Methinks you protest too much.

same thing

ID is ID - unless, of course, we're talking about driving and purchasing alcohol.

So you're against voter ID but for accounts on the political and religious forums. I'm not being difficult at all. I'm just trying to figure out how you justify one over the other.

Different PP. Because one is a constitutional right and another is a private chat website who's forums' use dramatically differs depending on whether or not usernames are used. Posting anonymously on DCUM is not some god given right dude.

Could you please end this ridiculous sidebar. Take it up with jeff in website feedback.

This. Also, usernames have nothing to do with your real name. Unless you think the moderator is keeping tabs and will report our IPs to... who, exactly?

Signed, pp who votes in TP and thinks usernames would cut down on trolling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there are lots of atheists whose minds need "proof" of religious concepts, but they haven't found it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It's just a different set of mental requirements.

Sure, a strict religious background will cause some people to rebel.

There are also plenty of atheists who share that basic human need for a tribal identity. I don't think that's necessarily bad either. Celebrate your own choices. It's only bad when you start bullying people of faith as a way of solidifying your own choices.

There is a subset of atheists who need to feel victimized and persecuted and seem to seek it out even where it may not exist (like the recent Christmas thread). In their case, the root of the problem probably lies elsewhere in their lives and and many could probably benefit from help.

Signed, a religious person

Then, what gives you the authority to speak for atheists?? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, anybody here could go through this thread and catalogue mean atheist behavior ranging from eye-rolls to calling religion a net negative influence on the world. I personally didn't think OP was that bad, maybe a little naive, but I'll defer to you because you say these these are your feelings.

But why bother, unless we're in some competition to feel the most victimized? That's certainly not something I care about. However, I do agree with others that some--not all!!!--atheists like to play the victim card.

The most interesting thing about this thread is that any anger at atheists hasn't been linked with lack of belief per se. Every single one of your quoted passages, as well as OP, refers to atheists' BEHAVIOR on DCUM and elsewhere. Something to chew on.

I'm sorry, but this is considered "mean behavior"? It's not a personal attack on anyone, just a PP sharing an observation/opinion.

I am the atheist PP who quoted all the religious PPs who I think have been jerks. I think that that was a mean comment by an atheist. There are ways to make that point that are less accusatory. To say that something people find as a cornerstone to their personal belief system has been bad for the world is not something that is going to make you any friends.

To the PP who responded to me. I find it difficult to swallow that posters like you are claiming that atheists love to play the victim card in a thread that was created by a religious person to mock atheists. It is not starting the discussion in fair play to criticize us, have atheists object to being criticized and then say they love playing the victim card. I would never have posted here had the OP not so dismissively and casually insulted people like me. There is a cruel streak in making fun of someone for getting bent about not liking being made fun of. That puts the atheist in an impossible situation. Defend myself and confirm that I am a whiny little victim or say nothing and let you rip on me?

But can a religious person let go of the emotion and try to understand the comment? Think of all of the wars/deaths associated with religion. How many lives have religions saved? Is that observation objectively that far off base?

I don't think there will ever be a meaningful exchange until people let go of the emotion and stop all of the attacks. And learn how to use the reply/quote function properly.

It's irrelevant how many wars and death an atheist might think is caused by the ills of religions. That's simply anti-religious political commentary. "Atheism" isn't political, according to the greek definition; it's simply absence of belief in a deity. A religious person who believes in God can oppose the harms of religion politically too.

If you don't believe in God, that lack of belief can't possibly be based on the fact that religion can cause a lot of misery in the world, because the existence of God or non-existence of God has absolutely nothing to do with whether a particular religion or religions cause misery in the world. Or good in the world.

That's the point. Those who strongly self-identify as "atheists" and publicly proclaim it aren't doing it because of a non belief in a deity. They're doing it because they're anti-religion, and the antagonism towards religion is a political position, not a metaphysical one.

Does it follow, then, that people who strongly identify as theists are anti-atheist? I would say some of them are, but that it is not an identifying characteristic of all theists. I'd say that many theists don't think much about atheists and when they do it's without strong emotions.

See? You did it again. You defined yourself in terms of opposition to theists--opposition to religion. Who cares what theists think?

Atheists do, that's who.

[Anonymous]

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.

And this sums it up.

So what should I say when asked about my religion and religious beliefs? Seriously. I don't go around proselytizing atheism, I use it as a descriptor when my personal religious beliefs are asked about. Which is not often. As someone who grew up catholic, when I decided I wasn't catholic I wanted a term to describe myself as 'catholic' was really a part of my identity.

And I'm a woman. I'm not going to lie about what I believe to make the average Joe feel special if they ask me. And I'm not going to passively watch a thread where I'm being stereotyped as an angry obnoxious ahole with an axe to grind.

You don't have to say anything about your religion or religious beliefs. In fact, why would anyone ask you about your religion or religious beliefs? Atheism means you don't believe in god. It doesn't mean you have to disclose that to anyone. That's your political choice.

[Anonymous]

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.

Nope. I couldn't care less about Hera and Zeus. I don't believe they are gods, but I certainly don't define myself by telling people "I am a person who doesn't believe that the mythical gods of greek mythology are actual supernatural beings." Just like I don't define myself as someone who doesn't believe in U.F.O.'s (to the extent they are spacecraft of alien life forms), even though I don't believe in U.F.O.'s.

If you don't believe in god or gods, that's fine. Why do you define yourself by non-belief in gods? Is there any reason you prefer to define yourself that way rather than as a non-believer in alien U.F.O's.? Or leprachauns? I don't believe in leprachauns or Santa Claus, but I don't define myself as a non-believer in leprachauns or Santa Claus either. That's cause I have no axe to grind with those who believe in greek gods, UFOS, Santa Claus, or leprachauns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

There's nothing stopping an atheist from saying anything they want in response to a question like that. But I have the feeling that with atheists they tend to get in belligerent fights trying to justify their non belief in Hera and Zeus, which I don't understand the point of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

You have to see how that feels like meaningless semantics to us

It is meaningless semantics. That's the whole point. It's not sufficient for an atheist to simply say they don't believe in god or have no religion. They have to attack religion. That's what being an atheist is really all about. It's not metaphysical, it's psychological and political.

Has an atheist ever answered that question by saying "I prefer not to discuss my personal beliefs" or "that's private"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answer is "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

Why would I use 11 words when I can say the same thing with 1? That's like using the dictionary definition of a word rather than the word itself. That seems silly.

only if you want to make an effort to help people understand what an atheist is. i.e., that's it's not a person who is anti-religion or a person who thinks religious people are stupid, or a person who thinks they have all the answers. It's just a person who does not believe in god. I guess I'd add "I'm an atheist" to the end of the quote above to make it perfectly clear. And you're right -- it's like a dictionary definition. It's purpose is to explain, not just to make a statement.

Yes but in reality everyone knows that someone who labels themselves "atheist" rather than just says "non-religious" IS expressing antagonism towards religion. The vast majority of atheists are AGAINST religion, not just because they don't believe in it themselves, they think it's a BAD INFLUENCE on society and think religious people are stupid and superstitious. Which they may be. But labeling yourself an atheist means you want to get down in the trenches and fight about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

You have to see how that feels like meaningless semantics to us

It is meaningless semantics. That's the whole point. It's not sufficient for an atheist to simply say they don't believe in god or have no religion. They have to attack religion. That's what being an atheist is really all about. It's not metaphysical, it's psychological and political.

Has an atheist ever answered that question by saying "I prefer not to discuss my personal beliefs" or "that's private"?

Do you think it's a political position to declare yourself a Christian if asked about your religion? Or do you just say that its private?

In my mind when someone asks me what religion I am and I say atheist I'm saying I don't believe in god. That's it, that's what atheist means, nothing more nothing less.

You just made what appears to be about 4 very combative posts in a row being very rude to atheists. It would be refreshing of your theist pals called you out on that considering I have called my fellow atheists out on their rudeness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answer is "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

Why would I use 11 words when I can say the same thing with 1? That's like using the dictionary definition of a word rather than the word itself. That seems silly.

only if you want to make an effort to help people understand what an atheist is. i.e., that's it's not a person who is anti-religion or a person who thinks religious people are stupid, or a person who thinks they have all the answers. It's just a person who does not believe in god. I guess I'd add "I'm an atheist" to the end of the quote above to make it perfectly clear. And you're right -- it's like a dictionary definition. It's purpose is to explain, not just to make a statement.

Yes but in reality everyone knows that someone who labels themselves "atheist" rather than just says "non-religious" IS expressing antagonism towards religion. The vast majority of atheists are AGAINST religion, not just because they don't believe in it themselves, they think it's a BAD INFLUENCE on society and think religious people are stupid and superstitious. Which they may be. But labeling yourself an atheist means you want to get down in the trenches and fight about it.

Incorrect in all three bolded passages. Everyone does not know that because it isn't true. Plenty of pps in this thread have expressed no antagonism for religion whatsoever. There are a couple who have but the majority have not.

I do not think religious people are stupid. Certainly atheists citing people like Thomas Aquinas and St Anselm don't think all religious people are stupid.

I have no desire to get into the trenches. An atheist did not start this thread I'll remind you. You all brought the fight to us.