Do atheists fancy themselves as nonconformists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"pp pulled words in caps from an earlier post. As for the need for evidence, it's not a unusual or weird thing. We expect (and receive) evidence for a lot of what we believe and act on. Religion is in a different category, where people are expected and encouraged to believe without evidence or even despite evidence. Some people can manage that easily, others try unsuccessfully and others just don't do it and don't see the point."

Again another typical atheist argument. This one isn't really saying God doesn't exist. Rather, it says the evidence presented for God's existence is insufficient to satisfy the atheist's need for tangible certainty of God's existence. Which implies that the atheist believes there is some form or quantum of evidence, which if provided, would satisfy the atheist that God in fact exists (although what that evidence that would satisfy the atheist of God's existence isn't specified). It's not a statement that God is non-existent, it's an affirmative demand that God's existence be proved with evidence, because the atheist actually would like that proof.

Personally, I've never heard an atheist, here or IRL, assert that God does not exist, only that they don't see sufficient evidence to believe in a god and see a sufficient lack of evidence to not believe (e.g., human suffering, natural disasters, prayers not being answered). Religious people have arguments for how there could be a god in spite of human suffering, etc, but atheists do not find those arguments compelling. I've heard some atheists say that they tried to believe and just couldn't and have heard atheists say that their lives would be easier in some ways (e.g., getting along with family) if they could believe. And many pretend to believe or don't state their non-belief because they have learned that such info is not welcomed. I think the response on this board includes evidence of that. Even the title implies it -- atheists fancying themselves as non-conformists, rather than simply being true to themselves. There are societies in Europe, for instance, that are mainly atheist. They have the same non-beliefs as American atheists and are not non-conformists because they are the majority. In those countries,using the same paradigm, people who believe in god would be the non-conformists.

Faith in god has been expected -- the status quo, and deemed superior to non-belief. Atheists expressing their views and their reasons for being atheists can be viewed as being obnoxious among believers, and some (not all) believers think it's perfectly fine, even desirable, to try to save the souls of atheists. That is changing in the US, just as views about LGBTQ people are changing. Fewer and fewer people are threatened by acknowledging the presence of people different from them in their midst and the different people are not expected to hide. I think the same thing is happening with atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

It there an analogy here with vocal and chill homosexuals? Maybe to some extent, though hiding one's atheism requires a lot less effort than hiding one's sexuality. It's easy to quietly not go to church and not actively participate in religious discussions, but less easy to quietly lead a life with a same-sex partner.

There was a time when a majority of straight people preferred homosexuals to just chill, meaning keeping their sexuality to themselves, which meant living a lie. Luckily, those days are over, at least in some places. There is still major resistance among some religious people, just as there is resistance about atheism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

............crickets..............

Theist here who hasn't been involved in this part of the discussion yet. If only one of you could be bothered to call out Groundhog on her anti-Catholic bigotry (and it's not even obvious that was an atheist) then you can't expect lots of us to help you out here. I'm not catholic, but I was appalled by the lack of tgere from you atheists.

Groundhog's straight-up bigotry is a lot "meaner" and more "hateful" than whatever pp is speculating about here. I'm not getting the faux outrage. It doesn't hold a candle to all the stuff you guys say about religion and believers on a daily basis and then plus one each other over. Stop whining, and just tell her she's wrong and why.

Has groundhog poster been posting a bunch in these recent atheist threads? Or is it a more generic poster and you are referencing other threads?

Personally I'm guessing there are two types of religion forum visitors: regulars and those who get pulled in for a time because of a thread that pops up in recent topics. My hypothesis (based on an extensive sampling of n=1 is that many reasonable atheists are likely in the second group. So they may not generally be around to respond to groundhog poster.

This also seems to influence some of the 'why are you here' posts. There seems to be an assumption that atheists are here to debate metaphysical question. I know I for one am not. I'm here because I'm a DCUM addict, I don't have faith and thus have accepted that 'atheist' is a label that applies to me, saw some threads with those terms on Recent Topics and clicked on them. My guess is there are other posters like me on these threads as well. So be aware that we are mostly unaware of any assumptions about what this forum is for, who is actually around posting or what their positions and biases are. I'm inferring some of it from references in these threads of course, but am also getting the impression that there is a large amount of backstory of which I am unaware.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

It there an analogy here with vocal and chill homosexuals? Maybe to some extent, though hiding one's atheism requires a lot less effort than hiding one's sexuality. It's easy to quietly not go to church and not actively participate in religious discussions, but less easy to quietly lead a life with a same-sex partner.

There was a time when a majority of straight people preferred homosexuals to just chill, meaning keeping their sexuality to themselves, which meant living a lie. Luckily, those days are over, at least in some places. There is still major resistance among some religious people, just as there is resistance about atheism.

Vocal atheist PP here. I'd say a significant difference is that homosexuals we less able to live vibrant complete lives if their romantic life had to be kept secret.

I've known very few atheists who feel compelled to live their atheism out loud. Like what does that even mean? I think I should be able to tell people without getting grief but these two scenarios are not comparable IMO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

It there an analogy here with vocal and chill homosexuals? Maybe to some extent, though hiding one's atheism requires a lot less effort than hiding one's sexuality. It's easy to quietly not go to church and not actively participate in religious discussions, but less easy to quietly lead a life with a same-sex partner.

There was a time when a majority of straight people preferred homosexuals to just chill, meaning keeping their sexuality to themselves, which meant living a lie. Luckily, those days are over, at least in some places. There is still major resistance among some religious people, just as there is resistance about atheism.

I've posted frequently though am not vocal atheist. Suppose I need to give myself an identifier for these thread

I think a better analogy might be African Americans who passed as white, though obviously the bias and consequences in that situation were far more significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

It there an analogy here with vocal and chill homosexuals? Maybe to some extent, though hiding one's atheism requires a lot less effort than hiding one's sexuality. It's easy to quietly not go to church and not actively participate in religious discussions, but less easy to quietly lead a life with a same-sex partner.

There was a time when a majority of straight people preferred homosexuals to just chill, meaning keeping their sexuality to themselves, which meant living a lie. Luckily, those days are over, at least in some places. There is still major resistance among some religious people, just as there is resistance about atheism.

I've posted frequently though am not vocal atheist. Suppose I need to give myself an identifier for these thread

I think a better analogy might be African Americans who passed as white, though obviously the bias and consequences in that situation were far more significant.

I like your analogy better. I think pp's analogy doesn't work because there's a difference between 1. I won't tell you I'm LGBT, and 2. I'm going to live in your neighborhood, and 3. I'm going to have sex with my blinds up so you can see. "Vocal" is number 3 but it isn't number 2 like she says.

[Anonymous]

Hmm I identified myself as "vocal atheist" a few pps ago. I'm 17:19 and didn't realize I was identifying with thextraordinarily militant atheists pp was describing. I meant vocal in this thread not in life generally

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

............crickets..............

Theist here who hasn't been involved in this part of the discussion yet. If only one of you could be bothered to call out Groundhog on her anti-Catholic bigotry (and it's not even obvious that was an atheist) then you can't expect lots of us to help you out here. I'm not catholic, but I was appalled by the lack of tgere from you atheists.

Groundhog's straight-up bigotry is a lot "meaner" and more "hateful" than whatever pp is speculating about here. I'm not getting the faux outrage. It doesn't hold a candle to all the stuff you guys say about religion and believers on a daily basis and then plus one each other over. Stop whining, and just tell her she's wrong and why.

Has groundhog poster been posting a bunch in these recent atheist threads? Or is it a more generic poster and you are referencing other threads?

Personally I'm guessing there are two types of religion forum visitors: regulars and those who get pulled in for a time because of a thread that pops up in recent topics. My hypothesis (based on an extensive sampling of n=1 is that many reasonable atheists are likely in the second group. So they may not generally be around to respond to groundhog poster.

This also seems to influence some of the 'why are you here' posts. There seems to be an assumption that atheists are here to debate metaphysical question. I know I for one am not. I'm here because I'm a DCUM addict, I don't have faith and thus have accepted that 'atheist' is a label that applies to me, saw some threads with those terms on Recent Topics and clicked on them. My guess is there are other posters like me on these threads as well. So be aware that we are mostly unaware of any assumptions about what this forum is for, who is actually around posting or what their positions and biases are. I'm inferring some of it from references in these threads of course, but am also getting the impression that there is a large amount of backstory of which I am unaware.

I'm n+1!

This is me exactly. Definitely a DCUM addict, as Jeff can confirm. Also, I definitely get fired up when I think someone is being a jerk (the unhinged theist on some recent threads here and the extremely offense Hillary haters on politics).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

I'm a chill atheist, but a vocal anti-jerk. On these threads I find the unhinged atheist (who sometimes can't reply properly) to be a jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

I'm a chill atheist, but a vocal anti-jerk. On these threads I find the unhinged atheist (who sometimes can't reply properly) to be a jerk.

Which one is the unhinged atheist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

It there an analogy here with vocal and chill homosexuals? Maybe to some extent, though hiding one's atheism requires a lot less effort than hiding one's sexuality. It's easy to quietly not go to church and not actively participate in religious discussions, but less easy to quietly lead a life with a same-sex partner.

There was a time when a majority of straight people preferred homosexuals to just chill, meaning keeping their sexuality to themselves, which meant living a lie. Luckily, those days are over, at least in some places. There is still major resistance among some religious people, just as there is resistance about atheism.

Vocal atheist PP here. I'd say a significant difference is that homosexuals we less able to live vibrant complete lives if their romantic life had to be kept secret.

I've known very few atheists who feel compelled to live their atheism out loud. Like what does that even mean? I think I should be able to tell people without getting grief but these two scenarios are not comparable IMO

I don't know what "feel compelled to live their atheism out loud" means either. what did you mean by it? Is there an analogous living one's religion out loud? If so, how does it manifest itself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

I'm a chill atheist, but a vocal anti-jerk. On these threads I find the unhinged atheist (who sometimes can't reply properly) to be a jerk.

Which one is the unhinged atheist?

A few lovely posts on page 17. I'm on my phone so it's tough to go back and weed out earlier posts. If we had usernames it would be more obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

I'm a chill atheist, but a vocal anti-jerk. On these threads I find the unhinged atheist (who sometimes can't reply properly) to be a jerk.

Which one is the unhinged atheist?

A few lovely posts on page 17. I'm on my phone so it's tough to go back and weed out earlier posts. If we had usernames it would be more obvious.

ah I think you meant unhinged theist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

I'm a chill atheist, but a vocal anti-jerk. On these threads I find the unhinged atheist (who sometimes can't reply properly) to be a jerk.

Which one is the unhinged atheist?

A few lovely posts on page 17. I'm on my phone so it's tough to go back and weed out earlier posts. If we had usernames it would be more obvious.

ah I think you meant unhinged theist!

Yes!!!! Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.

I'm a chill atheist, but a vocal anti-jerk. On these threads I find the unhinged atheist (who sometimes can't reply properly) to be a jerk.

Which one is the unhinged atheist?

A few lovely posts on page 17. I'm on my phone so it's tough to go back and weed out earlier posts. If we had usernames it would be more obvious.

ah I think you meant unhinged theist!

Yes!!!! Sorry.

There's definitely an unhinged atheist who loves to push theist buttons.

If we could somehow shut both these posters down then maybe we could all have actual conversations.