Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo 553 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cofty

  An agnostic may range from half believing to not sure, to being almost completely certain
  that there isn't any God but allows that they simply don't 100% know.

  By this definition which is only ever used by believers Dawkins is not an atheist. In fact by this definition I have never encountered an atheist.

  To repeat myself....

  The crux of the matter is not the degree of certainty. Atheism is more of a passive or negative position, "disbelief in god" rather than a positive "there is no god" position.

  Most people are either believers, or as Dawkins said they "believe in belief".

  Atheists just go a bit further and say something like, "I don't believe in god due to lack of evidence and I don't think belief or faith is a virtue I am missing out on".

  Agnosticism is usually reserved for somebody who thinks the question is unknowable. An agnostic reserves all judgement about whether or not there is a god - an atheist does not. Just becasue somebody like myself allows for the extremely tiny possibility that a supernatural being exists does not make me an agnostic. Its not as if I think its 50:50.

  The word atheism needs to allow for some spectrum of certainty just as faith does. To me it simply means without (belief in) god.

  However when I say "there is no god" there would be an implied, "subject to the vanishingly small possibility of, as yet unknown, evidence to the contrary".
• 

  Phizzy

  Thanks Cofty, good definitions, and your last sentence above sums up the attitude of all the non-Theists I have met.

  There is another kind of Agnostic , one who says "God" is necessarily unknowable, we cannot get such knowledge, much like the En Sof of Jewish Kabbalah, and I think even the Christian thinkers have got close to that position with their unknowable "Mystery of the Godhead".

  So, on threads such as this I think to avoid long arguments about labels we accept for ourselves , or wish to slap on others, we should define the concept we are debating either for or against, not the label.

  There are too many shades (50 shades of Belief next E.L.J ?) of Atheist, Agnostic,Theist, Deist etc etc to chuck labels around.

  Lets just discuss our ideas without labels.
• 

  ziddina

  "...However when I say "there is no god" there would be an implied, "subject to the vanishingly small possibility of, as yet unknown, evidence to the contrary"." Cofty, page 26

  Hmph...

  When I say, "There is no 'god'...", I am referring to the johnny-come-lately 'gods' generated by humans within the last 10,000 years... Any "god" - or "goddess" - that originated within the time following the last 10,000 years, has absolutely NO claim to being the 'real creator', based on the simple fact that 'they' didn't come "first".

  "yahweh", "jehovah", "jesus", "allah", the Hindu "gods" and "goddesses" - even the so-called "pagan" gods of the Canaanites, the Minoans, the Celts - ALL have arrived VERY late upon the scene, and have no valid claim by the mere fact that humanity was engaging in some OTHER form of worship, prior to that time period.

  I excluded Buddhism, since in Buddhism there IS no "supreme deity"...

  So, when I say, "There is no god", I am taking the entire current spate of imagined "gods" - AND all derivatives of these "gods" - into consideration.

  Unfortunately, that is apparently too deep and requires too much knowledge about humanity's past forms of worship AND the history -the EVOLUTION - of religion, for most people to understand.

  That incredibly flat statement - "There is no 'god'..." Without some sort of historical references AND understanding of what "gods/goddesses" are involved - well, I can see why so many people on this board think that an "atheist" can only be 99% sure that there is no "god".

  Speaking of the recent "deities", I am 100% sure that there is no "deity".

  On the subject of older deities, I am 99.9999999999999999% sure that there is no "deity" - though I acknowledge the long-standing need of most of humanity to generate 'deities' to enable them to deal with the crises of life, especially the ultimate crisis, one's own death.

  Zid
• 

  loosie

  well I am an atheist. I don't care what others believe. But when you want to teach intelligent design in public schools... I have a problems with that. When people want to put biblical laws on my body I have a problem with that. When you ask me if I believe in god and I honestly tell you no I am an atheist and you clutch your chest gasp and take a step back, as if you just saw a huge spider, I have a problems with that. When someone thinks I have no morals or I will go out and kill somebody just because I don't beleive in a god, I have a problem with that. And when someone says " oh you don't believe well them I will pray for you" I have a problem with that.
• 

  Chariklo

  But, crucially, loosie, do you go round deriding scornfully those who do have a belief, of whatever sort?

  My guess is that you don't. The point of this thread, though you'd never guess it from many of the preceding posts, was to try to find out why some, just some, probably only a very few atheists here on this board feel the need to ridicule those who do have beliefs. You are not among those who behave in that way, so don't worry.

  Ziddina:

  LOL! I really loved the way you gave us a quick tour through the divine entities that came to your mind and then said, dismissively, "they have no valid claim"!

  That's so funny! Ziddina has spoken! Abandon hope, all ye gods and goddesses, and any divine being who might happily be floating around minding your own business!

  You don't exist! Ziddina has spoken! Don't bother to submit your claim. It's not valid!
• 

  NewChapter

  By this definition which is only ever used by believers Dawkins is not an atheist. In fact by this definition I have never encountered an atheist.

  I think it may be very difficult for some non-atheists to fully grasp this, because they deal in absolutes. So there may be only 3 positions they can fully understand---There is a god----There is no god----I'm not sure.

  Atheists don't deal in such absolutes, and are more interested in evidence and probablities. We are comfortable with a bit of uncertainty and unanswered questions. So it may be very difficult to understand that we are good saying there is no evidence for a god, and if new evidence presents we will consider it, but we go with the probability and the probabilty per the evidence is 99.99% against. Because we allow for that .01% of a chance that new evidence will come along, many non-atheists conclude that we are agnostic and not atheists. Which is why it is problematic for a non-atheist to try and define the atheist experience. Our minds just don't work the same in this area.

  I have tried to explain this many times, but there are always a few who prefer their own defintion and wish to pretend that we are more unsure than we really are. They just can't grasp the concept outside of their own world view. I don't know if the effort to explain will ever really pay off. Some non-atheists will think as they will, and will never fully understand, either intentionally, or because they are incapable at the moment, that we don't deal in absolutes and are very comfortable with that.

  There are some non-atheists that get this, but for those that don't, they simply don't.
• 

  rather be in hades

  But, crucially, loosie , do you go round deriding scornfully those who do have a belief, of whatever sort?

  based on everything loosie just said, can you honestly not see why believers would be scorned and looked at in such a manner?

  our politics, science, healthcare and social laws are being screwed with by people who have beliefs with no basis in reality. some of which happens to be very dangerous.

  you have all kinds of atheists saying they don't care so long as your beliefs don't affect them, yet believers affect them by the silly laws they push forth.

  frankly, it's very disrespectful. so too, is preaching.

  then we have believers looking down on atheists for having "loose morals". morals based on?

  surely you can see how believers might be just a little bit annoying. especially when we have the likes of those harming homosexuals and bombing health clinics over mythology.
• 

  sizemik

  The point of this thread, though you'd never guess it from many of the preceding posts, was to try to find out why some, just some, probably only a very few atheists here on this board feel the need to ridicule those who do have beliefs. You are not among those who behave in that way, so don't worry.

  You'd never have guessed it from the OP either . . .

  We've gone from a general statement about "Atheists" to "only a very few here" . . . after further disqualifying everybody here with a strict interpretation of a label.

  The truth has been stated already . . . "a very few here" will use ridicule regardless of the subject or thier stance on it. Believers, Atheists, Agnostics, Republicans, Democrats . . . use whatever label you like, the asshole ratio is always the same.

  The OP was fallacious in it's premise and it's wording . . . and simply reflected a personal prejudice.
• 

  braincleaned

  // First of all, they illogically and conveniently forget that they, too, are "believers". They passionately believe that there is no god.//
  
  THis is one of the reasons we atheists get a little frustrated.
  It's a very ill statement to classify atheism as a belief. What it is is simply a lack of beleif.
  
  Atheism is a belief as much as non-running is a sport.
  
  Theist believe in God, atheists simply do not find the evidence of God.
  The problem is that theists often find atheists offensive because of their lack of belief - and even more angry when we ask for evidence of god(s), as of course, there is none.
  
  I can respect those who choose Faith as described in Heb. 11:1 -- but I don't have to respect that believing in the unprovable is a valid stance, especially as Paul explains it must be based in hope - or what could be described as hopeful (or wishful) thinking.
  
  This is one of the reasons that atheists get frustrated and sometimes bite back. However, there is no good reason to ridicule anyone's stand. I was a believer myself for for over 4 decades.
  
• 

  frankiespeakin

  This what I get out of this thread:

  Labels labels labels we need to get out from underneath the tyranny of labels and label definitions, labels confine, they pigeon hole, they nail down and make unmoveable.

  Absolute labels corrupt absolutely.

  Now lets get closer to the quantum level of uncertainty and human measurement problem not to mention the symbolic nature of human words and an exact meaning that fits all across the boards to every psyche's projection associated with it.

  Absolutes just make room for more paradoxes, if we avoid absolutes I think this is a step into the quantum world of superpositions, wave and particle duality, waves of probability with no disinct point.