What Irks You Most About Atheists, Agnostics, And Non-Believers?

[Augustus]

From your original post, it seemed you were saying that many irreligious people like you (and me) have an excessive faith that members of our species have an "ability to be consistently rational".

I certainly do not share that viewpoint. I don't think that our species has an "ability to be consistently rational".

Now you are saying that religions make us irrational. But then who is this us? How is it that we are now suddenly irrational?

Us = humans

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well I've read a lot of research making that claim

The survey most quoted by atheist takes Catholic understanding/beliefs then scores Christians wrong if their understanding is not Catholic doctrine

Well...then it seems to me that the problem is?

The christian god has failed pretty thoroughly to prevent schism and the breaking apart. What was the last count? More than 45,000 separate and distinct brands of 'christian' in the world?

That tells me that someone has dropped the ball...

But it's a Fair Complaint that not all christians are catholic, and vice-versa. How dare we expect these groups, who claim to use the same book, cannot, even a little, agree with what this book is supposed to be saying.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

The christian god has failed pretty thoroughly to prevent schism and the breaking apart.

I thought you were an atheist

 

[ecco]

My grief is not representative of the whole. But here goes:

Your comments in blue, my responses in red.

That their idealogue is foolproof and that the only reasonable people must take their position. No one has to take my position. It would be silly to expect that.

The flying spaghetti monster argument. The FSM or Last Thursdayism is every bit as good as Genesis or any other Creation story.

The assumption that all God believers are religious or adhere to a particular religion. I think that most atheists have heard of Deism. There are other reasons people believe in a god, God, gods but do not follow a religion.

Everything is a logical fallacy from those they oppose. "Everything" is too strong of a word. More accurate would be "many religious beliefs are illogical".

If it does not logically follow for them, then it should not logically follow for anyone else. IOW, their intuition is superior to all other intuitions. Not sure why you would put intuition and logic into the same bucket. I rarely if ever rely on my intuition.

The attitude of ridicule. Some things deserve ridicule. Serious discussions deserve serious comments and responses. Citing Answers in Genesis as a reasonable source of scientific study deserves ridicule.

The priesthood of scientific authority over all people's lives. That is pretty much an unfounded assertion. Perhaps you would give some examples.

The idea that philosophy is useless, and only science reigns supreme. Again, that is an unfounded assertion. Philosophy has its place. But not in the realm of science. Injecting philosophy into science leads to woo and thence, ridicule.

Ultimate questions are all within the realm and grasp of science. Ultimate questions like how many universes exist are indeed within the realm of science. The grasp, probably not. Ultimate questions like how many gods exist are not within the realm of science. In my opinion, those are in the realm of fiction.

 

[ecco]

But, OK. Let's have a serious discussion.

A couple of quick questions before we begin.
Do you believe God is eternal?
Do you believe God is omniscient?
Do you believe God is omnipotent?
Do you believe the Genesis story to be factual, especially the Adam, Eve, Tree part?

No.
No.
No.
No.

OK then. What would you like to have a serious discussion about?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

OK then. What would you like to have a serious discussion about?

Your choice.

 

[ecco]

yes

yes

yes

no

So, how did your omnipotent God Create Man?

 

[Augustus]

Philosophy has its place. But not in the realm of science. Injecting philosophy into science leads to woo and thence, ridicule.

Another tiresome thing that many atheists have a habit of doing is falling into these scientistic ways of thinking.

Let's contrast your views with those of a certain Dr Albert Einstein:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason. (Einstein 1916, 102)

Is he also to be subject to ridicule for promoting such woo?

Anyway, you can't even have a 'realm of science' without philosophy

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[SugarOcean]

.

​

This isn't meant to get personal, ragging on your most detested atheist, agnostic, or non-believer, but to consider the most irksome general approaches and conduct they display.

Think in terms of, "They . . . .".

Irks? Nothing.
Amuses? Oh, yes. To witness the "no life" display that enters religious forums is educational.
In matters of forum membership "they" join religious forums to rag on people who do believe.
That isn't representative of a secure atheist, agnostic or non-believer. That's evidence of immaturity, insecurity and a predisposition to trolling. In the off-line world they'd never goad, harass, mock, ridicule, or openly display contempt. Forums are the outlet for the malcontent atheist, agnostic, and non-believer.

There is no God.
OK.
Why harass a group of people who believe differently?

Oh, there's always an excuse. None of which is actually viable or relevant or true.
Theirs is the hobby of the empty bully.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Anyway, you can't even have a 'realm of science' without philosophy

I am trying very hard not to laugh at people. Ouch. I wonder if the term "natural philosophy" has any meaning to some people.

 

[Neutral Name]

I don't see that as typical of atheists. They're usually pretty low key and self effacing, in my experience.
Do you have some examples?
LOL. I'm not a "fanboy," though I'm sure he makes some cogent arguments. I'll bet most atheists don't even know who Dawkins is.
Most atheists, I think, keep a pretty low profile, and don't advertise their opinions, lest they find themselves in an unwanted debate.

That's so funny. I asked my son, an atheist, if he knew who Richard Dawkins is and he didn't.

 

[Neutral Name]

I don't want to generalise all atheists here since atheism itself isn't the reason I'd have an issue with somebody. If we're talking pet peeves though, there are a couple of things that make me wince.

Sometimes a person will find a particular criticism of Abrahamic Monotheism and think they've found an all-purpose foil to theism and/or religion in general. I suspect this is cultural as if you've grown up in the Bible Belt or somewhere similar, it's very likely you haven't had much experience beyond the dominant religion of that area. That's understandable but it becomes an issue if that view is maintained in the face of contrary information.

The comforting fictions thing that @Augustus mentioned is also irritating. It's doubly irritating when that same person possesses a starry-eyed wonder at just how gosh darned great humans are.

Finally it's the jokes. George Carlin's invisible man in the sky routine was funny at the time but that joke has since been pounded into the dirt by repetition. It's the Knights Who Say Ni effect. Also, when somebody compares deities to fairies in an attempt to be derisive, it makes me sincerely wish that more people would do some bloody research. It's not necessarily an unfair comparison to make but when somebody does it with sparkly ballerinas in mind they really are showing their ignorance.

Again, this isn't a criticism of atheists as a whole nor is it a criticism of atheism itself. These are just behaviours from some people that I find irritating.

I do find some atheists irritating but I find some religious people more irritating.

 

[ecco]

I agree that I could have phrased it a bit less ambiguous to make clear what I mean, so again: "what bothers me is that they can't see the psychological benefits of having a religion like those effects which it clearly has on me and which it also seems to have on many other people".
Admittedly, on very many people religion has negative effects.

Why does it bother you that people don't agree with you on the benefits of religious beliefs?

Why are you so certain that religious beliefs bestow psychological benefits? So far, all I've seen are anecdotal assertions; your own experience and what it seems to have on others. Believing that, since you see, everyone should see it, is very arrogant.

Out of curiosity, what phrase were you ***ing in your comment? (perhaps it's obvious but English isn't my native language).

If they were obvious I would have gotten wrist-slapped for violating rules. Let's just assume they were not very flattering to you.

 

[Neutral Name]

Irks? Nothing.
Amuses? Oh, yes. To witness the "no life" display that enters religious forums is educational.
In matters of forum membership "they" join religious forums to rag on people who do believe.
That isn't representative of a secure atheist, agnostic or non-believer. That's evidence of immaturity, insecurity and a predisposition to trolling. In the off-line world they'd never goad, harass, mock, ridicule, or openly display contempt. Forums are the outlet for the malcontent atheist, agnostic, and non-believer.

There is no God.
OK.
Why harass a group of people who believe differently?

Oh, there's always an excuse. None of which is actually viable or relevant or true.
Theirs is the hobby of the empty bully.

I do believe in God now but I was an atheist in the past. I felt no compunction to speak negatively to people who did believe. I just thought that they were pretty crazy and left it at that.

 

[ecco]

1)That they think the reason they're not believers is that they're so smart.

"Smart" has little to do with religious beliefs. The reason people are religious can usually be traced back to childhood indoctrination.

2)Their frequent use of the adjective 'stupid'.

Not on this forum. Calling some stupid, even when it is warranted, will get you warnings and possibly banishment.

 

[Neutral Name]

Why does it bother you that people don't agree with you on the benefits of religious beliefs?

Why are you so certain that religious beliefs bestow psychological benefits? So far, all I've seen are anecdotal assertions; your own experience and what it seems to have on others. Believing that, since you see, everyone should see it, is very arrogant.




If they were obvious I would have gotten wrist-slapped for violating rules. Let's just assume they were not very flattering to you.

I find it very interesting that my son is an atheist and has no reason whatsoever to believe. I asked him about what if he died. He said, oh well, I will stop existing. He doesn't care and doesn't fear. He just believes that life is what it is and that is all there is. I respect him for that.

 

[ecco]

Are you being triggered?

Please explain.

 

[Augustus]

I am trying very hard not to laugh at people. Ouch. I wonder if the term "natural philosophy" has any meaning to some people.

Isn't that the New Age stuff where people walk around barefooted in the woods holding crystals then do some expressive dance where they turn from an acorn into a mighty oak?

Get back to the 60s, hippies!

 

[Neutral Name]

"Smart" has little to do with religious beliefs. The reason people are religious can usually be traced back to childhood indoctrination.


Not on this forum. Calling some stupid, even when it is warranted, will get you warnings and possibly banishment.

Not me. I was raised as an atheist. My father was a biologist-Darwin? I had to have things happen before I believed in God. I have personal proof.

 

[Willamena]

Another tiresome thing that many atheists have a habit of doing is falling into these scientistic ways of thinking.

Let's contrast your views with those of a certain Dr Albert Einstein:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason. (Einstein 1916, 102)

Is he also to be subject to ridicule for promoting such woo?

Anyway, you can't even have a 'realm of science' without philosophy

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

This.