Atheists have a lot to be angry about; after all they lack the security blanket of a sky-daddy — TheMadFool
the security blanket of a sky-daddy who will, according to believers, set all things right in the end — TheMadFool
Fortunately, I decided I should check out other points of view on god and encountered agnosticism. Agnosticism, to me, is the refusal to commit to a side in the god-debate for the simple reason that the evidence and arguments from both sides of the divide are unsatisfactory and this is an incontrovertible truth and thus is the best option in my mind. Both unfortunately and as expected, agnosticism doesn't get as much publicity as its more flamboyant cousins, atheism and theism, and so people, unaware of its existence, simply don't have it in their list of available belief options. I don't blame anyone for it though; after all to say "I don't know whether god exists/not" is rather dull and uninteresting. — TheMadFool
I haven't read his posts, but if the idea is to defuse tensions a post like this is a bad approach. You are telling someone that they are not a true X. Then telling them what they should feel. Then telling him his belief system is weak. And then that he should have his feelings. That seems like baiting to me. Trigger anger while judging anger.If you were a true atheist, you would care less about this kind of stuff. But, apparently, your belief system is weak. Why can't you just say the EOG is false, rather than project your apparent frustration and/or vengefulness and/or resentment. Get over it. — 3017amen
3017amen
1.4k
↪Coben
Maybe you should read the thread instead of troll it.
Otherwise , to answer your concern, it's called tough love. — 3017amen
angry commentators are going to rise to the top faster than people looking to build bridges — Coben
Embrace interpretation errors, lost Gospel's, forbidden text's (Spinoza's) , translation errors, religion exclusivity (King James version excludes the book of Sirach; American Standard includes same), metaphor, allegory, etc. — 3017amen
Anger is anger. — 3017amen
The question becomes what should one do with that anger. — 3017amen
Maybe that's why the religious are angry. — god must be atheist
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. — Quran 2:256
They are envious of the freedom and liberty the atheists enjoy without the confines and the yoke of prescribed restrictions by religions. I don't blame the religious for being envious of the atheists. — god must be atheist
Religious people are not envious of atheists. — alcontali
Religious people are not angry at atheists. — alcontali
It's your word against mine. We both have reasons to support our opinions — god must be atheist
You did not convince me. — god must be atheist
you are an Islaimic fundamentalist and I stop arguing with you at this point out of fear. Fear for my physical well-being, for my life. — god must be atheist
I have no interest in running for my life from the likes of you. — god must be atheist
You settle philosophical matters by killing your opponents. — god must be atheist
You are one person who belongs to the sect that kills the French editorial staff, who hunts down the guy who wrote that book and is in secretive exile. — god must be atheist
So far I am still alive because I battle only Christians on their beliefs. I shalt never battle Muslims. — god must be atheist
For fear of being hurt or killed for it. — god must be atheist
Malice, you must have heard the joke about the two religious dudes who got so happy that they ate each other's shit. — god must be atheist
I guess one possible source of anger - which some on both (all the) sides engage in, is poorly supported generalizations. In a thread with the intention, it seems, from later posts, to be about reducing animosity, we have an OP summing up the emotional state of a large group of people, with no evidence at all. This would likely anger people in any group that gets summed up. Bill O'Reilly is not a sociologist. It's his impression. The way news works and what becomes popular, angry commentators are going to rise to the top faster than people looking to build bridges. The people who decide to press their ideas in the public realm are more likely to be aggressive in general. That's often a good quality to elbow yourself to the front. There could be all kinds of biases that would lead those who think atheism correlates with anger to think they know this. But, really, we have no evidence, scientific evidence for example, or survey evidence, that atheists are angrier than theists or the norm of shopkeepers. So, maybe a first step would be not to accept the generalization nor spread it. I can't see how it could possibly do anything but piss off whatever group this kind of generalization gets aimed at. And then they are in a Catch 22.
Well at least you don't come across as angry with an axe to grind, regardless... .
As far as uninteresting, this is one reason I like to read from theoretical physics... whether it's from Dawkins, Einstein, or probably my favorite Paul Davies, it's all good. I take bits and pieces from all perspectives.
Though Dennett comes across as the stereotypical angry or resentful Atheist, or maybe he's just an angry man LOL. He doesn't get very good book reviews.
Thanks for sharing. I suppose life must be good when folks can find the time to get angry about such things. — 3017amen
Coben
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Odd that you liked that. You bring anger directly to discourse as an agnostic. You seem very angry. I was criticizing in this thread his approach, which it seems to me is masked aggresssion, which he is now calling tough love. it seems like a couple of angry people, you and him, who judge the directness of the anger of those atheists who are publically angry. No, that doesn't even work, since you are directly angry in your threads. I didn't realize you had a problem with people being angry. Or is it just other people? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. — Coben
Even odder that you find it odd that I gave Amen an AMEN on the comment. I saw it to be a nail being hit squarely on its head. — Frank Apisa
I was criticizing in this thread his approach, which it seems to me is masked aggresssion, which he is now calling tough love. — Coben
But guess what, we live in the information age now. Why can't we move past the old paradym's and be a little more sophisticated about our views (say, concerning EOG ?). There is no reason why we can't. Wouldn't that help with the anger issue?
This is what I don't understand. If I'm an atheist, I would not be angry toward Christianity because it would have no effect on my emotional well being. So, my question is why are Atheists so resentful when it makes better sense to say 'I don't believe in God, therefore, I'm happy'?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.