Atheists have a lot to be angry about; after all they lack the security blanket of a sky-daddy — TheMadFool

Then why are the religious just as angry?

the security blanket of a sky-daddy who will, according to believers, set all things right in the end — TheMadFool

What if you followed every tenet of your religion, for instance, Christianity, and once in a while fantasized about your neighbours ass... and your faer daddy would condemn you for eternal suffering in hell fire for that. Would you still call him perfect and fair? The believers have more to doubt than the non-believers... the believers have the daily, the yearly, the monthly and the minute-to-minute restrictions they need to fight to keep with tooth and nail against Satan's temptations. There, you may have a miserable life, but at the end you hope to sit on the right of Jesus the Christ, except once in your 89 years of earthly life, you thought of thy neighbour's ass... bang, you end up in hell, forever to suffer in brimestone and hellfire in eternal, horrible suffering.

Maybe that's why the religious are angry. 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. Except... isn't envy a deadly sin?

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 agree...it is rather dull and uninteresting.

BUT...(a huge BUT)...if the objective is to lessen the influence of religion in our lives...agnosticism provides a stronger, more realistic approach to that end.

Essentially, the atheistic approach is to say, "Your blind guess that there is a God IS WRONG...and my blind guess that there are no gods IS CORRECT."

That approach is going nowhere...and actually is counterproductive. It reinforces the idea that blind guesses about this issue...MAKE SENSE.

News flash: They don't.

Better to simply say: We do not know if gods exist or not; the evidence (such as exists) is so ambiguous as to be worthless; and making blind guesses about it is about as good as using a coin flip...so let's not do it.

Look...it ain't gonna work anyway. The religious will almost always decide it makes sense to presume a God...and the atheist will almost decide to be arrogant in his/her denial. But at least we would be working toward the end in a reasonable way.

Or at least, that is my opinion.

atheist,

Let's get real. Are you angry about something? I mean dude, you've got to slay those Gilligan's!

Are you not more sophisticated than that? In other words, you judge people for not being good philosopher's, yet if you study the Philosophy of Religion, you would see that religious dogma is simply that, dogma.

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.

You can't seem to let it go. Why do you have an interminable axe to grind? Go ahead, vent. But how about resolving the discrepancy... .

tic toc tic toc

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.

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

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.

Why not just get over his anger if he has that more than others?

Why tell other people to just move on, rather than move on yourself. So he vents a little in a philosophy forums. Just move on yourself. Live the value yourself.

If he hits someone, then call the cops or whatever.

What is so triggering for you about emotions? Is your belief system weak?

See, how ridiculous that is.

Maybe you should read the thread instead of troll it.

Otherwise , to answer your concern, it's called tough love.

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

Amen, please allow me an AMEN to this!

Look I'm not trying to give flippant responses.

Here's the thing:

1. We are reasonably educated adults
2. The worn-out paradigms from grade school should no longer apply to those who have a reasonable amount of intellect.
3. There is no need to overthink emotions. Anger is anger. The question becomes what should one do with that anger.
4. How healthy is it for the individual to be angry and resentful over the same thing for years and years
5. Would education and the study of religion in all of its history, provide insight to the false paradigms that are considered antiquated and no longer apply.
6. In the information age of the 21st century are we not sophisticated enough to apply common sense when enterpreting Christian philosophy (the Bible's neither a physics book/medical science book).
7. 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, simile, euphemism, etc. etc..

Maybe I just don't understand the dynamic behind this interminable state of anger and resentment.

(Without getting into detail it is worth noting I am well aware -personally- of the dysfunction and abusive behavior coming from our religious institutions. Unfortunately, all of us have had experience with, or are exposed to, dysfunctional behavior including unexpected disappointment associated with many facets of the human condition.)

angry commentators are going to rise to the top faster than people looking to build bridges — Coben

It's a bridge no side wishes to cross, yet wants all on the other side to cross to their side.

Anger is a better emotion to employ to deal with this situation, than peaceful negotiation. Peaceful negotiation leads to nowhere... anger leads to nowhere... except it gets rid of the frustration and venge built up. Anger, when properly dished out on unsuspecting passer-byes (by street preachers), can feel very good for the angry person.

The reason angry commentators rise to the top is that it resonates with the masses who stand behind the ideology which that angry person supports.

Everybody is angry. And we are not going to take it any more.

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

This is why I say you ain't no philosopher. Because:
- to a chicken farmer you can't say don't count your eggs
- to a mathematician you can't say "live with the erroneous answer"
- to a doctor you can't say "malpractice suits are good for you"
- to an engineer you can't say "live with the collapse of the bridge you built"
and
- to a philosopher you can't say "accept arguments that defy the law of non-contradiction."

Anger is anger. — 3017amen

Incredibly bright and astute insight.

The question becomes what should one do with that anger. — 3017amen

You don't do anything with anger. (Obviously you've never been angry, otherwise you'd know.) Anger is the resolution of an untenable situation. It is the final result, it is not something that you do something with. It makes you do things, it does not let you do things to it. You are getting farther and farther away from your clear insight, which you expressed as "Anger is anger".

Maybe that's why the religious are angry. — god must be atheist

Religious people are not angry at atheists. Religion is a matter of self-discipline only. There is no requirement for you to have any self-discipline at all:

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

In principle, nobody cares if you believe in God or not. It just means that you could be incompatible with religious people for particular contract types. For example, religion has a framework for marriage and divorce. If you do not subscribe to these terms and conditions, you cannot marry someone who does.

That is a generalized principle, actually.

If you do not subscribe to the terms and conditions of your gym club, you cannot become or remain a member of it.

Just like we need a regulatory framework for using gym clubs, we also need one for marriage and divorce. Since atheism does not propose any framework for that contract -- or for any contract for that matter -- it is doubtful that marriage can even work at all for atheists.

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. The lack of personal self-discipline and of a regulatory framework for an entire set of standard agreements, is not something to be envious about. It would be like saying that people who watch their carb intake and regularly exercise would be envious of obese individuals who suffer from type-2 diabetes.

Religious people are not envious of atheists. — alcontali

It's your word against mine. We both have reasons to support our opinions, but they are opinions verifiable only by empirical means and both of us lack the statistical verification required.

You did not convince me. I still am on the opinion, and you can't deny that it's as valid as yours.

Religious people are not angry at atheists. — alcontali

Again, you are one religious person. Do you dwell in the minds of all religious people? No. Your argument is as valid or invalid as mine.

alcontali, you are an Islamic fundamentalist and I stop arguing with you at this point out of fear. Fear for my physical well-being, for my life. 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. I have no interest in running for my life from the likes of you.

You settle philosophical matters by killing your opponents.

So far I am still alive because I battle only Christians on their beliefs. I shalt never battle Muslims. For fear of being hurt or killed for it.

Malice, you must have heard the joke about the two religious dudes who got so happy that they ate each other's shit.

So, were not going to call the Kettle (O'Riley) black with anger too?

It's your word against mine. We both have reasons to support our opinions — god must be atheist

Of course. Human behaviour is generally not even testable ...

You did not convince me. — god must be atheist

You believe what you want!

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

ha aha aah ha ha! ;-)

I have no interest in running for my life from the likes of you. — god must be atheist

Then don't ! ;-)

You settle philosophical matters by killing your opponents. — god must be atheist

Me? ;-)

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

I have not looked up the details of these cases.

So far I am still alive because I battle only Christians on their beliefs. I shalt never battle Muslims. — god must be atheist

Strange, because I do not battle Christians on their beliefs. Muslims consider Christianity to be another branch that emerged out of the Mosaic congregation, just like the Rabbinic and Islamic ones did. A good part of the Sunnah (=transmitted traditions) are therefore a shared heritage.

In the case of the complaint about O'Reilly's complaint, I actually agree with his opponents. Christians are not supposed to impose their views on non-Christians by asking their non-Christian children to sing Christmas carols. Still, I also believe that children of Christian families are meant to be singing them.

On the other hand, there is enough in common between Muslims and the other Abrahamic branches for numerous Muslim families to find (private) Jewish and Catholic schools suitable for their children to enrol in, apparently, even with a preference for Jewish schools. It works like a charm for private schools. The problem of insensitivity mostly occurs in the public-school indoctrination camps.

For fear of being hurt or killed for it. — god must be atheist

Your fears are predictable, actually.

The believers fear God. The non-believers do not fear God, but fear instead the ones who do fear God, because that is the natural order of things. It is a hierarchy that naturally emerges from the laws of nature. Hence, what you are telling me now certainly does not come as a surprise.

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 can honestly say I have not.

That was a thoughtful post on my part related to your posts, me trying to get what you are doing in this thread, given the many approaches possible from the OP. Was I incorrect that you were trying to reduce anger in public discourse over issues around atheism and theism, for example? If I was incorrect, my apologies. If I was correct about that, the points I made in the previous post still stand. Being condescending and mind reading someone in the way you did is just being a cool contributer to the aggression. Condescension and mind reading are aggressive tactics.

Tough love was a term developed for caregivers of at risk children then spread as part of authoritative parenting. So you are continuing a condescending attitude with a guiding heuristic that is condenscending. It doesn't matter what his posts say.

One can be tough and not accept certain types of behavior, stand your ground and speak truthfully to someone without being condescending and without pretending to read their minds.

I was not suggesting you be nice to him. It's not a binary situation, where you are are all nicey nicey or you respond with what you are calling tough love. There are many ways of responding, and given your seeming to have the goal of reducing anger, I was suggesting that your approach is a poor one.

Is your approach off limits for discussion?

I am trying to see if the thread itself is trolling. I have some criticisms of the science of the OP, which you did not respond to in my first post, though you thanked me for that post. And so I extended them here in a later post you did not respond to....

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.

IOW we are just supposed to accept the generalization based on the evidence of Mr. O'Reilly. Many people have the impression Christians are per se angry. Impressions. Is it true, however, in either case?

Theoretically you are judging people for being angry for a long time. What do you do in your thread that is in some way trying to remedy this or deal with such people with tough love?

Generalize about them with poor evidence: a la O'Reilly as evidence. When it is pointed out that this is poor evidence focus on other issues. You also deal with someone who is angry with condescension and mind-reading. When it is pointed out that perhaps your approach is just as much a part of the problem, this is called trolling. It seems like trolling to me to generalize about people without evidence, then when they get angry, condescend to them. When criticisms are aimed at your approach, call that trolling and never respond to those criticisms.

How convenient.

I've had run ins with god is an atheist. I am not his pal, nor do I share is worldview in a number of ways, not being an atheist.

Condescension is not going to defuse anything, and it itself is a form of aggression. And that would seem to be important to you, given your supposed goals. Since you and your behavior/stance seem to be a taboo subject in the thread, I'll leave the thread to you. I find the immaculate to be poor discussion partners.

double

Maybe I exaggerated a bit when I said atheism is "dull and uninteresting" but if one samples media coverage, it's always either theism and its arch rival atheism or a debate between them; agnosticism just doesn't get adequate screen time to get noticed.

What could be the reason for this?

It could be that people simply love a good fight. For that there has to be a strong rivalry and what better rivals then arch enemies, theism and atheism? Agnosticism simply doesn't cut it as a strong enough challenge does it? I mean a person who thinks god exists would see a person who's position on the issue is "I don't know" less threatening than someone who denies the existence of god. The situation, atheism-theism in the limelight and agnosticism sidelined, reflects our psychology and we're worse for it because agnosticism is comparatively more rational and is being completely overshadowed here.

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

:up:

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
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.

Look, Coben...we all can be angry. If a person is arguing (discussing) in an Internet Philosophy forum...and does not occasionally show some anger...that person should probably leave the forum and take up crocheting.

I do not mind the "anger" of atheists, although I often laugh at the scorn and contempt some atheists show for Christians and other theists. They hurl vindictive toward the absurdness of Christian "beliefs"...while espousing stealth "beliefs" every bit as absurd in the opposite direction.

Like either side can make any reasonable comments about the unknown!

In any case, if I have stepped on any toes (seemingly because of anger over others being angry)...I apologize. It would be hypocrisy of the first order to do so...and I have never intended it.

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

Look, Frank and I get it. It's really simple, it's called tough love. Why would we want to see someone/people suffer from this torment?

Coben, I really do appreciate your exhaustive analysis of the problem, however, I didn't really see where you tried to pinpoint an answer. Did I miss something there? please correct me if I'm wrong.

I've suggested 7 succinct ideas that might provide some fodder toward reconciliation of the problem. I even encouraged any form of emotional expression that might help viz purging this angry resentment towards Christianity. I also did this in order to shed light on some outdated group-think.

I think you are mixing apple and oranges. You are confusing emotions with discursive argumentation. For example, you seem to be saying that since hypothetically you don't believe in philosophical determinism, then one should argue instead for freedom of the will. Emotional intelligence and/or well being is a cognitive process, no?

The OP is alluding to a cognitive solution. And aside from my 7 suggestions which you seemed to ignore, I used tough love as an example of what a friend might say to another friend. I care that people are angry. If by flushing-out the resentment from, say, those 7 ideas, or some other hurtful experience, then that would be a start in the so-called healing process.

Now at the same time, we are adults; not babies. So sometimes we got to put our big-boy pants on and confront the emotion. Hence, many atheists are seemingly projecting some deep seeded, obscure negative emotion. My concern is if we wallow in the drama, nothing gets flushed out. Ever hear of the term analyze till you paralyze?

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'?

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?

What would help with the anger of Atheists is Christians refraining from making sweeping judgements about Atheists (and the reverse of this also applies). However, I think there is also a distinction to be made in the kinds of aggressive/antagonistic comments made on either side. An angry Atheist will make comments ridiculing Christianity, but angry Christians often make more personal comments, such as claiming that an Atheist is evil, going to hell, needs to beg for forgiveness, and is generally deserving of hate and is to be shunned. Personal attacks are more likely to elicit anger. In other words, the Christians started it and have historically been more violent towards nonbelievers.

Yep. Primarily, it's called the danger's of Fundamentalism and/or extremism. Accordingly, extremism attacking extremism... .

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'?

This is very dependent on the particular persons upbringing. For example, if someone was raised as a Christian, but later became an Atheist, it is very easy to harbor resentment. They would be resentful of the fact that from their perspective they were lied to and coerced to live this lie. They would also be vigilant in wanting to prevent this from happening to others.

But you would have to flush-out the meaning of 'lied'.