Being told you need to repent for sins; that lust, greed, avarice, etc. are bad; that an afterlife exists; that God exists, etc.,etc. would all be considered lies.

Holding these beliefs have real emotional effects, and affect how a person structures their life.

Agreed. But aren't we more educated than that...shouldn't we know better? And if not, shame on me, you, or anyone else.

I've been down that road. But I didn't seek fellow enabler's who perpetuated the false paradigm's. Again, read my item #7.

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. — Pinprick

I gotta be honest with you on this, Pin...I see 50X's more invective hurled at Christians by atheists...than invective hurled by Christians at atheists. It is not even close.

I very seldom see a thread started by Christians aimed at belittling atheists...and see dozens upon dozens of threads started by atheists aimed at belittling Christians.

And I've got no dog in this fight. I am an agnostic...taking aim at both Christians and atheists at times. I just think you are all wet on what you said up above.

Yep. Me too. I see a lot of atheists trolling threads that are unrelated to EOG discourse. For instance, threads that are talking about phenomenology or metaphysics. It suggests some sort of axe to grind (not to mention resentment/anger issues).

I don't know whether all, most, some, or a few atheists are "angry" -- or if they are, what they are angry about. Any data from anywhere supporting the idea that atheists are angry?

Some people define themselves through social deviance. So, some guys are gay, and it's just part of who they are; they don't make a major production out of being gay. Or queer, or whatever the fuck. Some people are communists, neo-nazis, vegans, radical environmentalists, and all sorts of other political positions that might be a kind of 'deviance'. Some people combine social deviance with a set of resentments. People who do that re likely to present as angry gays, angry communists, angry vegans, and so on and so forth.

Angry social deviants are likely to combine anger with their deviance. So, angry gays, angry incels, angry atheists, angry what-have-you.

There are atheists who maintain a fairly high level of resentment toward society, and they will present as angry atheists. There are strong religious believers who also maintain a set of resentments, who will come off as angry -- angry Roman Catholic, maybe. Or angry Moslems.

All sorts of people have reasons to be resentful.

Death and violence statistics are quite alarming in Eastern Asia/ Atheist Communist countries. That's a good question though, I can grab some statistics for you if you'd like.

In the meantime just a short sound bite:

"People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image - that is, what they imagined God might be like - said lead study author Julie Exline, Case Western Reserve University psychologist.

In studies on college students, atheists and agnostics reported more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers.[113]

Just from a common-sense perspective it certainly square's with the notion that people who have such Faith would be less inclined to be angry about same. But like I said I'll be happy to find some stats from both sides...good question.

I just noticed it here on this forum here lately... .

This definitely seems to be the case with "internet atheists" by a vast majority.

If by "atheist" you mean someone historical like... er… Bertram Russell or David Hume, I have no comment.

In the past, my speculation is that it isn't solely the case with "athiests", but people or groups which created or are participated in for the sole purpose of being "against something/everything" but for nothing.

Most of the cesspools that comprise the so-called internet atheist "community" (which are only usually distinguishable from 4chan or 8chan by most of the members' lack of a sex life) seem like they're nothing but whiny "gripe" sites for people who claim to be against religion, Christianity, but are generally for little or "nothing"

Usually using nonsense definitions of "religion" to begin with, either out of stupidity or malice, or often falsely conflating "religion" with mythology or "mythic imagery" or symbolism akin to that or those of Carl Jung's archetypes, while at the same time showing no intelligence or education on what mythology actually is or means within the contexts of cultures, history, anthropology, and so forth, whether of a religious or secular variety (much as they falsely conflate "atheism" with Secular Humanism, pop "scientism", and so forth).

Said things, of course having nothing to do with "atheism", as atheists have existed since Epicurus and before any modern scientific thought, or the emergence of any secular Humanist thought, as per Auguste Comte's school of "positivism" during the French Revolution, which is said to be the forerunner to Secular Humanism (Secular Humanism, as per their statement of principles is not "atheism", nor solely a "lack" of belief in God, but is a dogma, or set of "religious" or philosophical principles and beliefs held to by "faith" or axiom, recognized as a "nontheistic" religion by the US Supreme Court, along with others of said variety, such as Daoism).

David Pakman addressed the claim appropriately. There are angry Christians, angry tall people, angry vegans, etc. O'Reilly wouldn't be incorrect because he, himself, is a scumbag. Judging his claim based on his personal characteristics would be an ad hominem fallacy. His claim is merely a throw-away anecdote because he cannot substantiate his claim beyond anecdotal evidence, which comes vis-a-vis his motivated reasoning lense.

Thank you for that wonderfully lucid contribution IBB. In a similar fashion it's been my sense that a lot of those kinds of atheist's who rely on much of what you said, have not really studied the history of religion for themselves (much less the philosophy of same).

It seems to be more or less, at best, a regurgitation of some erroneous fundamentalist interpretation or something from kindergarden... .

Don't take this the wrong way but you're sounding like part of the problem and not the solution. In other words, do two wrongs make a right?

You're just repeating the ad hominem...good job! The question was, why are atheists suing the government... resentment and anger most likely.

You're just repeating the ad hominem...good job! — 3017amen

What ad hominem??

Obviously we aren’t smarter than this. Look at the insults that are thrown around even in this thread, and I’m not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. Should we know better? Of course, but that simply isn’t the case. Sarcasm and one-up-manship are just too tempting to resist. Along with proving your intellectual superiority. If item number 7 on your list were adhered to I’m sure things would be different, but it isn’t.


If you’re only referring to Atheists in this forum, you are likely correct. I am referring to society in general. Watch any televangelist, or attend practically any church long enough and you will hear Atheists being disparaged. My claim is also that history bears this out. The number of nonbelievers who have been killed in the name of God far outnumbers the number of Christians or even Theists in general that have been killed in the name of Atheism. Also, I would suspect that you are more likely to encounter Atheists in a philosophy forum than in society at large, simply because those who engage in philosophical discussions are more likely to have received a higher education than the general public, and Atheism and education are correlated.

For the record, I would agree that a lot of Atheists are resentful towards Christianity for the reasons I earlier explained. I’m not trying to defend anger or animosity from either side, just observe and hypothesize.

That sums it up in a nutshell, yes.

I just noticed it here on this forum here lately... . — 3017amen

Atheists that show up on this forum tend to be a peevish lot, stewing in all sorts of bile and bilge.

"People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image - that is, what they imagined God might be like - said lead study author Julie Exline, Case Western Reserve University psychologist. — 3017amen

I have heard some younger (and older) atheists fulminating about stupid 'sky gods' and superstitious believers, etc. Some of them do seem to carry a heavy cross of anger, resentment, disappointment, and so on. I'm not sure what it is, exactly, they are angry about. Some of them have (they report) never had much religious experience, so why the intensity of feeling? I can see why someone who had a harsh form of religion shoved down their throat would be pissed off about it once they escaped. But a lot of atheists were never captive, so had no need to escape.

One thing: I think being an angry atheist can be a stance that some people adopt. It's another way of being a social deviant--staking out a not-too-crowded defendable territory. In this god-soaked social milieu, declaring "there is no god" or "God is dead" is a pretty easy way to achieve meaningful social deviance. (It beats joint a violent gang, for instance.).

And there are refugees from religion. I've met an awful lot of former Jehovah's Witnesses. There are versions of Baptist, Catholic, Islamic, belief and so on that some atheists have happily escaped from and now declare it the case of their disbelief. It was a bad experience for them.

Death and violence statistics are quite alarming in Eastern Asia/ Atheist Communist countries. That's a good question though, I can grab some statistics for you if you'd like. — 3017amen

Pass along any handy stats you might have. But various Abrahamic regimes (Christian and Moslem, mostly) have had very discouraging violence and death stats at times. Just take the United States which performed near extinction on native people, carried about by at least nominal Christians. The murder rate in various parts of the USA (some urban cores, southeastern and parts of western US) have some of the highest rates of individual violence in the world. Granted, we aren't an officially religious country.

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. — Frank Apisa

Good point

I am a materialist because I believe the holy-sacred-divine is nothingness, not a substantial spirit. I work hard at understanding the world mechanically because the idea of a personal God makes me depressed. In my elated manic-mystical moments I'm open to believing a thing or person as being God, the holy having fully engulfed it or her

↪Frank Apisa
If you’re only referring to Atheists in this forum, you are likely correct. I am referring to society in general. Watch any televangelist, or attend practically any church long enough and you will hear Atheists being disparaged. My claim is also that history bears this out. The number of nonbelievers who have been killed in the name of God far outnumbers the number of Christians or even Theists in general that have been killed in the name of Atheism. Also, I would suspect that you are more likely to encounter Atheists in a philosophy forum than in society at large, simply because those who engage in philosophical discussions are more likely to have received a higher education than the general public, and Atheism and education are correlated.

For the record, I would agree that a lot of Atheists are resentful towards Christianity for the reasons I earlier explained. I’m not trying to defend anger or animosity from either side, just observe and hypothesize. — Pinprick

I agree that there is plenty of anger on both sides...and, unfortunately, in society in general. Not sure if it has always been this way, but it certainly is now. I really would like to see us all get along a bit better. Perhaps some of my feelings about this rub off from another forum where I post...and where the atheist seem to be in high dudgeon almost every moment.

As an aside, and with my tongue planted firmly in cheek, your remark, "Atheists in a philosophy forum than in society at large, simply because those who engage in philosophical discussions are more likely to have received a higher education than the general public, and Atheism and education are correlated"...immediately caused me to think..."Hummm...I always though education and agnosticism seem the more proper fit."

Everyone is making wonderful points keep them coming. This is a very emotional issue. When I read some of this I get a little emotional about it. There's a lot of existential angst hidden underneath a lot of this stuff.

As I've alluded to previously I certainly understand the psychological damage people have experienced...not to mention all those who've perished from religious wars throughout history...
.

I think much of it comes back to our ego (sin of pride). It's one thing being proud of your accomplishments, your family, so on and so forth but it's entirely another to have exaggerated self worth.

Hummm...I always though education and agnosticism seem the more proper fit.

I’m sure it’s both. Probably more accurate to say that religious belief and education are inversely correlated.

I think much of it comes back to our ego (sin of pride). It's one thing being proud of your accomplishments, your family, so on and so forth but it's entirely another to have exaggerated self worth.

99% of everything comes down to our ego, for better and worse. It is bad to have an exaggerated self worth, and also to get your sense of self worth from your conviction in unprovable beliefs like the EOG. Although I’m certainly guilty of this myself at times.

99% of everything comes down to our ego, for better and worse. It is bad to have an exaggerated self worth, and also to get your sense of self worth from your conviction in unprovable beliefs like the EOG. Although I’m certainly guilty of this myself at times. — Pinprick

Indeed, I know many people who simply choose to not believe in god because they think it makes them more rational and even smarter than others who do.


That probably stems from many scientists choosing to not believe in god. Since scientists are 'smart people' , many just follow to derive this sense of self worth you speak of

As I've alluded to previously I certainly understand the psychological damage people have experienced...not to mention all those who've perished from religious wars throughout history... — 3017amen

I think the problem is not with religion but with the masses who will blindly follow one interpretation of a religious text and glorify it as the only correct one. But then, you can't really blame humans for being humans.

I guess, all of this, religion, war is simply a reflection of how corrupt humans are and while we may have been gifted with rationality, our animal nature still reigns supreme sometime.

As I've alluded to previously I certainly understand the psychological damage people have experienced...not to mention all those who've perished from religious wars throughout history...
[/quote]
This is a common folk or cultural myth, and a rather naïve and superstitious one at that; in reality, however, it's highly debatable that whatever the inherent traits which manifested themselves in "religious" wars are, that they exist solely within a "religious" contest, often simply using a simplistic, superstitious, or nonsense definition of "religion" to begin with and reinforced via circular reasoning.

It's arguable that there was a strong profit motive in every war, whether marketed as "religious" otherwise, much, as how most wars in civilized, 1st world nations are motivated by national pride or ideology (e.x. nationalism, capitalism, communism, socialism, etc), rather than "resources" as ignorant and false childish myths about war tell people or insinuate (it's "resources" for the war, not "war for resources) - there isn't arguably any practical difference between a war in the name of a "religion", and won in the name of any other type of ideology or political stance.

Given that scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology, as well as most of the philosophies of major law and legal systems or institutions (e.x. Common Law theory; Zimbardo's Standford Prison Experiment) more or less confirm that warfare and violence among men and women is an innate part of who we are (not a good one to devolve into, but a part of one nonetheless), such as having roots in biology, I would like to think that silly and archaic notions such as the above would be extinct rather than continuing to be blindly repeated.

Probably more accurate to say that religious belief and education are inversely correlated. — Pinprick

Also, probably very accurate to say that religious belief and innate intelligence are inveresely proportional. (I.e. the more religious, the less likely to be intelligent, and the more intelligent, the less likely to be religious. --- explanation given here for the benefit of our more relgious brothers on these forums.)

Exceptions exist. Coben is smart.

(There is no inverse correlation... only negative, positive, or none. (-: )

This is a common folk or cultural myth, and a rather naïve and superstitious one at that; in reality, however, it's highly debatable that whatever the inherent traits which manifested themselves in "religious" wars are, that they exist solely within a "religious" contest, often simply using a simplistic, superstitious, or nonsense definition of "religion" to begin with and reinforced via circular reasoning.

It's arguable that there was a strong profit motive in every war, whether marketed as "religious" otherwise, much, as how most wars in civilized, 1st world nations are motivated by national pride or ideology (e.x. nationalism, capitalism, communism, socialism, etc), rather than "resources" as ignorant and false childish myths about war tell people or insinuate (it's "resources" for the war, not "war for resources) - there isn't arguably any practical difference between a war in the name of a "religion", and won in the name of any other type of ideology or political stance.

Given that scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology, as well as most of the philosophies of major law and legal systems or institutions (e.x. Common Law theory; Zimbardo's Standford Prison Experiment) more or less confirm that warfare and violence among men and women is an innate part of who we are (not a good one to devolve into, but a part of one nonetheless), such as having roots in biology, I would like to think that silly and archaic notions such as the above would be extinct rather than continuing to be blindly repeated. — IvoryBlackBishop

I so totally agree with this post.

Although some wars are ideology based (such as the recent wars in Nicaragua, in Viet Nam, in Cuba), most wars are economics-based. Scarce resources or the control over them are fought for.

Also, one might argue for saying that wars over ideology reflect on the longer term a war over economics, too.

--------------

It is interesting to note, however, that the argument you, IvorbyBlackBishop, made was not against something one of the atheists said on this board, but was against what 3017Amen said. This I believe is noteworthy.

Although some wars are ideology based (such as the recent wars in Nicaragua, in Viet Nam, in Cuba), most wars are economics-based. Scarce resources or the control over them are fought for.
[/quote]
Don't think so, this is only the case in the most impoverished areas of the world; the majority of wars in the civilized world are fought over ideology, national pride, and so on.

WWI, for example, started over the assassination of a lone political political figure, and cost far more in material resources to wage than the loss of the politican amounted to; it's resources for the war, not silly myths like "war for resources", the war in an end in and of itself.

(Even in the animal kingdom, this myth has been debunked, with it being documented that animals such as dolphins and others fight or kill "for sport", rather than "resources" or pure material "survival").

You and I read and studied and believe the teachings of completely different textbooks on history.

The WWI was started over the squeezing out of the countries that formed the Axis powers of the possession of colonies and thus out of the riches the colonies offered to their European owners.

Germany had two measly colonies in Africa; Austria-Hungary had no colonies other than "Franz Jozef Land" in the Arctic north of Russia. Turkey had mainly barren, desert land, and the crude oil in its possessions in the middle east was not an issue then.

In contrast, the rest of Africa was owned by Britain, Portugal and France; Canada and Australia were quasi-colonies of England the Glorious; India was fully an English colony.

"The sun never sets over the British empire". It rose and set over the German-Austrian empires within a few hours of each other.

I guess, all of this, religion, war is simply a reflection of how corrupt humans are and while we may have been gifted with rationality, our animal nature still reigns supreme sometime. — StarsFromMemory

This suggests that animals are corrupt. Are they? (Wars happen when humans become corrupt and wars happen when the animal nature of humans reigns supreme.)