Theists and Atheists: A Conspiracy Against Each Other

reply to post by littled16

Too many times in forums (not just ATS) I see Theists and Atheists attacking each other.

Could you define "attacking"?

It can get really ugly as each group bashes the other while they try to shove their beliefs down each other's throats.

So far, in my short time on ATS, i have not seen ANY atheists attempting to claim superiority to their position; If you believe in the objective "laws" of GOD, you would beleive anyone criticising them are "sub-par", "ungodly" or even "sinners".

I don't know that it is organized or not, but it just seems like there is a nasty war going on between extremists of the two "factions".

Not at all, I don't believe Atheism is a polar opposite, it's not always a response to the positive claims of Theism. For example, an eskimo is unware of religion, and has never considered such "GOD" theories; the eskimo is unware of Theism, but is still Atheist.

In short, Atheism is not ALWAYS a positive claim.

Why people attack each other for their spiritual beliefs has always been beyond my scope of understanding.

Again, this "attack" word you use is rather questionable; in debate; whether it be sports, politics, or metaphysics; no view should be free from challenge or criticism.

It's time to drop this "i'm offended" stategy that seems to be employed by many when concerning debate or discussion of Theology or Philosophy.

. If someone is a Theist what in your religeon teaches you to attack and ridicule people who don't share your belief system?

Again, if you believe in a supreme dictator with objective laws; you will consider those who disbelieve to be living "contrary" to God's will.

Atheists don't "ridicule" individuals who have formed a belief, they ridicule religion. Again, religion should not be free from criticism, especially much of the sinister dogma. Atheism, on the other hand; has no dogma.

I wonder sometimes if this "war of beliefs" is something that may be propogated by TPTB.

Actually, many preists have used sinister techniques to gain followers and to fill the collection plates over centuries.

For example, many preists scared people with metaphysics; claiming that unbaptised babies would end up in an eternal "limbo" (purgotory).

Yes, i will condemn that concept, and that type of sinister preaching and i'm not worrying if people are "offended".

An extract from Russell's teapot highlights the non-believers frustration with their simple disagreement in the theists's positive claims:-

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Peace, and civil discussions.

reply to post by AtheistAnonym

I think that there is a lot of flinging about of the words ignorant and idiotic too much. Just because you have different beliefs doesn't give people the right to try to make anyone feel stupid no matter which side your beliefs fall on. But ATS isn't bad about it- other websites are the ones that get downright nasty with the name calling, and I'm sure that you've probably experienced that too.

I agree with you about some religious leaders using fear and in some cases downright fairy tales to fill their coffers and I find it disgusting! I think a lot of them twist the bible to make it fit their own beliefs. I've watched many take particular verses and twist them to their own agenda and if the whole passage were read in context it would take on a completely different meaning.

I personally don't subscribe to hating or ostracizing people who don't share my own beliefs. I love them. God gave free will to all to make up their own mind about what they do or don't choose to believe, but if you are a believer it is your place to love them regardless for they are your brothers and sisters. And I don't feel that I have to convert or convince anyone. If someone asks about my religious beliefs with an intent to learn I will gladly oblidge them; if they clearly set on their own beliefs and not interested I leave them alone. My own understanding of the bible is to spread it's teachings to those who have never heard the word and to those who having heard it previously are ready to hear it with new ears so that they can make up their own minds. It is not to try to force people to believe that clearly have already decided against it. And I think you would probably agree that a lot of Atheists know the bible a lot better than many so-called Christians. Too many times people just go to church on Sunday morning and blindly believe that the bible teaches whatever their pastor tells them it does without actually reading it for themselves.

Anyway, I think that debate and expression of beliefs is a good thing and can be done in an intelligent manner without name calling and and superiority complexes- that's why I started this thread to begin with. And see, I was proven right!

Peace to you to!

I don't believe it's a "conspiracy" at all; it's just two different approaches to one question; and thus a difference in beliefs (of lack of beliefs). Both sides can either approach each other civility, or not.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peace.

While "Can't everybody just get along?" is always a legitimate question, sometimes there are legitimate answers.

By this I am not referring to justifications for one side or the other being belligerent; I mean there are legitimate academic reasons why the debates are heated.

Aside from the usual reasons debates get heated, such as the ego flare-up when your "totally solid airtight argument" is not working on your opponent, religious debates have a special flavor that exacerbates this even worse.

The thing about religion is it's the most important thing ever. That's practically the definition of religion, from a psychological standpoint.

The emotional payload resembles that of a debate over the pros and cons of shooting your mother and throwing the body off a cliff.

Take a sample of 100 people, completely at random. As each one "What is absolutely the most important thing to your existence?". Then take them into separate rooms and pair each up with somebody whose job is to convince this person, at all costs, that they are wrong on that particular point. I'll leave it to your imagination as to what will happen.

Spice this up with notions of eternal pleasure and eternal torture, and other unfailingly awe-inducing concepts, which, even if carefully avoided in the debate, are always lurking and all participants know it even if they're not presently aware of it, and you've got a potent emotional brew.

To complete the picture, not enough people appreciate the fact that it is emotion that provides motivation and the intellect is just a tool; therefore reasoning is always done in the service of one emotion or another.

Your heart's in the right place, OP, but just as opposing fanatics will never convince each other, so you will never convince a fanatic to stop being a fanatic. You cannot open somebody else's mind; they must open it themselves or have it opened through an overpowering experience. This is the truth behind certain jokes that begin with "Arguing on the Internet is like...".

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


I can agree with most of that.

While "Can't everybody just get along?" is always a legitimate question, sometimes there are legitimate answers.

We often ask the Irish Protestants and Catholics that question from across the pond. If only people would listen to what their Secularists have to say over there.

If someone is a Theist what in your religeon teaches you to attack and ridicule people who don't share your belief system? And if someone is an Atheist why do you attack and ridicule people for not disbelieving as you do?

It is all a great mystery to me.

reply to post by littled16


first if you believe in GOD they are against your given rights, to believe, when one person (they Who don't believe) get local laws passed, the legal system is taking your right as a person, so what ever judge agrees with them is taking your rights away, there are no ands or ifs on this subject, remember they chose not to beleive in God, so why take your rights away using the legal system- never trust judges who take a person right away, (my opinion on this subject).

Divide and conquer works like a charm.. I mean it's like freakin magic or something. Flippin amazing tactic...

reply to post by littled16

So do you think TPTB and the MSM could be behind some of this ugliness that is spreading like the plague? I'd be interested to know what others think.

Not really.
The atheist vs theist thing is mainly played an internet phenomenon.
Truth be told, in real life, I hang out with atheists and we all get along. For the most part, arguments on religious beliefs are extremely rare and once started die out in a short time.

Arguments about religion, at least in my life, is confined to internet forums.

I as a Christian Deist have never had any problem with/from atheist.

But those D**m fundies are a pain in the A**.

If you do not tow the lline with the beliefs of christian fundamentalist they are a real pain.

Iut being me when they become a pain i become a pain to them and don't back down.

reply to post by ANNED


"Atheist fundamentalist"; there's no dogma so you can't exactly be fundamental in regards to non-belief; Non-religious believers (Deists) may also have concerns with the church and religion. Some people have more concerns than others. You can still be an anti-theist and be a deist.

"Christian Deist" is an oxymoron; Perhaps you mean you're a vague believer in the Christian faith (vague faith). Or maybe you have customised the God of Christianity by cherry picking scripture, or to suite your own beliefs and moral code.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Its the use of the legal system, the judges should not pass judgement on personal matters yes personal. In schools parents should to able to tell their kids to keep quiet, and respect the other kids believes or lack of, that is why we have PTA's to set rules for the school year, why should One person tell you to lump it because you disagree with them or some subject matter---Peace

It's a conspiracy of boredom.

I'm a little evil in the sense that I occasionally enjoy watching conflict (at least on the level of people yelling or typing at each other), and occasionally joining in.

ATS is fun in that there are so many extremes here that you learn a lot about all sorts of ideas and positions people hold. I disagree with much of Christianity, but through ATS, I've learnt a lot about it. I disagree with much of the current trend and direction of atheism, but through ATS I've learnt a lot about various strains of atheists here.

BUT, it's seriously getting boring now. I guess the same old points are being hashed and rehashed, and it's just plain tiresome. I've kinda figured out that I'm not going to learn anything from those sort of threads, so I mostly skip them now, and when I occasionally see some anti-theist/atheist post that is completely unrelated to the thread it is in, I just shake my head and move on.

Admittedly, atheists are at something of a disadvantage here: if a theist starts a "feel-good" thread in BTS about the comforting powers of the Bible, if in the very first reply an atheist/antitheist posts something about the Bible/Jesus/Christianity/Religion being false, even if he wasn't being rude or antagonistic (which he was), he'd still be off-topic.

If an atheist begins a thread related to religion, be it the non-existence of God, the inaccuracy of some religious text, in historicity of a certain religious figure or city, then by it's very subject matter, some relevant theist could reply in it, and if the response doesn't violate the T&Cs, it'd be valid.

reply to post by babloyi


I think the problem lies in the fact that most those threads are intended to attack someone else's belief. Which is largely what alot of self proclaimed antitheist atheists are here to do. And they don't hide it very well at all, considering. While such silliness as that thread about the Christian Bible was not meant as an attack on anyone's belief but affirming their own.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

I think the problem lies in the fact that most those threads are intended to attack someone else's belief.

Providing that the Terms and Conditions are adhered to; there is no reason why someone that is critical of religion and/or it's philosophy cannot voice their opinion and share their concerns; define it as an "attack" if you wish; but such ad hominems and personal attacks are forbidden; and if you feel you have been "attacked" then report it to a mod; It's really that simple.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

But see, in the Faith and Religion forum (in what used to be BTS), there is a very specific thread stickied right at the top that makes it very clear that such stuff is not really appropriate. Lemme quote from the mod who stickied that thread:

If you have questions that deal with the existence of God or want to ask if Mohammed actually was a real person or a myth, then please start a new discussion with a meaningful, appropriate title and you may then dominate a new discussion with this theme in mind. Please do not interject into deeper religious topics the question of the reality of a higher being? Unless stated in the topic, we are assuming in this forum that we've moved on past that point. Imagine discussing algebra while someone keeps interjecting that they still don’t believe in addition. The very reason that classes such as these have prerequisites is so new ground can be covered in the subject.

So yeah....responding to "Which Bible passages do you find comforting?" (or whatever variation of that) with "Lolz the Bible is fake and Jesus never existed and God is just a thing made up by the elites to control the masses" (or whatever variation of that) isn't really appropriate.

reply to post by babloyi

So yeah....responding to "Which Bible passages do you find comforting?" (or whatever variation of that) with "Lolz the Bible is fake and Jesus never existed and God is just a thing made up by the elites to control the masses" (or whatever variation of that) isn't really appropriate.

So it's a choice of two approaches?

It's not as simple as that; and no anti-theist would attempt to demean an individual for commiting to a belief.

I don't believe religion or philosophy is exempt from the reasonable discourse that is available in any other arena of debate. Whether it be politics, sport, scientific theory; disagreements will be encountered. I'm not offended when some criticises my political positions; i certainly don't claim injustice.

""Lolz the Bible is fake and Jesus never existed and God is just a thing made up by the elites to control the masses"

And so what? People say that about TV. Besides, that is a rather feeble attempt at generalising anti-theists. Anti-theists who consider the decorum of debate of value; will avoid such petty remarks and focus on the real issues; the metaphysical claims, the philosophy, the moral and ethical teaching and their socio-political effects.

It's not just non-believers that have problems with religion; Deists/Pantheists are entitled to be concerned too.

Also, users who resort to character insults, aggressive ad hominems have already lost the argument; You can still be an anti-theist and be civil.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


Yet they do. On an annoyingly regular basis. Often demeaning people for spiritual belief. Hell, a popular author has an entire book calling them all delusional. A popular movie cherrypicks the idiots, shows them as if the rule and is then topped with a rhetorical speech about how religion causes most of the world's problems. And that is not demeaning? Get real, take the rose colored glasses off, put the whitewash down, and acknowledge reality. Which brings me to another point. You are no doubt aware generalities are highly illogical right?
Incidentally a positive generality is still a generality. You know, where you presume to become spokesperson and say no antitheist seeks to demean someone for their spiritual beliefs. Which is also a obvious lie or you're really not paying attention.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Often demeaning people for spiritual belief. Hell, a popular author has an entire book calling them all delusional.

So what? Dawkins has as much right to declare his lack of belief, and the reasons why as a person with faith has the right to write books about their faith, and even prosthelytize from the pulpit or a megaphone.

Mods are more than enough to keep the debate civil here; and if you'd ever care to listen to any of Dawkins interviews or even debates, you would understand he's a peaceful and civil man. He's not a bigot at all; Yes he disagrees with religion and he doesn't consider faith a virtue. Again, he's entitled to that opinion; in the same way the religious are entitled to disagree with Atheism or lack of belief.

This is off-topic and this discussion is going nowhere; it's fair for everyone; if you see an anti-theist or atheist that you think is breaching T&Cs; report it.

Peace.