Welcome to the SDMB. I hope you enjoy it. I’d advise against banging your head against certain walls, but I’m sure you’ll figure out when enough is enough for you.
I like the so what if they kill thing. interesting approach.
Why don’t you go ahead and tell us what the difference is between an “angry” atheist and a “good” atheist like yourself? Is it wrong to point out where religion encroaches on the lives of others? Are we supposed to let pass the illogic we see and hear on a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance? Is it balanced to let people talk about the good religion has done without bringing up the bad it has done? Some people want to fight ignorance when it comes to such things as flying saucers, Bigfoot, homeopathy, perpetual motion and a thousand other topics where there is little or no evidence-are they all angry also? It is the opinion of some that the idea that gods exist has no evidence to support it and no scientific merit. They have just as much a right to speak out as anyone else.
He is more than welcome to join in, but I would appreciate it if he would quit using the “angry atheist” meme to argue against those of a differing opinion. The topic of this thread is “atheist zealots”, and zealot, however you define it, does not mean angry.
Why do labels bother atheists so much. They are so fond of throwing them on the religious in the world, or saying FUNDY.
An angry atheist is an atheist that is ANGRY towards believers that is how it differentiates between a normal atheist.
Why is it that was difficult to understand. The atheist that is ANGRY is referred to me as an angry atheist.
Is it really that confusing?
Normal athiests are just atheist, they don’t believe in God. Its not an emotional reaction but a rational one, a logical one. So there’s no reason to get angry.
Capiche?
Well, regardless of what function, good or ill, religion once served, I’d guess that it’ll become increasingly obsolete, at least in modern nation-states that meet the following criteria:
[ul][li]Well-Defined Borders - legal recognition of the possession of territory, even if your tribe isn’t occupying it 24 hours a day. Hence, reduced need for some tribal ritual that unites you and excludes others.[/li][li]Increased literacy - vague myths are not required to pass on life lessons and social norms - books can, as well[/li][li]Rule of Law - clearly-written statutes get preferred over vaguely-interpreted scripture. Though many aspects of modern law are obscure and complex, study is required to parse them - not revelation[/li][li]Application of science - though a lay person may not fully understand what a scientist or engineer is doing, he or she can be confident the scientist or engineer has a pretty good idea. There’s no indication that the act is a miracle or through the grace of (or as a result of sacrifices to) a deity or deities,[/ul][/li]I’m sure anyone could add to a list of factors that can and are making religion’s power fade in the liberal democracies. I’m looking forward to secular ethics becoming the norm.
Do you make the same distinction for theists? Is a theist who believes that the laws should respect and reflect his beliefs angry? How about one that goes out and hands out tracts, or goes house to house to ask others to come to church? Are the theists that try to ban evolution being taught as science angry?
Your slip is showing. I thought you were an atheist.
Why am I angry because I think theists have stupid notions? I can show they have stupid notions by a very simple exercise of logic.
It doesn’t make me a rabid anti-religious person. I don’t burn down churches or picket funerals. I just don’t let them try to pretend that their childish fantasies are in any way the equal of reason. There is no reason to respect the intelligence or integrity of someone who’s convinced themselves to believe a fairy story because they are too afraid of reality.
Can you dig it?
Not even close.
No, that is NOT evolution, O Clueless One. Cooperation is just as valid as competition in Darwinian terms; evolution is about what works to propagates your genes.
And even if it was “evolution in action”, so what ? Since when has evolution been a moral imperative ?
The point of this thread is that he is annoyed by atheists. Atheists do not preach or convert. He simply is annoyed by people who disagree with his religious convictions. Some can not even tolerate having their beliefs questioned. It seems to dispute their entire lives. Sorry about that.
Good point. But I think God’s too busy appearing in french toast and sweat stains nowadays to bother setting fire to plant life.
You forgot taco shells.
Right because its about the “issues.” The only issues its about is the unresolved issues with authority figures that dominated the wee atheist wind bags to the point that they can’t merely get on with their lives but live out a Freudian melodrama of repeating their anger sagas over and over and over again.
Just as you can’t respect the intelligence of theists indulging in their dramas I can’t respect the atheist the is stuck in their anger dramas. Its childish and very very very pathetic, not the slightest intelligence involved at all.
Go seek a therapist people and get over it.
But “atheists” with just a little temper, like you, are okay, right?
I had trouble following this. Could you explain it a bit? I would agree that most believers are not “pretending” because that implies a conscious choice, so I was with you there, but the next bit confused me. I’d try to suggest what I think you meant but I honestly don’t know. This isn’t a criticism, just a request for clarification, because it sounds potentially interesting.
And what does, say, the Catholic Church’s spreading lies about condoms have to do with that ? Or Islamic fundies flying planes into skyscrapers ? Or religious objections to teaching evolution in schools ? Or shooting doctors who perform abortions ?
Comon now. This is the pit after all, and considering some of the language and rhetoric so far is angry atheist that far off. What terms would you choose to describe posters like** Der Trihs** and Lobo? Honest question.
If talking about them directly, I would label them Der Trihs and Lobo. I wouldn’t use either one of them as an excuse to mislabel “atheist zealots” as “angry atheists” in a poor attempt steer the conversation in another direction.
More like an attempt to browbeat atheists into being quiet. Passive. After all, an “angry atheist” is more difficult to ignore than one who shuts up and goes with the flow.
Its funny how the term angry atheists has caused such a ruckus. Is anyone else as amused by the defensiveness to this as I am. Your comments are ANGRY. They’ve been angry throughout and remain angry. Yet somehow I’m doing something wrong by pointing that fact out?
You wouldn’t say Dawkins is an angry atheist? Well ok then. If you are so PC that when you act pissed off and angry towards religion and faith all the time that people perceive you as being …um…angry…with regard to atheism…somehow this is some sort of an insult, but generalizing about Muslims flying planes into buildings when last time I checked less than 20 Muslims in history have actually done that. Likewise with the shooting of abortion doctors.
But the moderator steps in with a caution sign “we’re generalizing now lets cut that out” when I’m addressing atheists that are acting ANGRY…that’s too much.
But generalizing religious people is fine and dandy…
right.