I am trying really hard to cut down on generalising and bagging out “atheists” rather than specific people and streams of atheism.
They’re not all the same – and they aren’t all out to eat your babies. But atheists (general) keep giving me reason to think bad thoughts about them. Like the two who hijack this thread on Communicate Jesus.
Here are five tips for my atheist friends to help them seem nicer and more reasonable.
- Stop being so smug.
- Don’t assume every piece of Christian evangelism is directed at you – we want the undecideds, not the decided-uns.
- Admit that the debate about God’s existence is complex – and that it can, depending on your presuppositions, be quite possible for intelligent and rational people to intelligently believe in an intervening deity who communicates through a book.
- Admit that the scientific method – which by its nature relies on induction rather than deduction (starting with a hypothesis and testing it rather than observing facts and forming a hypothesis) – is as open to abuse as any religious belief, and is neither objective nor infallible.
- Try to deal with the actual notions of God seriously believed in by millions of people rather than inventing strawmen (or spaghetti monsters) to dismiss the concepts of God – and deal with the Bible paying attention to context and the broader Christological narrative rather than quoting obscure Old Testament laws. By all means quote the laws when they are applied incorrectly by “Christians” – but understand how they’re meant to work before dealing with the Christians described in point 3.
Comments
What I don’t get is when science has proved itself competent multiple times, it’s still being disputed by religious fanatics. Science is not a pick-and-choose subject, like religion is. You can’t not follow half the bible because you don’t like how blunt it is just as you can’t follow half of science because you don’t like the possibility of it disproving your divine father figure.
If nothing, you should be looking to science because if you EVER want to prove your god true to any other person outside your religion, you will need to back it with scientific and historic facts. Not bullshit within a book that is the alleged word of god/jesus.
Just because evolution is a proven fact doesn’t mean that creationism is completely moot. It just means we’ve evolved from something else.
Metaphors are all over the bible. Perhaps some of the things you hold dear are metaphorical for something that each individual can understand and apply to their life.
Maybe, just maybe, Jesus was a normal man who did great selfless acts, and was the subject of a book which was over exaggerated to peak the interest of readers of that point in time.
Who knows? I don’t. You don’t. Your god won’t tell you. Science can’t tell you at this stage.
So stop being arrogant asshats, whether you’re Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Jewish, Agnostic, etc. Learn from your mistakes and mistakes of others, so you can become a better person. Hold your opinions close while examining opinions of others. If one is more appealing than the other, switch it out rather than keeping an outdated opinion.
PS: Since my website didn’t get included, or so it seems, here’s the URL:
http://www.beyondscienceversusreligion.blogspot.com
Nathan, you are obviously just as smug as any atheist you’ve probably met. And this post proves it. Instead of just accepting that some people have the capability of being inconsiderate and rude (which is how I feel about the Christians who harass basically innocent students between classes) you decide to be inconsiderate and rude by assuming you can look down your nose to “help.”
Wear the shoe on the other foot.
Also, cursing in responses makes me think you wrote this looking to get into a fight. If you want your message to be to be heard and not ignored, find ways around curt and foul language. As Kurt Vonnegut put it: don’t give them a reason to block out your message.
OP is an idiot and hypocrite. I’d explain why, but he seems intelligent enough to have already had these conversations, however dense enough to not have learned anything from them.
I was going to leave a comment debating/debunk your five ‘suggestions’, but after reading others’ answers and your replies I’m going to nutshell it for you…
Atheists don’t ‘seem’ nice and generally can’t tolerate Christians for one simple reason:
Christians suck.
Christians have spent a good majority of time in human history spewing out their doctrines and leading crusades (i.e. murderous rampages) trying to convert (i.e. brainwash) anyone and anything in their paths, yet when an atheist tries to peaceably express his opinion, we’re considered opinionated and generally ‘not nice’.
Again…Christians suck. Take a few minutes to peruse and (dare I say) question the history of your own belief system before pointing the finger at rational intelligent people that don’t believe (i.e. fall for it) or support it.
G’day Nathan
This thread is quite funny, and considerably better than your previous efforts at baiting Nigerian scammers. Lousy ROI by comparison, wouldn’t you say?
But I think you are wrongheaded. I note what you said about comments not moving to your new host, so I’ll keep it short. This:
I am trying really hard to cut down on generalising and bagging out “atheists” rather than specific people and streams of atheism.
…is where you fail, to paraphrase Yoda, that great Jedi authority. It’s just one of those polite and genteel British etiquette hang-overs that finds no support in Scripture.
Next time, start with “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God'” (Ps 14:1) This is far truer to the scant biblical testimony about atheism than trying the approach of reason, which gets…well, you’ve seen what it gets you. It gets you looking fot a new webhost.
God bless, and congratulations on a very funny thread!
Hello Nathan,
While it appears you do have some thoughtful commenters, it would also appears you are beset by a particularly vehement species of proselytizing atheist. The proselytizing atheist is the atheist who is being driven by an irresistible impulse to spread his non-religion and get all who believe in the existence of a deity to stop believing this instant or said atheist will preach at you hour after hour about how the non-religion that he or she possesses is so much superior not only to your religion, but to the non-religion(s) possessed by other atheists…..
While I think it would be healthier for the atheist to believe in something, that is outside my control- although I may invite them occasionally to consider the benefits of a closer relationship with God. However, just like the nutty folks who appear on my doorstep on the occasional Saturday to tell me they can prove from Revelations that the Apocalypse is due next Thursday at 4:30 pm EDT, and that I need to contribute to be one of the elect, the proselytizing atheists are annoyingly persistent. And they seem to become louder and more persistent if you resist their Gospel of Nothing.
Beyond this, one can generally set the odd cultist type “Christian” (often more a follower of some would be preacher than follower of Christ) off one’s door step by pulling out the family King James Version with large illustrations of various Italian Masters and then showing them your pictures of the Blessed Virgin, in which case they think you are Satan incarnate with all your graven images, and run away. The proselytizing atheist is more difficult to rid oneself of, being convinced there is no Satan either. Although I note in some of the comments above, many of your atheists continue to draw on the Judeo-Christian (admittedly with a bit of classic Greek influence) concept of Good and Evil. Indeed, from their viewpoint, a belief system where there is no God is Good, while a belief system with any God (or god, or gods) is Evil. This is interesting in that, because they raise this to such a high level above neutrality, or naturalism, in their belief system, they do not see that they have actually created a religion. A religion that they are bent on spreading across the world.
Gordo,
My point there is that I think it’s unhelpful to bag out atheists generally as though they all suffer from the same particular strain of foolishness.
I think they’re all wrongheaded, misguided and foolish – but they’re not all the Richard Dawkins or the PZ Meyers of the world.
I know personable atheists who are happy to discuss the basis of their folly – and today I’ve met many atheists (virtually) who are happy to hijack a post on a blog and turn it into something just a little bit crazy.
Hi Riley – not sure where I “cursed”…
Where I come from a jackass is a donkey… perhaps that was what you were referring to?
Hi TJM,
Thanks for stopping by.
This does seem to be a pretty vehement mob, but it’s nothing like the mob pulling me to pieces on the blog that linked here…
Christians are misguided, uninformed people who are VERY VERY close minded. Well let me correct that, I’m not going to say all christians are like that, but christians like nathan are like that. There are some decent ones out there. You should respect other peoples belief, and just because YOU believe in a “god” doesnt mean you are correct. You have NO idea if there really is one, just like athiests have NO idea if there isnt one. Nobody knows, and nobody will ever know. So stop arguing about the stupidest damn thing, and lets all just grow up and respect other peoples beliefs.This is one of the dumbest posts I’ve ever read, and it goes to show just how childish some people are. So what makes christian the real religion anyways? In the bible, jesus was a jew, so shouldnt jewish over rule christianity? It’s crazy christians like you (and my grandma) that make a bad name for all of you christians, you should be more respectful to your religion, your not making any of you look good. As for me, I’m agnostic, like I said nobody knows if there really is a “god” or not. So just live your life in a good healthy positive way, and dont worry about what some crazy “christians have to say about it.
Nathan,
As others have pointed out, your assumptions about science are completely false. It’s actually much more complex and tremendously more interesting than that. Read “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by TS Kuhn, or browse Wikipedia for science philosophy topics to understand it better.
[…] got me 4,000 hits (so far) – and about 60 comments – feel free to join the fun. Here, or there. Rate this post: 0 votes Tags : Atheism, atheists, […]
I like the format this was done in, it makes commenting easy.
1. Of every race and religion there are smug people. What someone believes in does not affect their attitude.
2. If I tell my friends I thought a red stop light meant go someone would correct me or laugh at me. Same goes with that argument when both sides think the other is wrong.
3. Religious ideas will not effect intelligence. We can all say we have met an intelligent person on both sides of the fence.
4. Steps of the Scientific Method
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
Both sides have never made it past step 5.
Tho in all fairness there is scientific proof of the B.C.
5. The spaghetti monster was a hypothetical way of explaining it from an aggressive stand point. Both sides attack the other, that’s something everyone needs to notice.
–
Either way, adjusting the word of God would mean that God was wrong the first time. I was under the opinion that God was never wrong, to say so would be blasphemies.
–
You cant really pick and choose religion. Because admitting any part of religion being wrong is to say all of it is wrong.
Nathan wrote:
“I know personable atheists who are happy to discuss the basis of their folly”
But they are still a bit too smug, aren’t they?
@Lars – evidently.
*yawn* Christians are funny. Why would I be interested in being nicer to someone who comes across as a moron?
Nathan,
I am sorry that we atheists appear to you to be smug. Could it be that deep down you know that you are hanging onto beliefs that make no sense and it annoys you when someone points this out? Intelligent believers either have to acknowledge that there are no supernatural forces at work or alse make their arguments more and more sophisticated as the rug is pulled out from under them.
Harry
as an atheist, i am fine with this list. i have to add one, though. atheists have a horrible tendency to use the word “christian” to describe angry, bigoted evangelists and ignore the millions and millions of friendly, respectful, liberal, open-minded people who belong to the nigh thousands of other sects. just sayin.
Ugh. I read the post and the first few comment/response volleys. I’m not going to read the entire thread, since I am supposed to be working. So my apologies if it’s already been covered, but I want add my vote to the following sides:
A.) Many “evangelical” atheists are indeed smug and combative in ways that are neither productive nor justified.
B.) I think some of your arguments to that effect in the original post are fundamentally flawed, and do indicate a certain lack of essential understanding of your premises.
3.) I believe point ‘B’ could have been communicated much more effectively if not for the teeming hordes of commenters so vigorously demonstrating point ‘A’.
Basically, I disagree with you and don’t really respect your beliefs. But I think you’d make much better company than most of the above commenters on “my” side. For whatever that’s worth.
Er, wow.
Someone writes on their blog a call for civility in theism debates (something I’d agree with), and his blog gets flooded with angry atheists who (for some odd reason) want to imply that all atheists are good and noble and would never be smug, self-congradulatory jerks.
While I have known thoughtful, respectful, and rational atheists; I also have met a great many libertarian, stoner, college drop out atheists who simply want an excuse to believe they are superior to others. Atheism provides a fashionable method of doing that, and bonus points if it means they can eliminate any moral strictures that don’t meet their decidedly selective form of reason. They become smug, pompous jerks (that even the rational atheists I know dismiss as kooks).
“Atheist” is not the same as “rational”, any more than “theist” means “irrational”; even if some people are atheist because of reason and some are theists through stupidity. This would be the case even if atheism were eminently obviously true (which it is not, it is debatable…. that’s why there are debates).
There are idiot atheists and idiot theists. The author of the blog post was pointing out that you should avoid being a jerk if you want people to listen to you. Many Christians are learning that the hard way, maybe a few atheists should learn the lesson too. A few commenters here really should.
I also think my own points would have been made much more respectably had I not listed them as “A”, “B”, and “3”. Oy.
Nathan: I also want to point out that you’re throwing out a little bit of strawman – I don’t believe God speaks to me now, except through the pages of the Bible. This is the orthodox belief of most Christians – and has been for many years. Your failure to grasp even this basic element of Christian doctrine leads nicely into my fifth point.
No, that’s not true. The majority of Christians in the world are Catholics, who don’t believe that God speaks only through the pages of the Bible but also through his earthly representatives in the church hierarchy.
I don’t know where you are located, but in the U.S. that is also not the case. Most Christians here believe in a personal God that listens and responds to them personally.
I suspect that you are assuming that most Christians have similar beliefs to those around you. While it may look like most Christians in the world believe in sola scriptura to you, that is not actually the case.
Please don’t assume that Bob is wrong just because he refuted a common (and relatively orthodox) belief of many Christians.
Nathan: “If you start off presupposing the existence of God (like most theists do) then science is understood through that lens. This is a perfectly rational thing to do when looking at the world and its complexity – despite the many atheist arguments to the contrary. …But how irrational are you if we’re right and you’re thumbing your nose at the omniscient omnipotent God?”
Ugh. You want us to be nice when you poop out stupidity on this level? Circular reasoning and arguments from incredulity make theism rational? Only in the very weak sense of being logically consistent from the inside, but the second you try to get someone outside to accept your beliefs, we’re free to point out the massive flaws in your reasoning that got you there.
You follow this up with a modified Pascal’s Wager. It doesn’t matter if your god actually exists. Since there’s no objective evidence for your god no matter one’s “preconceptions” then the most rational position is to thumb one’s nose at claims such a being exists.
“I mean people who hijack threads on blogs to preach atheism like the guy in the post I linked to.”
So calling Jesus a “zombie” is smug but saying people who argue for atheism are “preaching” isn’t?
“Yes, says the guy who has made up his mind, almost, and fluctuates between being an atheist and an agnostic…”
Atheist and agnostic aren’t two rungs on the same ladder. One can be both at the same time. One can be an agnostic theist, too. If you don’t know this, maybe you shouldn’t be arguing with atheists.
“it’s a complex question, just because you’ve personally reached decision B doesn’t make everybody who reaches decision A a delusional idiot.”
Way to completely misrepresent the reasoning of atheists! Didn’t you just say, “I don’t like the views of so many people being trivialised in an insulting and hyperbolic manner”?
“Christians get called arrogant, hypocritical (see Bob’s comment) and intolerant because we claim absolute truth – and a monopoly on it – by people making a counter claim in the same areas.”
Ooh, you did it again. What atheist claims absolute truth?
“I think we can all agree that we weren’t there when the world began.”
One doesn’t rely on “being there” in order to say how things happened if there’s evidence remaining that can tell us what happened. If one had to “be there” then your whole beloved Bible would get tossed out by your own criteria.
“You’d get a much better hearing from us if you weren’t so busy comparing us with people who suggest drano as a form of medical treatment.”
So we’re supposed to cater to your image of yourself? Sure, you could build a case for feeding your ego to get you to listen, but we atheists pride ourselves on being honest. You can’t have an honest, intelligent atheist who doesn’t point out that irrational is irrational no matter whether it’s using Drano as eye drops or believing that personal experience based on preconceptions is as reliable a sort of evidence for the existence of a particular god.
Here’s an idea for you. Rather than screaming about how you want to be respected, behave in a way that is respectable. I’ll respect your rights as a human being but I won’t respect your beliefs if you can’t do anything to support them and I won’t respect your hypocritical attitude.
Hi athiests
The 5 above-mentioned tips were a great catalyst for dialogue. You have defended your right to be smug very eloquently. In appreciation of your efforts, we Christians should make some attempt to justify our delusions. My paradigm is probably familiar to you:
I love to read my Bible (currently The Message version), and think about and pray to God often. I guess this is where athiests become smug believing I am deluded. I accept that trusting in God without faith is a delusion.
Faith comes from hearing God, such as through His creation and our consciences. Being a Christian is about having a living relationship with God through Jesus. The Bible facilitates this, being a record of historical facts chronicling God’s relationship with His creation.
I accept that current scientific thinking about our origins contradicts the Bible. I am still comfortable with believing God created everything in 6 days about 6000 years ago, Noah’s ark and the flood, and all the rest of the Bible. Why? Jesus spoke of Old Testament events as facts. If you doubt any of the events he spoke of, then you can no longer consider him to be God’s Son. As far as everyday life goes, what I believe about our origins doesn’t make any difference, I still have to get on with life
Jesus prophecied that prior to his return, amongst other things, many people would believe lies (Matthew 24). Nowdays there are even Christians who believe in an old earth and evolution. Looks to me like we’re on a slippery slope
Bas: “Why is explaining the evidence for evolution and the lack thereof for God considered smug? … Proposing an evidence-based explanation for something is not necessarily smug.”
Derek Bickerton: “Bas isn’t very perceptive if he/she thinks that smugness has anything to do with what you believe or what you say. It’s HOW you believe and HOW you say it that makes for smugness. Many (I hope not all) atheists are smug in just the same way that many, if not all, born-again evangelicals are: both lots just KNOW that they are right and they are so darned self-satisfied about it…the atheists because they think they’ve proved they’re so much smarter than you are.”
You’re not very perceptive if you think what Bas is describing never happens. I’ve had plenty of discussions where I keep insisting on the importance of facts and where I explain what the evidence is and what it actually supports, where I go into depth over why it’s important to have an epistemology that generates actual knowledge rather than blind assumptions. Religious people will tell me I’m being arrogant or rude or that I’m attacking simply because I’m challenging them to submit their cherished beliefs to reality.
Furthermore, if atheists work hard not to hold any unwarranted beliefs, then how we believe is always going to affect the way in which we need to be humble about our beliefs. We’re scrupulously humble in admitting to what we don’t or can’t know (despite how religious folk nearly always assume we believe god doesn’t exist). As for our real beliefs (or lack thereof), yes, it’s smarter not to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Yes, it’s smarter to reject circular reasoning. Yes, it’s smarter not to give preference to ideas simply because we were raised to think they are true. If you don’t like that, then too damn bad.
“Unfortunately Christians are just hopeless at taking down atheists, which gives the atheists a false sense of how smart they are. … In fact, atheists have gotten away scot-free, so far, they’ve never had to face any serious criticism, and for most part they’ve been greeted with unctuous, sycophantic praise by the media.”
Wow, I sure wish I lived in your fantasy world where the media greets us with such adoring praise. And I suppose it’s out of the question that Christians have such trouble versus atheists because we’re right and they’re wrong? I mean, someone has to be right. If you’re not willing to even consider that atheists come off better because we’ve got truth and reality on our side, then you’re hoplessly biased.
tjmcmahon: “The proselytizing atheist is the atheist who is being driven by an irresistible impulse to spread his non-religion and … said atheist will preach at you hour after hour about how the non-religion that he or she possesses is so much superior … to the non-religion(s) possessed by other atheists…..”
Hahahahahaha. And my nonexistent sandwich is much tastier than my friend’s nonexistent sandwich, as well. Would you like a bite? Oh, wait…
Nathan wrote:
“I know personable atheists who are happy to discuss the basis of their folly”
That in itself reeks of smugness–but I’ll take in the jovial spirit in which I believe it was intended.
Most of the problems in discussions between atheists and religious people arise because neither side really puts forth the effort to understand the other. In your first reply you fall into this trap with “Atheists claim to have ‘no belief’ not a belief in nothing.” That’s very similar to an atheist claiming that “Christians believe [belief]” when, in reality, only some Christians believe that. I’m about as atheistic as anyone, but I acknowledge that there is a remote possibility (but an almost infinite improbability) of a higher power. So, while atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a higher power, there are shades of grey. Even Dawkins only rates himself as a 6 on a seven-point scale where 1 is absolute belief and 7 is absolute disbelief.
But the main reason that atheists are so confrontational is that, frankly, religious people started it. Most of us have been subjected to “discussions” that often start with “Believe this or burn in Hell” from early childhood. (I vividly remember hearing that whenever I questioned something in my kindergarten Sunday school.) As a trained negotiator, I can tell you that that is a horrible way to start trying to persuade someone to the accuracy of your claims.
So, answers to your other points:
2. We’re competing for the same minds, so whether or not your message is directed at us, we feel some responsibility to speak against it, because many atheists believe that religion makes the world a more dangerous place.
3. We can’t admit something we can’t believe, no matter how much we would like to be able to do so. Believing that an “intelligent and rational” person would choose to live their life based upon a book inspired by an intervening deity isn’t any easier for us than believing in said deity.
4. The difference between the scientific method and religious belief is that the abuse of scientific method will eventually be corrected through future research, while abuse of religious belief is maintained through infallible texts which cannot be corrected.
5. With a scientific paper, I can read the paper and, sometimes, read a reference paper, and clearly understand the meaning. With a religious text, I can’t. I have to wade through various, often contradictory, explanations of what the author meant, as opposed to simply going by the dictionary definitions of the words. So we can read the Bible, for example, and think we know what God’s laws are, but in many cases, Christians will tell us our understanding is flawed because something doesn’t really mean what we think it means.
So, three of your five points pretty much require us not to be atheists, the fourth asks us to stay out of your way, and the last asks us not to express our self-perceived superiority so overtly. As a negotiator, I can agree with that one.
ffs… two fools arguing are just still two fools arguing. There’s no talking logic to someone who’s happier with a world view where creation was a magic trick instead of an explosion. Even though there’s no direct evidence for the magician. I have a long christian background, and have tried to do the christ thing. I even studied some advanced witnessing techniques. Unfortunately this means I not only verbally beat up many JW’s and Mormons [note: two kinds of christians that ‘other’ christians say are not!], but that I studied the good book.
I believe i can justify just about any action at this point, based on something that’s in the bible. Quite frankly its just as sickening as Cleopatra the psychic. We should not have too hard of a time saying she’s a fake, or most others that tell fortunes or prophesies. And yet I was forced to agree that the bible MUST be true. Till I really started reading it.
This was something that should NEVER have been done, as any very old school catholic would have agreed. The problem with only verbal interaction with a religion is that each one has so much baggage. They require these huge piles of stories with which one must remember varying sets of detail and rule sets to let them interact without contradicting themselves. [btw there are many full books that were found to ‘not be fit for distrobution’ that disagree greatly with the rest.]
I look back on these days with great fondness. I knew my place in the world, and was happy to know that even if I was wrong the worst thing i had done was waste some time. But as I kept reading, I realized the truth. We Christians had believed in a false god. Even god’s own image and description of himself sounds no better than the mall Santa each year to the children as only vaguely like the one the year before.
Yet this god was immutable, all seeing, all present, all knowing, all loving, angry, jealous, and quite frankly acting like it’s sworn enemy Lucifer. And it was trying to teach me morals. Love your neighbor, don’t rape his wife, etc. But by its own definitions it could not be ‘the’ god. Christ made a big point out of helping the samaritan on the Sabbath. This meant even on a ‘holy’ day one still should do something nice for another. So by all rights, if i see someone in trouble that i CAN help i SHOULD. And yet this ‘god’ guy cant help out with _anything_ now?
Then I really started noticing something. I had never met a real Christian. When one does a real miracle then there will be no need to evangelize. Everyone will just show up. Then I realized. This so-called-god was only a story – one made up by the same people who insisted the world was flat EVEN IGNORING THE LAND CURVING BEFORE THEIR EYES. The books – these complicated books – they are not even full of the stories that were written in them. Instead, in their place are cut up censored carefully structured stories.
The design is very simple really. Get someone to admit something that is not true is. Then force them to give up other bits of the reality they can observe for themselves. In time, they will do anything you say.
NIV© Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.
NAS© Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
GWT© Train a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not turn away from it.
KJV Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
AKJ Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
ASV Train up a child in the way he should go, And even when he is old he will not depart from it.
BBE If a child is trained up in the right way, even when he is old he will not be turned away from it.
DRB It is a proverb: A young man according to his way, even when he is old he will not depart from it.
DBY Train up the child according to the tenor of his way, and when he is old he will not depart from it.
ERV Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it.
WBS Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
WEB Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.
YLT Give instruction to a youth about his way, Even when he is old he turneth not from it.
Isn’t that lovely? Thirteen of ways of saying politely that you should start early and brainwash often. These are standard techniques, and are violations of the basic tenants of civil rights and liberties.
And you may ask yourself why so many atheists are smug?
Let me give you one such reason. Remember “I knew my place in the world, and was happy to know that even if I was wrong the worst thing i had done was waste some time.”? Well here’s the effing kicker. If there is no god, and time was all that there was in the first place, then you just wasted the entire and only life you got. Sad, to say the least.
I will go out on a limb here and bet you would like to not waste your life. Well i dont want you to either. As much as i hate to admit it, once one learns that something is NOT true just because one SAYS its true; once one learns to ACTUALLY respect another’s right to free speach; once one expects a DISSENTING opinion when expressing their own; once one learns that different is not necessarily bad; once one learns that the reason the bible is so much rubbish is because something that unlikely if ANY holes are poked in it the WHOLE house of cards comes falling down; then we might be able to have a conversation.
In the meantime can i suggest you purchase some padding for the walls you seem to be beating your head on? BTW those hallucinations are from the abuse not god.
After reading some of the comments on here, I felt it a good idea to apologise on behalf of the people displaying a colossal disregard for the very first point of your list – people who, sadly, I’m forced to consider “fellow” atheists. I’m in complete disagreement with some of the stances you (Nathan) have put forward when replying to comments, but – barring a technical, semantic issue I have with #4 – I commend you on coming up with and posting the list. Here’s hoping both sides of the debate will simmer down and show some common decency to people who are, in the long run, no better or worse than ourselves.
Nathan,
You are right, I am guilty of being rude to pious people, but only when they insist on engaging me in debate. I tell my Christian friends and family I won’t discuss certain things because I do not want to offend them.
Take creationism for example, which brand do you like? Select one from this Wiki list…
* 2.1.1.1 Young Earth creationism
* 2.1.1.2 Modern geocentrism
* 2.1.1.3 Omphalos hypothesis
* 2.1.1.4 Creation science
* 2.1.1.5 Old Earth creationism
* 2.1.1.6 Gap creationism
* 2.1.1.7 Day-age creationism
* 2.1.1.8 Progressive creationism
* 2.1.1.9 Neo-Creationism
* 2.1.1.10 Intelligent design
They can’t all be true can they? Someone has to be wrong here… right? I’m sorry if you think I am being smug here, but I am not!
Evolution is regarded as undeniable fact by the world’s top scientists. Believing a book written by bronze-age shepherds over such scientific credibility is beyond ignorant, it is just plain stupid.
There, now I have smug and rude… and truthful.
It isn’t us Freethinkers forcing our beliefs on you. You want your 10 commandments in our courts, god on our money, you want to have our kids pray in school, you want Isreal to have non-restricted settlements, you want ID taught in HS biology… it goes on and on and you want us to be nice?
Focus on your own family Nathan and things would be fine. But you and your pious sort can’t, you need to keep proselytizing to add new tithing flock to fill the incredible tax-free coffers used for political purposes.
I have no apologies for being rude to American christians. They should know better.
Kudos: you provoked a truly amusing set of comments proving the post. Well trolled.
You did make me think though: what does smug mean? I’ve talked with both rabid atheists and avid creationists who struck me as smug, and I think the common thread is this: I leave the conversation feeling belittled and insulted. They all come across as if their major point is to say to me “I am smart/blessed by God with knowledge, and YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT.” I mean, at some level most of us “know” we are right, but does a conversation with someone who disagrees with us leave them believing we think they are morons/heretics, and that, in fact, one of our goals in that conversation was to cut them down? Does anyone really think that is an effective means of conversion to any point of view?
1. My Irony Meter goes sproing (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=irony%20meter).
(Thats humor not smugness).
2. Hmmm I thought the really damned no hoper’s are the ones that need your help the most ? (thats sarcasm not smugness).
3. Perhaps. its complex because no one really defines who/what God is. Or what properties he/she/it possesses. or what actions can he/she/it do.
Perhaps you can do so? because we have Christians who say well the universe needs a creator i.e. God and then somehow assume that , that means their version is the one true God.
Its really simple if you think of it in the following way. A benevolent omnipotent interventionist God does not exist (because otherwise the world wont be as we see it – A presence of a single orphaned child begging on the road is sufficient to me to disprove a benevolent omnipotent God).
No other version of God is worth worshiping. (independent of whether a God exists or not)
4. Fail. You do not know what science is, You are either ignorant or dishonest. This is extremely basic and hence the harsh assessment (That’s frustration not smugness)
5. See point 3. On a related note see http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/09/04/four/. And yes can you provide us this definitive Christological narrative(And please dont point to the Bible)?
Pot, let me introduce you to my an old acquaintance of mine. We call him Kettle. :)
Hey Nathan, I hope you’ll continue the dialogue on my post: http://zackfordblogs.com/2009/09/27/five-whiny-tips-for-atheists-ill-likely-ignore/
Lol, Athiests and Christians are equally delusional, as is anyone who claims actual knowledge of something that is unknowable.
Nathan –
Science is not subjective, that’s the whole idea:
“…many different subjective experiences can come together to form intersubjective ones that are less likely to be prone to individual bias or gaps in knowledge.”
from wikipedia
Presuppositionalism doesn’t work because there is no way to confirm that you aren’t fooling yourself.
Did the author of this post (Nathan) really just state that AIG does ~science~?! I’m afraid you’re WAY off on that one buddy, way off. AIG wouldn’t recognize science if it rode into town on a dinosaur!
Epic FAIL for nathan.
“I know personable atheists who are happy to discuss the basis of their folly – and today I’ve met many atheists (virtually) who are happy to hijack a post on a blog and turn it into something just a little bit crazy.”
Stop being smug! And self-centered. And dishonest. And childish. And answer the questions put to you, if you can.
And stop whining.
Doesn’t it say somewhere in the Bible to treat others as you’d like to be treated? I’ll be nicer about Christians when Christians stop trying to stand between me and my rights. I get a little bitter when someone tells me that “my kind” (homosexuals) are the reason that Rome fell (yes, someone told me that) and that it’s dangerous for me to be around children because I want to marry a woman.
Of course, then there’s that genocide thing, all the war and suffering and discrimination that we owe to “God”. Hitler was a Christian, remember.
But, seriously, there’s nothing I can say that hasn’t been said before. Except, possibly, that you’re just a smug idiot.
This is all very nice, but I have two things to interject. Saturnalia and Sol Invictus. Go learn your history and why all this religious nonsense is a coping mechanism. Nothing wrong with a coping mechanism, if it works for you, it’s good medicine, but, BUT… stop turning what could have been a good idea into something to persecute.
It looks like you’re getting responses on other sites too.
http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/blogs/gold/five-things-christians-can-do-seem-more-intelligent
Let’s take this in order.
‘1. Stop being so smug.’
Sorry, no. We atheists will stop being so ‘smug’ when you religious types stop believing that your particular magical Sky-Daddy is the one and only True God™, and there is no possibility you are wrong. In what way, precisely, are we ‘smug’ anyway? The way our beliefs are the only ones that actually follow all evidence of objective reality, and have no qualms about pointing that out? The way we also have no qualms about pointing out the fact there is just as much evidence for the existence of the Tooth Fairy as there is for your particular god? The way we have no qualms about pointing out that, even if a god, of some sort, does exist, there is no way to tell if your particular version of him is correct and all others are false? The way we have no qualms about pointing out that, even within specific religions, such as Christianity, there are many different interpretations of the holy texts and the god they depict?
‘2. Don’t assume every piece of Christian evangelism is directed at you – we want the undecideds, not the decided-uns.’
That is exactly what many atheists find scary. We see you wanting to take those who haven’t made up their minds (in many cases, because they are children) and try to make them into unquestioning religibots, secure in their ‘faith’. To many atheists, persuading people that a mantra of ‘don’t ask questions, just trust this is true’ about certain topics stifles the intellectual growth of humanity as a species. This is partly because many atheists are ex-religibots who committed the heresy of actually asking those questions.
‘3. Admit that the debate about God’s existence is complex – and that it can, depending on your presuppositions, be quite possible for intelligent and rational people to intelligently believe in an intervening deity who communicates through a book.’
Actually, the debate about God’s existence is not complex at all. Either He exists or He doesn’t. And on that question, we should apply the same standard as any rational, intelligent person would about the existence of an invisible dragon in my garage – that being, the whole idea is preposterous, according to the evidence we have about the way the universe works, so we should assume such a being does not exist until we get solid evidence that it does. In both cases, we are lacking such evidence.
It is possible for otherwise intelligent and rational people to believe in God – by never applying their intelligence or rationality to that question. And this state of affairs comes about by these people being indoctrinated into the idea that questions like this are ones to take ‘on faith’, not by actually rationally examining them.
‘4. Admit that the scientific method – which by its nature relies on induction rather than deduction (starting with a hypothesis and testing it rather than observing facts and forming a hypothesis) – is as open to abuse as any religious belief, and is neither objective nor infallible.’
Is the scientific method infallible? No. Which is why it has self-corrective measures built in. As for your description of a scientific method, you start with a fully-formed hypothesis. How did that hypothesis get formed? By examination of the observed and established facts. So you actually base your hypothesis on ‘deduction’ and test it with ‘induction’, as you’ve defined them.
‘5. Try to deal with the actual notions of God seriously believed in by millions of people rather than inventing strawmen (or spaghetti monsters) to dismiss the concepts of God – and deal with the Bible paying attention to context and the broader Christological narrative rather than quoting obscure Old Testament laws. By all means quote the laws when they are applied incorrectly by “Christians” – but understand how they’re meant to work before dealing with the Christians described in point 3.’
Well, every time we DO deal with ‘actual notions of God’ posited by religious folk, we get told by another set of religious folk that this is not the God THEY believe in. Sometimes this even happens with the same people – they propose a certain type of God (say, a direct interventionist God – one who actively affects events here on Earth), we put forth arguments that indicate a God like that doesn’t exist, and the very same people turn around and tell us we’re knocking down strawmen, as they don’t believe in that type of God (and, instead, say, claim they now believe in a non-interventionist God – one who set things in motion a long time ago, and is now sitting back watching His plan unfold). As soon as we then put forth arguments against this second type of God, they then revert to a third type of God – or even simply go back to the first one (whilst blindly ignoring the fact we’ve already demonstrated such a God doesn’t exist), and continue to accuse us of knocking down strawmen.
So give us a nice, clear, unequivocal definition of what you mean by ‘God’, and stick to it, and maybe we won’t do that.
Omigosh! How funny. Its a shame that anything intelligent you might have to offer is totally negated by the fact you believe in such dribble as a supreme being. Oh well, the world needs idiots too.
2. “Don’t assume every piece of Christian evangelism is directed at you – we want the undecideds, not the decided-uns. ”
So do we. So if you attempt to evangelize the undecideds, we will attempt to counter your evangelism.
“3. Admit that the debate about God’s existence is complex – and that it can, depending on your presuppositions, be quite possible for intelligent and rational people to intelligently believe in an intervening deity who communicates through a book. ”
I am not going to admit something that isn’t true.
“4. Admit that the scientific method – which by its nature relies on induction rather than deduction (starting with a hypothesis and testing it rather than observing facts and forming a hypothesis) – is as open to abuse as any religious belief, and is neither objective nor infallible.”
The scientific method relies on both inductive and deductive reasoning. It definitely is fallible, but it’s more reliable by far than any other method. And yes, it is objective.
“5. Try to deal with the actual notions of God seriously believed in by millions of people”
We do. First of all, the millions of people who believe in a simplistic, anthropomorphic god are every bit as serious in their belief as you are. Secondly, an impersonal, abstact creater god (who still somehow cares about and communicates with people) is every bit as unevidenced as an anthropomorphic, personal god. We deal with both god concepts. None of them have evidence, and neither one is more “serious” as the other.
It’s silly we’re taking any sort of religious person seriously as an adult. I’ve already started assuming they have near-child intelligence because they cannot figure out what is real and what is make believe and just stories.
you Christians make me sick given the means i would raise an army and wipe every single last one of you guys from the planet (hmm must sound kinda familiar to a Christian) its your religion that is single handedly holding back the advancement of civilization as we know it besides im sure any intelligent person is able to gather the facts around them to come to the conclusion that there is no god everything is random and were are ever so lucky that our planet happend to have all the existing conditions for life there is no god we as a race just lucked out on a 1 in a 1000000000000000000 planet. so take your 5 things to make atheists seem nicer and shove it right up your ass because as an atheist i feel it is my duty to make life hard for people who are stupid. i mean you can always say im a sad lonley man for not believing in god but the fact of the matter simply is THERE IS NO GOD only the worlds first ever con man who seen fit to write the bible so he could profit from churches who are one of the top 5 biggest corps in the world pretty good for a non profit organization
1. Smug…I prefer ‘supercilious’, actually. So, with your permission:
2. The fact that religious indoctrination works best with impressionable children should tell you something. If an adult spouts nonsense in public, there are many people ready and willing to refute said nonsense. The argument from authority doesn’t carry much weight, as it has been continually abused.
3. Any god, goddess, saint, angel, djinn, demagogue and/or demon you would care to name, exists solely in the individual’s imagination. (BTW, the “ultimate cosmic force” of my imagination is perfect and complete, neither needing nor wanting anything from us.) Morality may or may not be associated with a religion, but in any case morality develops independently.
4. I hypothesize that religious fundamentalists wish to form a hive-imagination, in the hope that at some unknown threshold population it would achieve an awareness of its own and break through the veil, so to speak. Rationalists and empiricists are eagerly awaiting all testable data. Such data are exclusively in the domain of religionists, who cannot be bothered to share.
5. The one thing that would convince me of the validity of any single scrap of scripture, is the universal agreement of all sapient humans on all it points. This is a rigorous standard to be sure, and will never be met, but as I mentioned my Imaginary Cosmic Boss is perfect and complete.
Five things that would make theists seem nicer:
1. Stop being so smug.
2. Don’t assume every piece of atheist argument is directed at you – we want the undecideds, not the decided-uns.
3. Admit that the debate about the existence of gods is rather simple- and that it can, depending on what pieces of information you accept into evidence, be quite possible for good, kind, and unswervingly ethical people to believe that there is no metaphysical layer to reality, deified or otherwise.
4. Admit that faith is by its very nature a selective belief in things that cannot be objectively proven and are simply the beliefs of the individual.
5. Try to deal with the actual notions of atheism and agnosticism seriously believed by millions of people rather than inventing strawmen (or morally bankrupt monsters) to dismiss the concepts of atheism and agnosticism- and deal with science and the skeptical worldview without falling back upon dogmatic, unprovable scripture. By all means point out the scientific and pragmatic lessons contained in your book as appropriate- but understand that there is a big difference between accepting that there are good ideas and historical data contained in the book and accepting it as the revealed word of a god.
Bob (comment 1, Sep 27) I couldn’t have said it better. Thanks. Christians are noobs.
Nathan: Perhaps atheist would be less smug if we were actually offered challenging arguments once and a while, rather than the variants of the Ontological Argument; appeals to authority, incredulity and majority; or complaints that we are “too mean.” It’s hard to remain polite when encountering an argument you’ve seen refuted thousands of times.
You’re adding nothing to the conversation here. How smug we happen to be (or don’t happen to be) has nothing to do with whether our position is correct.
There’s also a sad lack of substance in your replies. You’ve pretty much said atheists are taking things “out of context” without elaborating on how or why, or restating that you think atheist are rude or smug, using condescending language all the while. You haven’t defended any of your points. Please try to answer some of the questions posed to you- it will go a long way in showing your intelligence.
tjmcmahon: You are confusing atheism with nihilism. The two are different. Try to actually understand a position before criticizing it.
Morality is not the solely in the dominion of religions, thanks.