posted
Last night, I was sitting in an Airport in Houston. The CNN show "Out in the Open" was on. They showed the video of the Georgia governor holding a rally on capital steps asking all citizens who believe in prayer to pray.
The host of the show interviewed an atheist who was none to happy about this. This lady went into a tyraid about how these "stupid" people were calling on the spiritual world. She also said, multiple times, she was "sick and tired" of this. When asked what was so wrong about asking people to pray, she said these "idiots" drive the young men to the outskirts of their community so they can have all the young women. This was obviously in reference to the Warren Jeffs group. This woman was not clear in her examples but she did clearly hate everyone who follows any religion. She stated, "there is no afterlife"; she made this statement without any evidence.
Religious extremists aside, why do atheists hate anyone who believes in a higher being, and why do they have to be so militant about it. This has happened a few times on Hatrack. I don't think it is right to show such hatred for people based on their beliefs.
I could not find video of the interview last night. If I find it, I will repost.
quote:I don't think it is right to show such hatred for people based on their beliefs.
Agreed.
As to why, I think people are generally jerks and will use whatever cause is nearby in order to justify it. I think that woman was motivated by the same thing that motivates religious jerks. People often suck.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I've seen theists be kind of mean to atheists before. I mean, for starters, they call them atheists. That's like calling women "non-men" or children "non-adults". I mean, the women/non-men thing is debatable, but it's still kind of odd.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We may have found a soulmate for King of Men. She sounds like Madalyn Murray O'Hair reincarnated and pissed off about it.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want it to sound like theists are perfect. I grew up in a Southern Baptists church and they are some of the most judgemental people I have ever met. But I have never heard any of the preachers call people "idiots" and "stupid" on TV.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question should be "Why do some atheists hate..."
Not trying to be PC, just trying to be accurate. I certainly don't hate people who believe in a higher being.
I get mildly concerned when I see representatives in the government doing things that break the first amendment.
Something you should ask...would they let a reasonable, kind and polite atheist on the news? Doesn't a mean, angry, ignorant atheist get more ratings?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was not aware that atheists as a whole HATE YOU IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD RARRH.
The statement is bound to insult in the same way it would insult a religious dude if you made a thread that said "Why do Christians HATE people who choose to be an atheist?"
It's a shoddy generalization, you know?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: why do atheists hate anyone who believes in a higher being
They don't (or at least the majority don't).
Why are religious people suicide bombers?
They aren't (or at least the majority aren't).
If you want to judge one group by the extremists who share part of their beliefs, then you should be consistent and judge all groups to the same standard.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
El JT, I guess I thought back to an article I had read a few months ago in Wired magazine. In a nutshell, it says the "New Atheists" are not content with letting people believe as they want to. They are to expose theists as idiots.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I have never heard any of the preachers call people "idiots" and "stupid" on TV.
You've never heard Sothern Baptists call people those specific things, or never heard them hate other people?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm... most of them don't. Does the fact that Fred Phelps is often on the news, screaming and ranting about how gays are destroying America, mean that all Christians HATE people who don't believe in their particular higher being?
As far as being militant goes... let's turn that around first. Why are religious folks so often "militant" about their beliefs? I mean, you've got Christians bombing abortion clinics, Muslims bombing World Trade Centers, Hindus and Muslims bombing the crap out of each other in India, Catholics and Protestants still occasionally engaging in mutual violence in Northern Ireland. Seems pretty widespread to me, certainly moreso than atheism-driven acts of violence.
Now, I don't actually believe that Christians, or any other religious people, are inherently hateful or militant. But that is, essentially, the logic you are using to label an entire group of people, the vast, vast majority of whom are perfectly nice, tolerant folks, based on the actions of one single extremist- and let's face it, a pretty mild one, at that. That woman is just saying mean things. She's not killing people over her beliefs (or the lack thereof). Heck, she's not even maiming them. You can't consider yourself a real extremist if you aren't even willing to beat people up for disagreeing with you.
Edit: Wow, I started writing this post while there were no responses to the thread, and then got distracted by work for a while. Need to remember to refresh next time. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brojack, atheists have stopped being content with letting people believe what they want because there are people who want this nation to become a Christian Theology (some, not many), and there are countries completely under the rule of religion who are killing people for having sex or 'committing witchcraft'. I'm not kidding. These are just two of the more extreme examples.
Many atheists have elected to not just sit back and watch this happen without saying anything.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tarrsk, I agree there is extremests in any religious (or non-religious) group. I just mean, why has Atheism taken on this trate only recently.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Brojack, atheists have stopped being content with letting people believe what they want because there are people who want this nation to become a Christian Theology (some, not many), and there are countries completely under the rule of religion who are killing people for having sex or 'committing witchcraft'. I'm not kidding. These are just two of the more extreme examples.
Many atheists have elected to not just sit back and watch this happen without saying anything.
Javert, I agree with you and I agree with the separation of church (or non-church) and state. This seems to be a little more than that. If I got on TV, as a Christian, and said Jews were stupid or Muslims were idiots, then people would be asking for my head.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I have never heard any of the preachers call people "idiots" and "stupid" on TV.
You've never heard Sothern Baptists call people those specific things, or never heard them hate other people?
None that I have ever listened to. If I were in a sermon and the preacher started spewing hate speak, then I would take me and my family out of there immediately.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a mixture of increased general acceptance for atheism among the population, and a simultaneous increase in religious influence in government. Those two things may appear to be mutually exclusive, but they're exactly what we are observing: on average, Americans are increasingly tolerant of non-religious belief systems (which isn't to say that they themselves are adopting them), but at the same time, those who remain religious (and contrary to what your preacher might say, this group is by far the majority in this country) are feeling increasingly emboldened about legislating their beliefs into law.
As a result, atheists feel a need to be more vocal about their beliefs in order to counteract what they see as the inappropriate encroachment of religion upon the government. Their wider acceptance, at least among the more socially liberal subset of Americans, is what gives them this voice. It is one that would not have been possible just a few decades ago, when our Presidents were free to make open statements along the lines of "Atheists aren't actually Americans" without any sort of real outcry or political consequences.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: why do atheists hate anyone who believes in a higher being
They don't (or at least the majority don't).
Why are religious people suicide bombers?
They aren't (or at least the majority aren't).
If you want to judge one group by the extremists who share part of their beliefs, then you should be consistent and judge all groups to the same standard.
My appologies. I took this lady and the Wired article and should have said "New Atheists". I went back to edit that.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Brojack, atheists have stopped being content with letting people believe what they want because there are people who want this nation to become a Christian Theology (some, not many), and there are countries completely under the rule of religion who are killing people for having sex or 'committing witchcraft'. I'm not kidding. These are just two of the more extreme examples.
Many atheists have elected to not just sit back and watch this happen without saying anything.
Javert, I agree with you and I agree with the separation of church (or non-church) and state. This seems to be a little more than that. If I got on TV, as a Christian, and said Jews were stupid or Muslims were idiots, then people would be asking for my head.
Well, perhaps not asking for your head. Fred Phelps does that sort of thing all the time. But there are also people like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, Dinesh D'Souza, Kirk Cameron's 'Way of the Master'. All high profile, and all very good at making subtle and not so subtle insults very often.
As for this woman...ok, call for her head. But don't equate her with all atheists. I have no idea who she is, or if she represents anyone other than herself. That's the thing about atheists. We aren't a religion, so every individual can be an atheist for a vastly different reason.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I think it's a mixture of increased general acceptance for atheism among the population, and a simultaneous increase in religious influence in government. Those two things may appear to be mutually exclusive, but they're exactly what we are observing: on average, Americans are increasingly tolerant of non-religious belief systems (which isn't to say that they themselves are adopting them), but at the same time, those who remain religious (and contrary to what your preacher might say, this group is by far the majority in this country) are feeling increasingly emboldened about legislating their beliefs into law.
As a result, atheists feel a need to be more vocal about their beliefs in order to counteract what they see as the inappropriate encroachment of religion upon the government. Their wider acceptance, at least among the more socially liberal subset of Americans, is what gives them this voice. It is one that would not have been possible just a few decades ago, when our Presidents were free to make open statements along the lines of "Atheists aren't actually Americans" without any sort of real outcry or political consequences.
Can you give examples of how religion is changing the law? There is the moment of silence thing, but I don't think that is necessarily religious. Abortion is still legal. More states are gambling than ever before. The ten commandments are being taken off of public property all across the country.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Tarrsk, I agree there is extremests in any religious (or non-religious) group. I just mean, why has Atheism taken on this trate only recently.
"recently?"
Look, mang, as long as I have been alive there have been some atheists who act this way and want nothing more than to be giant dicks to people because of their belief in God. This is nothing new.
But notice the Power Word. "Some." as in "some atheists." This is not atheism on the whole. At all. It's wrong to assert otherwise. Atheism hasn't 'taken on this trait' at all, actually, because atheism is not a collective, nor a church. It's a bunch of people who for whatever reason don't believe in a god. These people may or may not be dicks about other people believing in god. On the whole they're likely to not be dicks.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I was not aware that atheists as a whole HATE YOU IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD RARRH.
The statement is bound to insult in the same way it would insult a religious dude if you made a thread that said "Why do Christians HATE people who choose to be an atheist?"
It's a shoddy generalization, you know?
Again my appologies. I meant to say "New Atheists". Thread title has been edited.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, Again I will point to the "New Atheists" movement. Since they are calling themselves "New" I would assume it would have had to started "recently". At least since we started walking upright .
Also, would it offend you if I asked you to edit your last post and remove the d-word.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all I am not an Atheist, and have never heard of "New Atheists" before, so I can't say why or if any of them "Hate" believers.
The only reason I could see being upset that the Govenor called on people of faith to pray is if they were doing that praying instead of something that might be a bit more constructive.
I don't mean to imply that Prayer is not constructive, in its own way. I do mean that if they were discussing terrorism, there are things that can be done beyond and besides prayer. God helps those who help themselves, not those who only plead for help.
If the Govenor came out and said, "We'll not worry about being ready for the next Al Queda threat, because we are going to save money and have everyone pray they don't attack us." then I would be greatly upset.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Sam, Again I will point to the "New Atheists" movement. Since they are calling themselves "New" I would assume it would have had to started "recently". At least since we started walking upright .
Also, would it offend you if I asked you to edit your last post and remove the d-word.
Actually, they aren't calling themselves "new". Their detractors have labeled them as 'new atheists'...I'm not quite sure why. But probably for similar reasons they've labeled us 'militant atheists'.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I have never heard any of the preachers call people "idiots" and "stupid" on TV.
Really? What about "demons in human flesh" or "evil?" If you're going to tell me that televangelists don't insult people who don't share their faith, I'm going to have to consider you unacceptably biased.
It's also worth noting that not all "New Atheists" -- and I consider myself a "New Atheist" -- hate people who are religious.
The difference between a "New Atheist" and a "non-New" atheist is that the former agrees that religious faith should no longer be the most serious mental delusion that is socially tolerated. This does not mean that New Atheists "hate" the religious; it means that they pity them and want to cure them, in the same way that many religious people pity and seek to cure homosexuals.
Of course, once you pity someone, it's pretty easy to slip from there into thinking that they're your inferior in every way, or even to dehumanizing them and regarding them as an enemy. If some "New" (and even old) atheists fall prey to this, I'd still rather that they be ranting about it on TV than, say, dragging homosexuals behind their trucks.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again my appologies. I meant to say "New Atheists". Thread title has been edited.
I still think you are overgeneralizing. "New Atheists" generally applies to the more vocal atheists that have sprung up in the last few years, such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Only a minority of this group expresses anything close to "hateful" speech about religious people. Dawkins and Harris have great disdain for religion, but are not generally unkind toward the religious people.
The "new atheists" are hateful in the same way as the "new blacks" were hateful during the civil rights movement. They are more vocal and assertive, but there's not anything particularly hateful about what they are saying.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Sam, Again I will point to the "New Atheists" movement. Since they are calling themselves "New" I would assume it would have had to started "recently". At least since we started walking upright .
Also, would it offend you if I asked you to edit your last post and remove the d-word.
Actually, they aren't calling themselves "new". Their detractors have labeled them as 'new atheists'...I'm not quite sure why. But probably for similar reasons they've labeled us 'militant atheists'.
If they didn't coin the phrase, then they have accepted it.
quote:But I have never heard any of the preachers call people "idiots" and "stupid" on TV.
Really? What about "demons in human flesh" or "evil?" If you're going to tell me that televangelists don't insult people who don't share their faith, I'm going to have to consider you unacceptably biased.
It's also worth noting that not all "New Atheists" -- and I consider myself a "New Atheist" -- hate people who are religious.
The difference between a "New Atheist" and a "non-New" atheist is that the former agrees that religious faith should no longer be the most serious mental delusion that is socially tolerated. This does not mean that New Atheists "hate" the religious; it means that they pity them and want to cure them, in the same way that many religious people pity and seek to cure homosexuals.
Of course, once you pity someone, it's pretty easy to slip from there into thinking that they're your inferior in every way, or even to dehumanizing them and regarding them as an enemy. If some "New" (and even old) atheists fall prey to this, I'd still rather that they be ranting about it on TV than, say, dragging homosexuals behind their trucks.
Yes, there are TV evangelists that I do not agree with. Actually, most of them I do not and I completely disagree with them asking for money.
If the New Atheists can not cure the lower than human believers, should they be eradicated? Thinking people are sub-human because of their beliefs is scary. I believe someone about seventy years ago thought that. His name started with an H.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the New Atheists can not cure the lower than human believers, should they be erradicated?
You oppose homosexuality, if I recall correctly. If we cannot cure homosexuals, should they be eradicated?
The question's as offensive as you might imagine. And in case you can't guess the answer: no. Anyone who says otherwise has allowed his extremism to dehumanize his opponent.
The latter is especially troubling in an atheist, because a respect for humanity is basically what atheists have. If you're an atheist who isn't also a humanist, I'm not sure how you'd avoid nihilism. Luckily, I don't think that problem's all that common.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This does not mean that New Atheists "hate" the religious; it means that they pity them and want to cure them, in the same way that many religious people pity and seek to cure homosexuals.
Wow. That's not a way of relating to or thinking about people that I would want to take as a model.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again my appologies. I meant to say "New Atheists". Thread title has been edited.
I still think you are overgeneralizing. "New Atheists" generally applies to the more vocal atheists that have sprung up in the last few years, such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Only a minority of this group expresses anything close to "hateful" speech about religious people. Dawkins and Harris have great disdain for religion, but are not generally unkind toward the religious people.
The "new atheists" are hateful in the same way as the "new blacks" were hateful during the civil rights movement. They are more vocal and assertive, but there's not anything particularly hateful about what they are saying.
quote:Tolerance of pervasive myth and superstition in modern society is not a virtue. Religious fundamentalism has gone main stream and its toll on education, science, and social progress is disheartening. Wake up people!! We are smart enough now to kill our invisible gods and oppressive beliefs. It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated, lest we fall prey to the tyranny of ignorance.
The last quote is from the newatheists.org homepage. It doesn't sound like they like me very much. I don't appreciate being called uneducated.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the New Atheists can not cure the lower than human believers, should they be erradicated?
You oppose homosexuality, if I recall correctly. If we cannot cure homosexuals, should they be eradicated?
The question's as offensive as you might imagine. And in case you can't guess the answer: no. Anyone who says otherwise has allowed his extremism to dehumanize his opponent.
The latter is especially troubling in an atheism, because a respect for humanity is basically what atheists have. If you're an atheist who isn't also a humanist, I'm not sure how you'd avoid nihilism. Luckily, I don't think that problem's all that common.
No they shouldn't. They have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. If a same sex relationship is what they need for happiness, more power to them.
I'm not going to stand on a street corner and condemn them. That doesn't mean there aren't people out there that will. And that is wrong.
I'm not getting "respect for humanity" from this new group of atheists. My original question is why now. That has been responded to.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow. That's not a way of relating to or thinking about people that I would want to take as a model.
Would you seek to cure someone who was schizophrenic? Or advise someone with severe depression to seek medical help? Would you take someone with a leg injury to a doctor?
-------
quote:I'm not getting "respect for humanity" from this new group of atheists.
If you're not getting "respect for humanity" from Richard Dawkins, you haven't read Richard Dawkins.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:They showed the video of the Georgia governor holding a rally on capital steps asking all citizens who believe in prayer to pray.
It's worth saying that a deity that works like this, who would grant this prayer while denying so many others, isn't exactly a benevolent entity.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: This is why the pejorative of choice for idiot atheists is "stupid."
It is much more comforting to believe that you're smarter than everyone...
(emphasis mine)
Wow. I don't even disagree with the sentiment behind it, but the unintentional irony of this statement is breathtaking.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Yay! Godwin's Law makes an appearance!
Not just Godwin, but Godwin AND a straw man. It's a logical fallacy twofer!
Ok, how about this.
How long until a new atheists gets tired of the sub-human believers, we'll call them infidels, and decides to hijack a plane and crash it into a church.
There are extremists everywhere and intolerance of others beliefs is wrong. That is not a religious thing and I know I am being judgemental, but don't hate me for my beliefs. I don't hate you for yours.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's worth saying that a deity that works like this, who would grant this prayer while denying so many others, isn't exactly a benevolent entity.
For some strange definition of benevolent, maybe.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, this applies to me too. I'm aware that I would rather not believe that I'm stupid. I would also rather not believe that I'm evil. Fortunately, I am neither.
--
The name-calling is still quite lame. It also undercuts the claim to humanism - you don't get to claim that you love humanity if you hate the religious streak in it that just won't go away.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How long until a new atheists gets tired of the sub-human believers, we'll call them infidels, and decides to hijack a plane and crash it into a church.
I think it's highly unlikely. In a very real way, this sort of action is even more antithetical to "New Atheism" than it is to Christianity. That said, like you pointed out, there are wackos everywhere; how long will it be before some Republican hijacks a plane and crashes it into the Times building?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The name-calling is still quite lame. It also undercuts the claim to humanism - you don't get to claim that you love humanity if you hate the religious streak in it that just won't go away.
If you think that religion is harmful to humanity, despite it's pervasiveness, then disdain for religion is not anti-humanity any more than disdain for cancer, also pervasive and harmful, is not anti-humanity.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
