If I were an Atheist

[Drew_2013]

Dystopia

Humans are not special.

If atheism is true I agree, we are the accidental by product of mindless forces that never intended our existence. This explains why atheist nations typically have an abysmal human rights record.

I would demand that they stop attacks, insults and attempts to marginalise atheists (and believers of other religions/variations of their own religions...I would tell them to stop vandalising atheist billboards and signs....I would insist they stop threatening atheists with hell and passive aggressive nonsense like "I'll pray for you"...I would tell them to stop prosletysing to atheists because all that achieves is to annoy and drive them away from the message they're trying to spread.

Go for it. I know religious zealots can be offensively obnoxious.

rasetsu

And in doing so, I'd say you're confused about the nature of modern atheism. Yes, there are some who deny the existence of God, and for them to do so is perfectly fine — it's a big tent. However many come to atheism as a position of skepticism — that being to withhold assent until reason and evidence compel belief. It is skepticism of a narrow sort, concerned only with claims about the existence of gods. In this it is no different than, say, skepticism about the matter of universal origins; one is able to withhold belief from specific claims and theories without necessarily being obliged to form a contrary opinion. As I recall, you had great difficulty accepting that as well. Ultimately, it is up to the individual atheist to determine whether they hold to a position of skepticism or one of outright denial; as such, atheism isn't a movement of robot drones all marching to the beat of the same drum. There is no shame in simply adopting an attitude of skepticism; it is a time honored position.

No shame at all. I think by calling themselves atheists they water down the traditional position of atheists which is the belief or opinion that God(s) doesn't exist. If you asked people on the street if they knew atheism can mean someone who doesn't deny God exists they would be shocked. After all I don't deny God exists either.

For whatever reason, the argument seems to have gotten under your skin. It's an analogy, and whether that analogy is weak or strong, effective or ineffective, apt or not, is something that only an individual atheist can decide dependent on context and such. Using it at every opportunity might be unwise, but for a variety of reasons, none of which imply that it is a fundamentally useless argument as you seem to imply here. That someone might use such an argument from analogy is neither good or bad in the absolute; there are certainly times when its use is warranted or effective. (Heaven forbid an atheist might make an ineffective argument! What would the movement think!?) A little now and again does no harm.

The argument is intended to insult. It (obviously) implies that those who believe in the existence of God are as absurd as those who believe in Santa Claus, Fairies or Leprechauns. Insulting people with a difference of opinion does little to persuade them. Do you think any atheists became atheists because of such a dubious argument?

Yes, I'm sure you would welcome an end to the abuse and ridicule, however I would suggest to you that some of the time atheists bash, marginalize, or demonize believers it is because the believer has done, said, or believed something that is worthy of bashing, marginalizing or demonizing. Much like the Santa Claus analogy above, you seem to live in a one-size-fits-all world, but situations may suggest if not compel one to such behavior in the name of moral decency. Seldom is it done as an act put on to entertain one's peers. Again, it is the individual judgement of the particular atheist who should decide when such measures are warranted, not some dictate of the Atheist Reich.

I have been debating atheists for over 15 years and I don't take any of the aforementioned tactics personally. I know devout believers and religious zealots can be incredibly obnoxious but the tactics are still in poor form and still makes atheists 'look petty, smug and arrogant and that they can’t make a factual argument from the evidence' One of the atheists on this board disagreed with all I said except this point.

In general, you seem to be advocating that all atheists abandon their individuality in favor of some kind of unified front for the movement. Not only would this be rather inauthentic, I think that what the movement would lose is inestimably more valuable than what it might gain.

Do you think atheists could do better at explaining their position and advancing their beliefs? I think they would find sugar would go a lot further than vinegar.