Pseudo-Atheism, this one is for you...

[LivingNumbers6.626]

Yes, I have a few friends who are atheist and treat authors like these as the now-all-say-all. They are usually the same type of persons who find themselves in and out of faith their entire life. But if you are asking for verifiable resources, I have nothing but experience to offer.

So your entire screed is based on your creation of a fictitious class of being you dub pseudo-atheists. This creation is in turn only based on a handful of personal relations referencing the work of renowned atheists; a fair assumption since you admitted that you did not refute the claims of said atheists. It seems to me that you are taking the position that you properly consider atheist arguments from popular sources, but others aren't properly skeptical and are intellectually lazy to the point of accepting arguments solely on an assumed fealty to authority.

Packed with unverified assumptions, your arguments come across as those of an elitist desperately attempting to justify an unsubstantiated intellectual superiority.

This entire response is ironic.

You've made quite the astounding conclusions as to the motivation to the post before you thought to ask the appropriate questions.

"your arguments come across as those of an elitist desperately attempting to justify an unsubstantiated intellectual superiority." -------Ask me what I am attempting to do, I dare you.

[Cato]

This entire response is ironic.

You've made quite the astounding conclusions as to the motivation to the post before you thought to ask the appropriate questions.

"your arguments come across as those of an elitist desperately attempting to justify an unsubstantiated intellectual superiority." -------Ask me what I am attempting to do, I dare you.

I engaged you in an effort to understand the basis for your position only to learn that you're tilting at windmills. If there's something more you wish me to consider, then say it.

[LivingNumbers6.626]

This entire response is ironic.

You've made quite the astounding conclusions as to the motivation to the post before you thought to ask the appropriate questions.

"your arguments come across as those of an elitist desperately attempting to justify an unsubstantiated intellectual superiority." -------Ask me what I am attempting to do, I dare you.

I engaged you in an effort to understand the basis for your position only to learn that you're tilting at windmills. If there's something more you wish me to consider, then say it.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. I find no use in the projection of words when there are no ears to sufficiently hear them.

[Cato]

I find no use in the projection of words when there are no ears to sufficiently hear them.

Do you not realize this statement validates my conclusion?

[LivingNumbers6.626]

I find no use in the projection of words when there are no ears to sufficiently hear them.

Do you not realize this statement validates my conclusion?

Okay, Cato. You win. Is that what you wish to hear? If not, I am open to any questions. Do not require me to know the questions you want answered.

It resembles a prosecutor in a court questioning the defendant, saying "if there is any more evidence and things I don't know about you, you need to tell me!"

Sounds like a preposterous way to go about an argument, and even more preposterous to draw conclusions when your schema fails.

But at this point I will leave this conversation, but read your last reply. I believe we have met at an un-salvageable and unproductive point in this conversation. Perhaps due to your misunderstanding, or my misunderstanding, or both, I know not which.

We shall meet on future threads, I look forward to it.

With Respect and Gratitude,
Q1C

[Bibliofagus]

I'm no special snowflake atheist. Just a guy who doesn't believe in any gods. Sorry. I'm pretty dense at times as well, and I know many who can debate atheism a lot better than me. That said: I still tend to engage theist arguments sometimes. I probably make mistakes when I do.

I have a question: you appear to be confident your reasoning is superior than that of some other atheists, and you feel these (like me) give you a bad name right?

Would you stop being happy as an atheist if say, 80% of the world would become a pseudo atheist?

[LivingNumbers6.626]

I'm no special snowflake atheist. Just a guy who doesn't believe in any gods. Sorry. I'm pretty dense at times as well, and I know many who can debate atheism a lot better than me. That said: I still tend to engage theist arguments sometimes. I probably make mistakes when I do.

I have a question: you appear to be confident your reasoning is superior than that of some other atheists, and you feel these (like me) give you a bad name right?

Would you stop being happy as an atheist if say, 80% of the world would become a pseudo atheist?

I apologize if my post offended you. It was not my intention.

I don't know you personally, but since you have bothered to question, I sorely doubt you are one of "them." Though and don't like to use the word "them" like that.

I also don't mean to assert my idea is superior than other atheists, but I do mean to assert than many atheists have employed the tools of skepticism, rational, and reason.

I am talking strictly of those who use none of these tools and instead hypocritically use their stance to belittle others with fallacious arguments.

That is all. I had a similar stance when I was Mormon, I very much disliked the majority of them because of their judgments and hypocrisy. I understand that the atheist sect sees a whole lot less of this phenomenon, but I do wish to take note of the fact that it does happen.

So I guess I will have to admit, I'm more concerned with the hypocrisy and apathy among some atheists than I am with their lack of use of reason, rational, and skepticism. Though it really erks me when they claim that they use them when in reality their arguments are fallacious.

I in no ways believe my self to be superior than others, but I am confident enough to argue against fallacious atheists.

I didn't really mean to propose a "me" or "I" problem, and that "those" atheists ruin "my" idea of an atheist. Because atheists who are apathetic and judgmental, using fallacious arguments, are not only not good for me, but for the whole community of atheism. I'm all about public image, and I can't reason with any christian who is convinced immediately that I am an ass because of their encounters with douchey atheists.

But no, I would still be happy as an atheist if 80% of atheists were what I would consider psuedo-atheists.

But it is also my argument that it is impossible to choose atheism, or any belief, without using some form of rationality. My plea is that we just maintain that rationality in all situations.

[Bibliofagus]

I'm not offended. Not to worry. I do think you are a bit off the mark though.

Consider this: I was raised atheist. I genuinly don't have a clue what people are even talking about when they mention god. As I said, I can be pretty dense as well.
Now some theist crosses my path and claims I'm immoral, because I don't believe in his god. This happens a lot more often than me going out telling them they are assholes.
So... I want to respond. I'm not able to phrase a perfect argument. I'm not allowed to 'invoke' hitchens.

What do I do?

The thing is, you appear to want all atheists to be perfect advocates of atheism. I'm not. And I'm human to boot. I do get annoyed when people, who often don't know me at all, tell me I'm an asshole for not believing their god, or for letting my wife out of the house without a scarf or whatever. And I respond. I respond for my own satisfaction. I don't expect a deconversion. I don't expect anyone to change his mind. And I sure as hell don't care if some other atheist feels I'm misrepresenting him. I'm not representing you. I'm representing me.

Another thing is that I never met a theist that truly was convinced to believe because of lets say Kalam's cosmological argument. Or the argument from design. Belief is often not rational at all. You may want to ask yourself what reasons for engaging a theist might exist. Is a perfect argument really a good way to convince someone theism is bullshit? Could it be even stupid atheists feel the need to tell off some theist, just because he lives in a society saturated with it, or is confronted with a claim as in my example?

Or is it all about something else?

[Whateverist]

You would love the forums at Atheism Plus. Try it out.

[LivingNumbers6.626]

You would love the forums at Atheism Plus. Try it out.

I have no interest in censorship, hence no interest in atheism+.

---

I'm not offended. Not to worry. I do think you are a bit off the mark though.

Consider this: I was raised atheist. I genuinly don't have a clue what people are even talking about when they mention god. As I said, I can be pretty dense as well.
Now some theist crosses my path and claims I'm immoral, because I don't believe in his god. This happens a lot more often than me going out telling them they are assholes.
So... I want to respond. I'm not able to phrase a perfect argument. I'm not allowed to 'invoke' hitchens.

What do I do?

The thing is, you appear to want all atheists to be perfect advocates of atheism. I'm not. And I'm human to boot. I do get annoyed when people, who often don't know me at all, tell me I'm an asshole for not believing their god, or for letting my wife out of the house without a scarf or whatever. And I respond. I respond for my own satisfaction. I don't expect a deconversion. I don't expect anyone to change his mind. And I sure as hell don't care if some other atheist feels I'm misrepresenting him. I'm not representing you. I'm representing me.

Another thing is that I never met a theist that truly was convinced to believe because of lets say Kalam's cosmological argument. Or the argument from design. Belief is often not rational at all. You may want to ask yourself what reasons for engaging a theist might exist. Is a perfect argument really a good way to convince someone theism is bullshit? Could it be even stupid atheists feel the need to tell off some theist, just because he lives in a society saturated with it, or is confronted with a claim as in my example?

Or is it all about something else?

Good points, good points.

I am certainly not demanding perfection. I mention in the original post that I have often been illogical when speaking to a believer and maybe sometimes belligerent. This is particularly normal in those surfacing out of religion. As one individual had said (if you want the source, I would be more than happy to retrieve it, I just can't recall it off the top of my head): "Most people go through a asshole stage when leaving church, and some stay there."

I'm just mostly concerned with those who willingly stay in the asshole stage. Eventually, if we are particularly fervent in atheism, then we should find a way to bring out brilliance rather than aggression.

Again, I don't mean to say all atheists are like this, very few are. But unfortunately the few make the most noise sometimes. Also, I am not condemning human tendency either.

It's okay to let a foul word slip every once and a while. It's okay to make mistakes. It's okay to avoid reason and become belligerent every once and a while. But it's not okay to absorb this as a perpetual characteristic. That's all really.

But thank you for your input, I really appreciate it. This post is my first draft of a very general idea. I will be pulling into consideration your points as well as the points of others as I make way to a solid piece of work.