If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Apparently, the idea atheists are so angry is the result of mass projection.
[Meier et al 2015] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.10...013.866929

Thanks for the quality link. There is undoubtedly a projection effect as there's little reason to suppose the personalities of atheists are any more dominated by anger than is the case with other people. A bit of semantics is involved here: We speak of "the angry white male" in connection with conservative politics, not because we think white men are all habitually angry. The "angry atheist" term is used in a similar vein because in general, organized atheist groups and the organized religious are frequently opponents at law and in political process. Oddly, in Study 3 even atheists appeared to think atheists were angry.

You're welcome. I agree that some people use the term to describe atheists who are or seem angry, and I don't doubt that you would use the phrase in that nuanced way, but the study certainly supports the contention that it's a common perception that atheists are habitually angry. I've certainly encountered that presumption often enough in my life based on nothing more than someone knowing that I'm an atheist, or just as often, NOT knowing I'm an atheist.

---

...but atheism is not a philosophy (nor is it the sort of noun that ought to be capitalized, but I reckon that's your business), it's a position on one topic.

Oh, Horrors! Did I capitalize it? I could swear I didn't, but a slip of the shift key could have occurred. Which tells me that many atheists have conventions for orthography, i.e. "god" vs. "God."  

My apologies. I realize some people are sensitive about receiving any feedback on issues like capitalization, and from your tone, I mistakenly assumed you were not one of them. It was imperceptive of me and led to you fetching a meme, and I heartily regret it.

I see no conceivable way your conclusion could be derived from my comment, but I suppose you were seeking a way to segue to another stereotype you hold about atheists. I suppose if you were racist about African Americans, a comment about fruit would tell you that many blacks love fried chicken and watermelon. For the record, I'll give a hundred dollars to the charity of your choice if you can find a post of mine where I've not capitalized 'god' or 'God' correctly.

---

JerichoI love that argument that theists use that atheism is basically just a religion...I fail to see how atheists can even be thrown into the same category.  We have no religious text, leaders, gathering areas, or anything like that....

Many religions lack a text, leader, or designated meeting place as well, yet are called religions. Some atheists are happy to lump all the religious into a bloc based on the single common denominator of belief in a god; that's a common human habit known as "stereotypy." I'm well aware of the minimum definition for atheism as lack of theistic belief, yet I'm also aware that it's often brought up as a dodge by persons who don't wish their beliefs to come under the microscope. All the better for a secure position from which to snipe at the beliefs of others, I might say. A number of organizations associated with atheism are quite vocal and politically active in the United States and, while we no doubt aren't hearing from many folks who privately have atheist leanings, a coherent public front for atheism has developed in this country. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's American Atheist Association, for instance. And media spokes like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. 

Atheism and theism are differing opinions on one topic. Neither can amount to a religion and it's hard to believe correct usage of the terms involved is so difficult, minus bias.

You seem keenly aware of stereotyping on the part of others, but almost comically unaware of your own machine-gun delivery of stereotypes about atheists.

iIn my case It's not a dodge (nor have I observed anyone else using it so), it's a heartfelt plea for you to make the slightest effort to find out what my beliefs actually are instead of assuming them. To treat me as an individual instead of as a specimen to be stuffed into your previously-prepared pigeon holes. It is not our fault that so many people who claim they want to know what we believe get stuck on arguing with atheists that atheism isn't what they say it is. It's not that we're dodging, it's that you're nowhere near the mark; and you're far from alone on that.

American Atheists has less than 3,000 members in a country with at least six million atheists. Your standards for what constitutes a 'coherent public front' are remarkably low. The membership of the American Humanist Association is closer to 50,000; but I suppose they don't count if they're not involved in a big court case or don't have a TV show. The people you're talking about aren't spokespersons for atheism, atheists are far too diverse for 'spokespersonship' to be meaningful. Most of the world's atheists have never heard of those people. And I don't think you're too unintelligent to grasp this. I don't think you would try to say that Benny Hinn or Rev. Moon or Pope Francis are media spokespeople for theism. You know that whatever one you pick, there are hundreds of millions of theists who would disagree that he represents them. Because the thing all theists have in common besides their common humanity is an on-off opinion on a single topic. They can't be pigeon-holed to the degree that any one or any ten can be 'the face of theism'.

On the slight hope of a chance that it's of any interest to a person who thinks the definition for atheism accepted by most Western atheists as most accurate is a dodge to evade questions about their beliefs, I'm a religious atheist. In order to understand what I mean by that without me spelling it out, you can search my old posts diligently or disengage your stereotypes for a minute while you think about it.

[Mister Agenda]

robvalueDefault atheism cannot be wrong, as it makes no claims.

"We make no claims" is another of my favorite dodges. If no claims, why a media? Why a forum? Why all the arguments? At minimum atheists must make the claim that belief in deity is unsupported by available evidence. I see nothing wrong with making a claim anyway. Ideally, the claim then stands or falls on its own merits. Where I will differ from most atheists is that I don't think the evaluation of merits for a deity claim should be restricted solely to scientific criteria. Conceptions of god involve more than just what we know about the natural world.

Of course the agenda the Evangelicals advance is so ridiculous I'm not surprised to see atheists ridiculing it. Nor do creationism or Noah's Ark have any place in public schools except as literature. So, I'd rather see atheists making a few claims than none. And while the big bang and neo-Darwinian evolution aren't necessary for atheism, I'd be willing to bet that about 98% of atheists subscribe to both these theories, going as far as to draw existential inspiration from them. Call it a deep human need for love. 

Having favorite dodges is a bit odd, if you ask me. So is apparently seeing 'we make no claims' when 'it makes no claims' is what was actually said. Atheism makes no claims. Neither does theism. They are words for states of mind, one is the state of mind of not holding any belief that any proposed deities actually exist as real beings and the other is the other state of mind.

PEOPLE make claims. Individual people who may speak only for themselves or may speak for an organization but are in no way capable of speaking for the entirety of 'atheist-dom' because there is no such thing, anymore than there is a 'theist-dom'. The only claim an atheist must make is that that they don't believe in the reality of any God or gods. That's it. No one can legitimately say you're not an atheist if that is your position, no matter what else you may or may not believe.

I believe that belief in a deity is not rationally justified by the available evidence. However, I don't say that because I'm atheist, I say that because I'm also a rational skeptic, which many, likely most atheists are not. And I have caveats. I acknowledge that individuals may have evidence that I don't have access to, which I would find convincing if I did. I acknowledge that individuals may hold theistic beliefs that are rational considering the information and tools that are available to them. And I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Maybe I'm missing something or my logic isn't a sound as I think it is. There's an answer to what I think a wildly off-the-mark question at was actually supposed to be aimed.

I'd be willing to guess that at least 60% of theists accept both those theories. You seem to have a deep human need to justify your characterizations of atheists by grasping at flimsy straws.

---

There is nothing to stop atheists believing in paranormal things or out of body stuff.

A lot don't but it is not required.

A lot of Muslims drive white BMWs but that is not required as part of Islam.

The fact that something is not explicitly required from a group does not mean that there are not implicit requirements. What I propose would be that the majority of atheists are expected by their peers to not merely disbelieve in God, but in many other religious-quasi religious constructs, such as ghosts or demons. This in no way entails that every single atheist will not believe in such phenomena. Rather, I am suggesting that we distinguish between hard atheism of the purist variety (generalized disbelief) and more heterogenous forms of atheism (selective disbelief).

Or you could accept the fact that atheism and skepticism are different terms that can overlap and intersect in various ways. Your 'hard atheism' is actually 'hard skepticism'. Conflating atheism and skepticism leads to the problems with which you're concerned, properly distinguishing them does not.

[Hatshepsut]

"We make no claims" is another of my favorite dodges.

Having favorite dodges is a bit odd, if you ask me. ... Atheism makes no claims. Neither does theism. They are words for states of mind, ...You seem to have a deep human need to justify your characterizations of atheists by grasping at flimsy straws.

Don't worry too much; I have my own favorite dodges for when I desire grease to slither away from a discomfiting scene.  

I admit treating atheists en bloc is a deliberate oversimplification. I did it to avoid having a separate section to address each type of atheist, of which your post introduces "hard skeptics" and so on. I'll allow it's doubtful whether a state of mind actively presses a claim, although it does rest on implicit assumptions the mind makes about the world. Yet what's wrong with making a claim? If atheism (as philosophy rather than mental state) indeed makes no claims, then it's not very interesting. Likewise, the minimum claim for Christians holds that Jesus is the resurrected son of God. Belief in a 6-day creation, or in a lake of fire for the unsaved, or that the King James English bible is literally word-for-word from the mouth of God, are all optional. I frequently see Christians lumped together as if all believed these extra things.

In response, I can choose to view that in one of two ways: as unfair stereotyping, or as simplification for sake of argument, where it is understood that exceptions to the fire & brimstone model of Christianity exist but aren't being referred to. Either is possible, the latter grant is the more charitable and the one I prefer.

The other curious thing is that avoiding having your position scrutinized too closely helps you in a public debate. Staying away from that microscope lens if you can dodge its field of view is considered a perfectly legitimate tactic in forensics. And dare say we oft hear that ad hominem is a fallacy; yet political debaters continually resort to it, finding it remarkably effective. Your ditty on watermelon and fried chicken (below) carries just the right amount of personal jab: to suggest I might be a racist without a direct accusation.

Oh, Horrors! Did I capitalize it?

... I realize some people are sensitive about receiving any feedback on issues like capitalization, and from your tone, I mistakenly assumed you were not one of them...

...You seem keenly aware of stereotyping on the part of others, but almost comically unaware of your own machine-gun delivery of stereotypes about atheists. I suppose if you were racist about African Americans, a comment about fruit would tell you that many blacks love fried chicken and watermelon.

You may have come under the impression that negative feedback from others bothers me. I assure you that in most cases it does not. It can either represent advice I should heed because I'm doing something wrong, or it's something I can ignore. Feedback only pricks my sensibilities if it comes from someone whom I have a personal relationship with. I do know that capitalization conveys part of a written English message, including some of that message's value content.

We live in a Politically Correct age where everyone shouts "stereotype!" and takes umbrage immediately every time a controversial topic pops up. Political correctness has led to a convoluted language where every assertion concerning human groups must be hedged and various code words used (or avoided) so as not to offend anyone. I'm sorry, but I don't have talent for PC and I tend to be a bit blunt. I haven't made assumptions regarding your own particular viewpoint, but have summarized a pool of atheist views I've encountered over time, using snippets from one or two of your posts as exemplars. Most of these views are actually from media sources or fora rather than face-to-face conversation. I agree they may not be representative: In fact I expect they will represent the most vocal rather than the most numerous.

So, if I sound like a German machine gun, feel free to return fire.  

[robvalue]

Personally, when I hear someone is a Christian, that tells me nothing. I've heard just about every contradictory stance on anything it might involve. It's about as vague as atheism to be honest.

And on a side note, atheism isn't meant to be interesting. But it is sexy.

[Alex K]

If I were an atheist, I'd fix us some homemade pizza now, and get a nice cool beer.

Oh wait, I AM an atheist! Splendid!

[Mister Agenda]

Having favorite dodges is a bit odd, if you ask me. ... Atheism makes no claims. Neither does theism. They are words for states of mind, ...You seem to have a deep human need to justify your characterizations of atheists by grasping at flimsy straws.

Don't worry too much; I have my own favorite dodges for when I desire grease to slither away from a discomfiting scene.  

I admit treating atheists en bloc is a deliberate oversimplification. I did it to avoid having a separate section to address each type of atheist, of which your post introduces "hard skeptics" and so on. I'll allow it's doubtful whether a state of mind actively presses a claim, although it does rest on implicit assumptions the mind makes about the world. Yet what's wrong with making a claim?  If atheism (as philosophy rather than mental state) indeed makes no claims, then it's not very interesting.

There's nothing wrong with making a claim. But atheism and theism can no more make claims than basketballs can, and atheists as a demographic don't have any claim in common but the claim that they are atheists. You're right, atheism and theism are not particularly interesting in themselves. Apparently you don't find our claims, opinions, and thought processes as individuals interesting enough to ask about. I think you gather that asking us to speak for all atheists is akin to asking someone you run into at a particular house of worship to speak for all theists. Have you considered asking about freethought, secular humanism, or the like?

---

Likewise, the minimum claim for Christians holds that Jesus is the resurrected son of God. Belief in a 6-day creation, or in a lake of fire for the unsaved, or that the King James English bible is literally word-for-word from the mouth of God, are all optional. I frequently see Christians lumped together as if all believed these extra things.

Sometimes people don't make distinctions that they should. How does that kind of sterotyping work out when you do it to their face? The logic of some of your comments seems to be that if other people do it, it's okay for you to do it, too.

---

In response, I can choose to view that in one of two ways: as unfair stereotyping, or as simplification for sake of argument, where it is understood that exceptions to the fire & brimstone model of Christianity exist but aren't being referred to. Either is possible, the latter grant is the more charitable and the one I prefer.

Similar to the grant that one can expect from African Americans regarding their dietary preferences? There's a difference between using stereotyping as a sort of shorthand in a discussion between neutral parties and using it in a discussion with the people you're actually stereotyping, or do you find that not to be so in your experience? The law of charity says assume lack of malice, but it no longer applies once the issue has been pointed out and the person continues the behavior anyway. True lack of malice is demonstrated by ceasing the offending behavior once it's been pointed out that it's offensive. Insisting that it's okay to contine the behavior at that point may demonstrate ignorance or stubborness rather than lack of malice, but in any case it's nothing of which to be proud.
.

---

The other curious thing is that avoiding having your position scrutinized too closely helps you in a public debate. Staying away from that microscope lens if you can dodge its field of view is considered a perfectly legitimate tactic in forensics. And dare say we oft hear that ad hominem is a fallacy; yet political debaters continually resort to it, finding it remarkably effective. Your ditty on watermelon and fried chicken (below) carries just the right amount of personal jab: to suggest I might be a racist without a direct accusation.

I would love for you to scrutinize my opinion. Why do you avoid doing so?

And I assumed that you weren't a racist, a real racist wouldn't understand the point. And you seem to have missed it spectacularly, but I think it's because you're not actually interested in an honest conversation, not because you're a racist.

---

Mister Agenda

... I realize some people are sensitive about receiving any feedback on issues like capitalization, and from your tone, I mistakenly assumed you were not one of them...

...You seem keenly aware of stereotyping on the part of others, but almost comically unaware of your own machine-gun delivery of stereotypes about atheists. I suppose if you were racist about African Americans, a comment about fruit would tell you that many blacks love fried chicken and watermelon.

You may have come under the impression that negative feedback from others bothers me.

Only when your response to it smacks of assholery.

---

I assure you that in most cases it does not.

Show, don't tell.

---

 It can either represent advice I should heed because I'm doing something wrong, or it's something I can ignore. Feedback only pricks my sensibilities if it comes from someone whom I have a personal relationship with. I do know that capitalization conveys part of a written English message, including some of that message's value content.

We live in a Politically Correct age where everyone shouts "stereotype!" and takes umbrage immediately every time a controversial topic pops up. Political correctness has led to a convoluted language where every assertion concerning human groups must be hedged and various code words used (or avoided) so as not to offend anyone.

You are apparently under the impression that the reason people don't like to be stereotyped is something other than the obvious fact that people in general don't like being stereotyped and the reason they consider the people who insist on doing so as bigots is because that's pretty much what makes someone a bigot. Some bigots like to pretend they're warriors against political correctness when they're really warriors against the idea that they can't express their bigotry without being called on it like they were able to in the good old days.

---

 I'm sorry, but I don't have talent for PC and I tend to be a bit blunt. I haven't made assumptions regarding your own particular viewpoint, but have summarized a pool of atheist views I've encountered over time, using snippets from one or two of your posts as exemplars. Most of these views are actually from media sources or fora rather than face-to-face conversation. I agree they may not be representative: In fact I expect they will represent the most vocal rather than the most numerous.

So, if I sound like a German machine gun, feel free to return fire.  

You sound like someone who can't be troubled to treat the people to whom you're talking as individuals and think that's somehow virtuous.

[Hatshepsut]

Apparently you don't find our claims, opinions, and thought processes as individuals interesting enough to ask about...

I've found them interesting enough to visit this site, which otherwise I wouldn't do, and to have read a fair amount (though not exhaustively) on humanism, freethinking, atheism and their histories. I do not feel that any of these intellectual systems are evil; much of the progress we've enjoyed in this world has been influenced by their tutelages.

Sometimes people don't make distinctions that they should. How does that kind of sterotyping work out when you do it to their face?

This isn't a face-to-face conversation, nor have I ever addressed you personally except in response to your questions. Meanwhile, I think that anything posted here by one member can be discussed or argued pro or con by any other member, by mutual agreement. Selecting a post to quote on a forum doesn't constitute a personal attack.

...the latter grant is the more charitable and the one I prefer.

Similar to the grant that one can expect from African Americans regarding their dietary preferences?

I said that I made the most charitable guess regarding the intentions of my debating opponents. African-Americans, racism, and bigotry are new topics you introduced beginning in post #531 and then gently moved toward ascribing to me, as here...

You are apparently under the impression that the reason people don't like to be stereotyped is something other than the obvious fact that people in general don't like being stereotyped and the reason they consider the people who insist on doing so as bigots is because that's pretty much what makes someone a bigot. Some bigots like to pretend they're warriors against political correctness when they're really warriors against the idea that they can't express their bigotry...like they were able to in the good old days.

...alongside your opinion that I'm an asshole, as here...  

Only when your response to it smacks of assholery.

I don't stereotype people, especially whom I don't know. It's fair in a debating arena to "stereotype" political, religious, or philosophical positions and platforms for the purposes of conducting a debate of finite length. Apparently I don't take the issues raised here as personally as your last two posts tell me you might be doing right now. I've basically been coming for entertainment. Our interchange began at post #496 when I thanked you for sharing a psychological study. It's devolved into a shouting contest which I decline to pursue further. If you feel that I'm breaking this forum's standards of decorum, that's a matter you'll need to take up in PM with the moderators. If you need validation or supportive discussion from someone who will treat you as an individual regarding emotionally charged issues, then as you've been here 3 years, you may wish to seek it from other longtime members and I won't dissuade you. But I'm not the best source for that.   

[Cyberman]

As a general rule, Staff do not intervene in matters of decorum, except where such things spill over into disruption and rule breaches. By all means PM any of us with any queries or problems you may have; I just don't want you to give the wrong impression about the motivations of our duties.

[Mister Agenda]

I think Hatepshut's reply can be summed up as 'Yes, Mister Agenda, you were correct, I am not interested in honest discussion'. So there's no point in continuing.

[Hatshepsut]

I'm up for discussion but won't simply agree to being painted as a closed-minded bigot under the assumption that I'm a religious fundamentalist here to troll around. Prejudice and discrimination worse hurt marginalized, low-income segments of society who can't complain about it publicly than members of educated, affluent lobbies who can and do. Which makes drawing it forth here in a personal tone, on a forum catering to some of the wealthiest and most fortunate human beings on the planet, plain silly.