Angry Atheists and Anti-Theists

[Duty]

Parents of a teenage boy who took his own life have complained after their Catholic priest criticised him at the funeral for killing himself.

BBC news article

Yes, why are we so angry? 

[Jackalope]

I question the motivation behind some atheists. There is a lot of anti theist openly attacking theists. Why? 
And why are they all so angry?

Check out this guy… Why is he so emotional? Where is all this anger and hate coming from???
Is his anger justified? Why? Is this guys argument even logical?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoIo_FUj408

You want to see hate fille theist and atheist go to the Usenet group 'alt.atheism'.  They hate agnostics there as well.

alt is essentially anarchy and has been a cesspool of negativity for all of it's existence, and it certainly isn't limited to atheists.

just sayin'

I'll just leave this here.

[Gwaithmir]

Of the hundreds of non-believers I've met over the last 36 years, the only genuinely angry atheists/anti-theists who I knew personally were Madalyn Murray-O'Hair and her son Jon.

[vulcanlogician]

My comment was more directed towards people who unjustifiably claim authority when they have none.

I am constantly surprised that so many people posting on the internet have such wide-ranging interests these days, and can support their positions with any number of references to books and websites.  It seems to me a rather substantial segment of the general population is continuing their education on their own, and that internet discussions are yet another means by which they widen their horizons.

Authority is not something you either have or you don't.  Everyone knows certain things to certain degrees.  That's what makes these discussions so interesting.

Yeah, forgive me for being a bit of a pessimist. It's in my nature. I'm an introverted pessimist who's trying very hard not to be a misanthrope. I'll admit: real progress has been made as far as the general "knowledgeableness" of people, especially in the last few decades... and the past two centuries. But I tend to focus on how much more work there is to be done. In my defense, however, I'll add that there is a shitload of more work to be done. I wouldn't impose this on the general populace, either, if I wasn't willing to impose it on myself.

I am committed to increasing my own knowledge/understanding concerning a great many things. And I don't allow myself shortcuts. If I haven't learned something, I don't pretend to have learned it. And more importantly: I acknowledge the boundaries of my own knowledge.

What gripes me pretty hard is that (in some religious circles) folks are encouraged to disregard the limits of their knowledge-- fundamentalists are a good example. You don't really understand the origins of life or the universe? Don't go to college for six years studying it. Read three short paragraphs from an ancient book, and use that as justification to oppose science.

But fundamentalists are just exemplars of a problem which (though more dilute) is found throughout the population. People are encouraged to project "confidence"... which sometimes means acting as if one is certain when one isn't. Those who can do so earn success and can then, in turn, influence many others. And those who project uncertainty aren't taken as seriously because they don't "confidently project knowledge." ... even though uncertainty will carry you from non-knowledge to knowledge faster than assuming you already know ever could... oops... there I go being pessimistic again. I'll see myself out now.

[Belacqua]

But fundamentalists are just exemplars of a problem which (though more dilute) is found throughout the population. People are encouraged to project "confidence"... which sometimes means acting as if one is certain when one isn't.

I share your pessimism. 

And as always, I find this misplaced confidence more troubling when I see it in people who really ought to know better. We expect it in creationists or other pure ideologues. We have no excuse for letting it go by when it shows up in people like ourselves. 

To me, this is one of the differences between regular old atheists and so-called New Atheists. If we don't believe, we can just say we don't believe, without pretending that we also understand all the theological arguments. But some people who don't believe also assume that they are qualified to pass judgment on things they've never studied. 

The worst example I can think of off hand is in Dawkins' book, where he thinks he has rebutted Thomas Aquinas. This is in a book put out by a [formerly] reputable publisher, but apparently nobody bothered to check whether his argument was embarrassingly bad or not. I mean -- he lives in Oxford, which is probably the town with the most English-speaking people in the world who understand Thomas Aquinas. Yet he didn't walk across the street to ask someone who knows better than he does. He just assumes that because the argument is Christian, it must be stupid. (Even my own editor, in a much less high-priced publishing company, called me out when I used a pre-Cantor definition of infinity. Yet nobody did such a favor for Dawkins.) 

I don't know whether the false assumption of expertise is worse now, or whether we just see it more because of the Internet. But it's pretty glaringly obvious in any field you happen to know something about.

[Alan V]

What gripes me pretty hard is that (in some religious circles) folks are encouraged to disregard the limits of their knowledge-- fundamentalists are a good example.

There will always be a segment of the population who argues from dogma rather than information, and yes, they are largely anti-intellectual. I am pessimistic about their chances of changing too, since they are intellectually lazy or dishonest, and are usually much more interested in advancing socially than it checking their assumptions.

What bothers me the most is that they vote in such numbers.

So perhaps this should not be a discussion about anti-theists so much as about pro-intellectuals.

[Agnostico]

But fundamentalists are just exemplars of a problem which (though more dilute) is found throughout the population. People are encouraged to project "confidence"... which sometimes means acting as if one is certain when one isn't.

I share your pessimism. 

And as always, I find this misplaced confidence more troubling when I see it in people who really ought to know better. We expect it in creationists or other pure ideologues. We have no excuse for letting it go by when it shows up in people like ourselves. 

To me, this is one of the differences between regular old atheists and so-called New Atheists. If we don't believe, we can just say we don't believe, without pretending that we also understand all the theological arguments. But some people who don't believe also assume that they are qualified to pass judgment on things they've never studied. 

The worst example I can think of off hand is in Dawkins' book, where he thinks he has rebutted Thomas Aquinas. This is in a book put out by a [formerly] reputable publisher, but apparently nobody bothered to check whether his argument was embarrassingly bad or not. I mean -- he lives in Oxford, which is probably the town with the most English-speaking people in the world who understand Thomas Aquinas. Yet he didn't walk across the street to ask someone who knows better than he does. He just assumes that because the argument is Christian, it must be stupid. (Even my own editor, in a much less high-priced publishing company, called me out when I used a pre-Cantor definition of infinity. Yet nobody did such a favor for Dawkins.) 

I don't know whether the false assumption of expertise is worse now, or whether we just see it more because of the Internet. But it's pretty glaringly obvious in any field you happen to know something about.

I saw you mention my favorite scientist and couldn't help myself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-cxUYmxiTs



The "old we believe, we believe not" ideology explained

Pessimisim is my middle name. Karl Pessimist Popper.
I know iv been aggressive to begin with here but i've been fair. Facts don't care about feelings
And the reactions to my skepticism have been intersting for lack of a better term.

How am I seriously ment to believe this angry atheist? He writes books and does lectures on anti-religion.
This was one of the first things that made me scratch my head. Why is a scientist devoting all that time to preach against instead of doing science?
From there i encountered the 4 horsemen, and the others, the books, the preaching, the hate  and the rest. 93% of the scientific community are atheists. Thats shocking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo_KIRTa7jI



Watch him squiggle and try worm his way out of this one. He totally exposes himself as clueless

The default position in science is agnostic. If your too far either way people will posit there belief/non belief and only look for evidence to support the theory while rejecting anything else.
I see secular arguments being made that just get dismissed because the scientis is a creationist. Well should I then dissmiss science because they're atheists?
They cannot explain the most basic of questions without blowing a fuse and trying to mock you for questioning

There is a long list of hoaxes and frauds that have been fabricated by theoretical science to push their theory.
They tech it in school as though it was undisputable proof, turning them into little atheist social justice warriors full of entitlement. Special snowflakes. Unique

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o980zLBebUU



                             The hypocracy which I see in atheists as well

[Alan V]

The default position in science is agnostic.

I disagree. The default position in science should be to avoid jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Thus dismissive atheism, when theists promote their unwarranted assumptions.

[Agnostico]

I disagree.  The default position in science should be to avoid jumping to unwarranted conclusions.  Thus dismissive atheism, when theists promote their unwarranted assumptions.

               Ooooo "unwarranted" good one i like it
Strong beliefs for or against religion are unwarranted in science
                            Facts over feelings

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[quote='Agnostico' pid='1867488' dateline='1544650896']
Intersting and again varying responses.

Why the large font?