Being an atheist doesn't mean you worship "satan" or kill babies. So why does the word that merely means a lack in belief in an, in my opinion absurd, God make people cringe as it does? 

Tags: atheism, biases

Views: 1490

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I never mentioned that you actually said anything about love, just that you were criticising us (in a rather hateful way) that we criticise theists (in a rather hateful way) so I found it a little hypocritical. You cannot say that you did not mean it with hateful intent as the selection of words you chose to use could not exude anything but that.

If atheism had anything going on above the neck
all that is plain here is the utter lack of critical thought
Atheism, especially of the Dawkins/Dennett/Harris forms, is narcissistic, full of hubris and vitriol
It supports nothing positive; never has, never will
I'm not an atheist, wouldn't even diminish myself to that nadir
so blinded by their ludicrous agenda they can't even be intellectually honest



I know that religion will most likely remain in society for a long time, if not forever, so I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not concerned if you think that we are not trying to "educate" theists, I am just explaining why there is a lot of hatred towards them. We are living in a difficult time with frustratingly ignorant people and it is good to vent sometimes. As a minority, it is difficult to find people that understand and support us so we vent in a place that it is possible for us to vent which is clearly on the Nexus. If you do not consider yourself an atheist or even remotely close to one then why did you join the Nexus and continue to discuss religion with us?
Intellectual curiosity.

As a minority, it is difficult to find people that understand and support us so we vent in a place that it is possible for us to vent which is clearly on the Nexus.

That is, directly, the oddity. "Free thinkers" that require validation from others, to achieve a desireable existence.

You directly brought "love" into the conversation. I've never made any proclamations about being a socially "nice" person; quite conversely, the general mode is curmudgeon. Without vocal inflection and facial expression, you have no way of knowing with any certainty whether the intent is hateful, or perhaps, bemused, indifferent, or petulent just for effect.
mr or miss freedom anonymity..it seems that you have doubts about your faith that there is a _od or you wouldn't be here im not going to change your mind about your believes. why are you trying to change owers, i am a atheist i do not believe in this _od or _ods that is a bunch of old fairy tails.....want to ask you a questin do you believe in (god) _od.
There is no proof of a First Cause/Prime Mover; but because the subject in question is theoretically beyond the scope of human understanding, (ineffability), the best that can be offered is asserting proof of a negative; which amounts to nothing at all.

Mr., and there is no "faith" in anything other than the unerring ability of the hominid to maintain the status quo, to its own detriment.
You are beginning to irritate me now. You chose which questions to answer and are deliberately twisting my words to suit your rather narcissistic little mind.

"Free thinkers" that require validation from others, to achieve a desireable existence.

The term "free thinkers" actually has nothing to do with not wanting any validation to achieve a desirable existence, so I'm not sure where you are getting your information from.

I brought "love" into the conversation in order to make a point that your comments contain the exact opposite. That is all, full stop, no more inference into the matter. If you cannot pick that up from both my comments AND explanations of my comments then I don't know what will. We can all clearly see that you are not a "nice" person so again, not sure why you felt the need to make that comment.

Without vocal inflection and facial expression, you have no way of knowing with any certainty whether the intent is hateful, or perhaps, bemused, indifferent, or petulent just for effect.

Those words, the ones you chose to use, put together in that specific way, implies disapproval, disgust and repugnance towards atheists. These are all synonomous with hatred. If you feel that one cannot pick up anothers emotions and intent without seeing one's expression and hearing one's "vocal inflection" you are surely mistaken. If this were the case one would not be able to read a book knowing the emotions the reader intends, one could not analyse tone in a poem, one could not do a lot of what we CAN clearly do.
LOL.

The term "free thinkers" actually has nothing to do with not wanting any validation to achieve a desirable existence, so I'm not sure where you are getting your information from.

Actually, yes, "free" from and "free" of; which would include "free" of need of validation. That's not a twisting, it is a direct use of the term.

I brought "love" into the conversation in order to make a point that your comments contain the exact opposite. That is all, full stop, no more inference into the matter.

If you feel that one cannot pick up anothers emotions and intent without seeing one's expression and hearing one's "vocal inflection" you are surely mistaken.

Interesting contradictions. I am not allowed to infer anything from you inserting "love" into a conversation. Yet, in your next case:

If this were the case one would not be able to read a book knowing the emotions the reader intends, one could not analyse tone in a poem, one could not do a lot of what we CAN clearly do.

I'll assume you meant "emotions the author intends". The problem with this perspective is that it tacitly implies that "intent" translates to a single known outcome. But, that isn't the case, now is it? No, because everyone who reads a book, gets different emotions, in varying degrees, that end in individual perspectives. The same with poetry; which is even more speculative in how it is interpreted by the reader and what meanings are derived.

Which is one of the primary reasons that authors do readings, and readers of the author's work like to go to those readings to find out what the author "actually" intended; some will be right, most will have interpreted via their own emotional sets/biases.

As is the case here. How's that for "twisting"?
@Freedom of Anonymity

No stats? Just more nonsense? Ever thought of taking up theism? You'd fit right in.

Never again need to wonder, atheism will continue to be an abject social failure

Honestly, I think you're just a bible thumper trolling an atheist site. If you're an atheist you surely arrived at it ass first.

Any atheist, with half a brain, must surely know that atheism can't possibly be a social failure. Atheism isn't a social anything. It's a rejection of theism, period. Hence the word A-theist.
Direct visual and linguistic proof towards my pronouncement, thank you.

"Your Honor, the defense rests."
Your honour, it's obvious that Freedom of Anonymity is a master of pulling information from his rectum.

While his source of information might be suitable for Oprah or the WWF, it's obviously useless for those that expect wild claims to be backed by reality based evidence.
Anecdotal:anecdotal = zero sum.

Reread my initial post, I didn't claim stats, it was anecdotal, which is all you have presented.

There is no refutation of anecdote by anecdote, plebe. No, I have no expectation that you will understand it better now.
Your anecdotal evidence is you can't even approximate the amount of atheists you've met wearing pentagrams and goat heads? Come on, you know and I know that's nonsense.
No, I actually can't approximate the numbers.

When so much of the human refuse that I am visually, auditorily and intellectually accosted by on a day to day basis is of your caliber; why bother to catalog banality and insipid inanity?

An "atheist" who touts their "logic" as a product of their means of bashing others with occultic symbology isn't worth my time. That it has been somewhat more pervasive than those who have an actual thought out position, is enough time wasted.

There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.

Niccolo Machiavelli

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service