Why Atheists Terrify Believers

[gcomeau]

Ok, slightly hyperbolic article title... but file the findings of the research (that believers tend to have issues facing their own mortality and atheists make them have to confront that) under "duh".


http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/why-atheists-terrify-believers

Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, the researchers report "hostility toward, and mistrust of, atheists is particularly pronounced when existential concerns are involved." Even more tellingly, they also find that "among believers, the mere contemplation of atheism can arouse intimations of mortality."

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Yeah, since I dont believe in god I must not do the right thing. In reality, some ONLY do the

right thing because they fear the invisible man in the sky.

And if they are cons, even then they rarely do the right thing.

[hrmjustin]

2. They don't scare me.

[gcomeau]

3. A more accurate article title would have been...

...why atheists make believers uneasy / defensive.

[hrmjustin]

4. Yes. While that does not apply to me personally it certainly does apply to many believers.

[cleanhippie]

11. I've seen it apply to you, especially when asked the difficult questions about your faith.

[hrmjustin]

12. That is fair but atheist do not make me feel uneasy.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. yeah the headline really doesn't match the actual research.

too bad, it appears to be an interesting experiment, and it helps to confirm my own opinion that many believers are motivated by a fear of death that I find incomprehensible and find mitigation of that fear in what are, to me, obviously nonsense stories.

[840high]

13. Or me.

[LiberalAndProud]

5. I think the article only measures one aspect of the unsettling notion of disbelief.

"Mulling the concept of disbelief brought up thoughts of death just as strongly as explicitly contemplating one's own demise."

But still an interesting article, gcomeau.

[redstateblues]

6. The premise is kind of goofy

I'm a believer -I work with an intelligent, moral person who isn't. I respect him but he doesn't terrify me.

[struggle4progress]

7. +

[Warren Stupidity]

8. perhaps you should read the article?

While you might find the premise goofy because you don't think you have the described reaction to atheists, the experiments were constructed to test the hypothesis without simply asking people if they have negative feelings toward atheists because of their own fear of mortality. You might not think you have some mental characteristic or other, but tests can be constructed to analyze subconscious belief systems and structures that people are not consciously aware of, as for example the experiments described in the article. Or recent published reports on the prevalence of subconscious racism, even in people who don't believe they are racist at all.

[bananas]

149. The whole study is goofy - a good example of bad science.

From the article:

The first of their two experiments featured 236 American college students (including 34 self-proclaimed atheists, whose answers were not included in the analysis). Two-thirds reported they were Christians; Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews made up the bulk of the final third.

That should be a big clue-by-four that this "scientific study" is bullshit.

[LTX]

164. Couldn't agree more.

I'll add that the ongoing social science habit of using American college students as an alleged proxy for the species is really getting annoying. Granted, they are cheap, readily available in bulk, and easily manipulated, but those "qualifying" characteristics only serve to underline the overall half-assed nature of "studies" like this.

Moreover, the abstract refers authoritatively to "the uniquely human awareness of death." Makes me wonder whether this "new research" isn't a parody.

[okasha]

9. Well, my atheist friend

the civil rights lawyer only frightens people who need the shit scared out of them. And my librarian buddy-- Trying to imagine him scaring a mouse. Not succeeding.

[mr blur]

15. Woah there, spitfire

[gcomeau]

17. You may want to focus on the article content, rather than it's title... -eom

[okasha]

18. Conclusion: people will like you better if you're not hostile to them.

Earth-shattering!

[gcomeau]

19. Or... you could just completely ignore the entire thing...

That's a way to go too I suppose.

[okasha]

21. I just ignore individuals who don't merit

any of my time or attention.

[gcomeau]

122. What did the researchers do to offend you exactly? -eom

[okasha]

132. Not a thing.

[gcomeau]

154. Then why are you ignoring their work? -eom

[okasha]

155. I'm not.

[gcomeau]

160. Ahh, I see.

You're not addressing it in any way or writing a single word about it and responding to suggestions you do with declarations that "I just ignore individuals who don't merit any of my time or attention"... but you're not ignoring it...

Thanks for clearing that up.

[okasha]

161. Wrong. Keep trying.

[gcomeau]

163. No, I'm not a big fan of indefinite futile efforts. Thanks anyway. -eom

[okasha]

165. Of course, you could just read what I actually said,

as opposed to what you seem to think I said.

[trotsky]

20. Or if you don't make up completely bogus accusations about them.

Right, okasha?

[Starboard Tack]

136. Thank you for another silly post.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Hard not to be hostile to people who maintain membership in an org that meddles in my

rights.

Not like the believers don't have options that involve not meddling in the affairs/laws/government of people who are not members of their club.

[okasha]

23. Understandable.

I find it difficult not to feel hostility toward gun nuts with anger management issues. E. g., the fellow who killed three people, ostensibly, over a parking space.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Well fine then.

We'll just have to agree to agree.

(Killing people over things is reprehensible to me.)

[beam me up scottie]

25. I think you were supposed to defend that murderer, AC.

Don't you know how to play the game?

[Act_of_Reparation]

157. I think you know that's not true.

If you've been "othered", some people are going to treat you like shit no matter how nice a person you are.

[gcomeau]

166. Well...

You started off by saying you knew some atheists that didn't scare you. Congratulations.

Then when it was suggested you focus on the actual research content instead of the silly title of the article you responded with basically saying the conclusion was "be nice". (Hint: umm, no, it wasn't. That was a peripheral *suggestion* inspired by the research conclusions.)

Then responded to any prodding intended to get you to actually look at the content of the study itself with various expressions of either snark or dismissal.


Did I miss anything?

[okasha]

174. The whole point, but that's okay.

A couple other posters commented effectively on flaws in the study's data-gathering. I agree that those flaws are problems and probably reflect the personal biases of the researchers. (E. g., the word-completion questions mentioned by muriel.) For reasons known but to yourself, you focused on a remark that was not directed at the study.

I will say, though, that I find it amusing that some atheists seem rather pathetically eager to believe that they "terrify" believers.

[Yorktown]

14. The findings of the study can be checked by another method

I have always been surprised by people who long after having become atheists still have a nagging worry about "What if Hell really existed?".

The conditioning in early youth about heaven and hell appears to be something very powerful, probably echoing some primitive fears (hell) and need for comfort (heaven)

So I am not surprised that atheism might, just by existing, uncomfortably cast a shadow on the promise of comfort (heaven)

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I know several believers that are so invested in their own faith, they have explicitly stated

that it is the only thing keeping them from preying on the weak, and doing terrible things.

Now, I don't believe them, I think they are intelligent enough to find reasons NOT to kill, steal, etc, but at the moment, invested in their worldview as they are, they cannot see another mechanism by which they might show restraint.

So it puzzles them why I have such restraints. (One insists I DO believe in god, and fear him, and hate him, the other just can't figure me out.)

For some religious people, I am clearly an unsettling anomaly.

[Joe Turner]

26. Everyone fears death especially at the end of life

This is a natural fear of course. Since no one, no matter how strong their faith, really knows what happens after death the normal reaction to contemplation of no afterlife is emotional.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Why?

I have no desire to die, but there are several medical criteria under which I already have plans to self-terminate if necessary.

Death is the high cost of living. No big deal. I don't really fear it. I fear dying badly.

[jonno99]

30. Agreed! nt

[rug]

32. Do you fear anyobne you love dying?

[AtheistCrusader]

40. I don't think I would use the word 'fear' to characterize it.

Something I invest considerable resources in avoiding. I don't feel a whole lot of fear around that sort of concept though. Do what I can. Can't help what I can't.

[rug]

42. The fear (or any other more manly word you choose) of death is most acute when those we love die.

It is no great feat to die. But when another's life dissolves, the helplessness is inescapable.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. I've lost loved ones.

I tend to celebrate having known them, and what they contributed to my life. Florence and the Machine's 'Only if foe the night' is more how I approach it.

[rug]

48. And no sense of loss?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Sure. i miss my first grade librarian.

I miss a ton of people.

[rug]

52. Yeah, well I miss my bus.

But I understand loss.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Me too.

I had a 72 panel, totally straight body, 1600cc dual port. Traded it in for a Baja bug, but I saw that bus in a stack of cars in the vw junkyard, and that really sucked.

[rug]

56. You're free to ignore death.

It won't return the favor.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. I just dont dwell on it.

What's the point. Saps your strength. Produces nothing.

Be grateful you had wonderful people in your life, and carry their memory forward. What more can you do.

[rug]

62. Death defines life. Literally.

Understanding death, understanding what has ceased, goes a long way to understanding what was. That is important.

[AlbertCat]

90. Death defines life. Literally.

No it doesn't. How absurd. "Defines" life???? Your definition of life is "the absence of death"??? Or something. Whatever you mean. Literally?

"Understanding death, understanding what has ceased, goes a long way to understanding what was."

I'd like to think I could "understand" what someone brings to my life (which is more than an absence of death) before it is gone.

Otherwise "understanding death" does not include some life energy or soul leaving the body and going somewhere else. That is a fantasy derived (in ignorance) from the illusion that somehow our consciousness and the functioning of our body are different things. That is misunderstanding death. What has ceased is the body functions that keep you alive. Because of that, you don't get to participate in the lives of surviving people... that is the result of death, but not death itself.

Death is the last act of life.... one of many acts, like being weened, or puberty, or dealing with failing or compromised health (whether it results in death or not) or realizing one has mastered something through discipline.... and others...

And of course none of it requires believing in ancient superstitions whether they are made up by goat herders or fasting princes.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. Which is why

I live to the fullest, and celebrate those that have impacted my life in meaningful ways.

Albertvat makes some good points about your.statement that death defines life, but I don't understand your comment, so, just moving on.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. somehow we got from "fear" to "sense of loss". Not at all the same emotion.

[rug]

68. No, but they are related.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. not necessarily.

somebody might fear something because loss is involved, but that is not required. X causes a sense of loss does not imply that X causes fear. Nor obviously is a sense of loss required to experience fear. You seem to not have a point there.

[rug]

73. You'd need to read the post I replied to.

The tension was not between fear and loss, but between appreciation and loss.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. oh so you've given up on "they are related". whatever.

[rug]

80. No I haven't. But I tend to take very short walks onto tangents.

[Binkie The Clown]

139. To fear the inevitable is silly.

My oldest living relative is my mother, who is 95 and will die eventually. I am not afraid that she will die because I know she will die, and that nothing I do can ever prevent that eventual outcome. I regret it. It makes me sad to ponder it. But I'm also prepared for it because I know it is inevitable.

I know that I, too, will die eventually. I'm not afraid of it because I know it's inevitable, and fear ruins my here and now for no productive reason. Fear is very uncomfortable. Fearing death won't prevent it, so it's a waste of time, and it messes up an otherwise perfectly good day for working in my garden and taking a nice long walk in the park. Why would I ruin that experience to do something painful and utterly useless?

Being afraid of being dead is like being afraid of what you went through before you were born. Remember that? Of course not. So why worry about it?

[jeff47]

178. No. Because they will all die and there is nothing I can do to stop that.

Do you fear the sun going down at night?

There's little reason to fear the inevitable. It will not respond to your fear. The sun will go down even if you fear it. And everyone you love will die even if you fear their deaths.

IMO, fearing their deaths means you are not fully enjoying their lives. You're dwelling on their end instead of dwelling on them.

[Joe Turner]

37. You are unusual in this regard

Many such as I hope there is an afterlife. I don't think life has any meaning if there is nothing but non-existence after death. I'm a agnostic searching for evidence that all life has an eternal soul.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. If that is what you value, I wish you luck in your search.

I have no expectation of overtime beyond my death, so I intend to milk my existence for all it is worth.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. which is more or less the point of the op.

you fear death and assume everyone else does too, and you deal with your fear by clinging to a belief in an afterlife. The fact that atheists have no such belief (although there likely exists at least one professed atheist who manages to also believe in an afterlife) does not fit with your belief system. How can we handle our mortality without the comfort of religion's promise of escape from death?

[Cartoonist]

142. All Life?

Does each blade of grass have an eternal soul?

Everything that lives, dies. It is supreme egoism for humans to think that they will live forever, even after death. Accepting the reality of life and death means no fear. It is only the believers in an afterlife who have reason to fear.

[bvf]

147. All very well said.

"It is only the believers in an afterlife who have reason to fear."

Especially this.

[Warren Stupidity]

151. Everyone knows dogs go to heaven.

It is one of the many reasons cats are so upset all the time.

[AuntPatsy]

53. I don't, we are no more than a mere blip in universe, I woul fear living forever only...

And or pain of death,

[jonno99]

28. C'mon let's be honest. If we're going to be provocative while we speculate,

let's ask the more piercing question: why don't we ask why atheists project their fear and hated of the possibility of a god - onto believers?

News flash for the militant atheists: if there is a god, there is no safety in numbers. Recruitment will not help you.

Btw: atheists don't frighten me; I simply find their position strangely illogical...

[truebrit71]

34. Rrrrrright.... it's the atheists that are strangely illogical...

.... but talking snakes, women created out of ribs, and the constant demands to worship a genocidal "god" make perfect sense...

[jonno99]

47. Your strawmen don't become you... nt

[truebrit71]

59. Biblical strawman.... that's a new one...

....

[gcomeau]

35. You mean like we project our fear...

...of evil wizards on J.K. Rowling?

(Oh wait, we do neither of those...)

[jonno99]

49. No it's simply that most atheists - in my experience - "protest too much methinks" nt

[AlbertCat]

95. "protest too much methinks"

Are you serious?

I suppose cutting heads off.... or having an inquisition... is not protesting too much.


Get a clue Jonno.

Just because you are so small minded and full of hubris to think no one could seriously not believe in ancient made up superstitions, I'm not gonna freak out and try to kill you. I'll just remember that you are a religious bigot who thinks your way is the only way to live and be happy.

There is certainly no need for any educated person to fear the nonexistent supernatural. There IS a real need to fear ignorant religions with a lot of money and power intruding on non believer's lives and happiness.... and thinking they know it all at the same time. Talk about the Dark Ages!

[jonno99]

124. Please, you're worried about what? Your head being cutoff - by whom?

[AlbertCat]

167. Please, you're worried about what? Your head being cutoff - by whom?

Oh yeah... I forgot. The whole world is just like your back yard and today is like every other time ever!

[mr blur]

145. Get a clue. Try reading Hamlet rather than misquoting it. "Protest too much" does not mean

what you seem to think it means.

I see that your vast experience doesn't extend to understanding Elizabethan literature.

[LiberalAndProud]

36. It isn't the possibility of god that's frightening,

it's the lengths and depths true believers will go to defend the god they believe in.

"People will begin with the assumption that religion is essentially peaceful but if you look closely, you will find that there are forms of violence everywhere and every religion has some form of it," Maher explained.

He's glad he can share his expertise with others.

"To dig down into those religions and see what kind of narratives they place on the forms of violence that they choose to sanction. That helps you to understand more broadly how religion functions what the value of religions are."

http://www.wnct.com/story/28902514/is-there-good-religious-violence

What's illogical is believing that you all are worshiping the same god. Each person's god is as individual as their fingerprints, it seems to me.

[jonno99]

44. Agreed. I abhor fanaticism wherever it it found... nt

[redstateblues]

106. Actually God doesn't need defending.

[LiberalAndProud]

123. That's good to know.

It would be nice if other gods weren't so bothersome.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-austin-shooter-20141201-story.html

[beam me up scottie]

38. Your characterization of "militant" atheists reads like it came from conservapedia.

News flash for the militant atheists: if there is a god, there is no safety in numbers. Recruitment will not help you.

News flash: We need to be kept safe from religious people, not your silly impotent god.



You guys need a new shtick.

[jonno99]

43. Sorry - I'm not part of the "guys" - I'm just me.

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 12:48 AM - Edit history (1)

And my "shtick"? it's just an observation...

[A HERETIC I AM]

60. Oh, you're part of the "guys" alright..a long and sordid list of them.

But Ms O'Hair put it well;



As to your statement at the beginning of this little subthread, no Atheist with an ounce of rational common sense hates or fears any god, much less the one so revered by so many humans, namely the god of Abraham and Isaac. Your question isn't "peircing" in the least.

It's stupid.

[jonno99]

75. That it is a sordid and deplorable list. If you have been the target or victim of such

activities you have my condolences.

Please note however that my subthread was simply that - a thread based off the OPs topic: why atheists terrify believers - the whole discussion of which I found as silly as you apparently found my subthread.

Bottom line: you don't me any more than I know you. Neither myself nor anyone in my circle would treat someone who disagrees with them the way Ms O'Hair describes the treatment of some. I trust you and yours are as averse as I am to such de-humanizing treatment...

[beam me up scottie]

85. Those "observations" are really just common memes peddled by believers.

let's ask the more piercing question: why don't we ask why atheists project their fear and hated of the possibility of a god - onto believers?

Atheists don't fear or hate the possibility of god, that's your thing.

News flash for the militant atheists: if there is a god, there is no safety in numbers. Recruitment will not help you.

Again, we don't fear your god. I realize you still believe in the boogeyman but stop acting like we're pissing in our pants at the very thought of him too.

Btw: atheists don't frighten me; I simply find their position strangely illogical...

Not believing in gods is logical.

If and when gods ever prove their existence, I'll change my "position".

Until then, your faith is illogical.

[jonno99]

92. Please understand that I don't make some claim on "the truth" -

Your statement: If and when your god proves its existence, I'll change my "position".

As I've stated a number of time on other threads, I simply don't accept chance and circumstance as plausible answers to the existence of life on earth. Additionally, I don't accept that everything we see came from "nothing".

Like you, when I hear an acceptable answer of how life and matter originated - "naturally", I'll change my position - too...

[beam me up scottie]

93. You're a creationist.

You believe your god created "life and matter" and that's more logical than anything scientists have posited...

Well, that explains those observations about atheists.

Just don't go into teaching.

[jonno99]

125. Well, you're not a creationist.

You believe your "god" (chance) created "life and matter" and that's more logical than anything.

Well, that explains your observations about those who don't believe in "chance".

Feel free to teach that, but I personally don't have faith in your god "chance" (or should we name him "given-enough-time-everything-is-possible"?). No, the argument is neither compelling nor logical.

I understand however, that opinions differ...

[beam me up scottie]

130. As an evolutionist I believe in the god of "chance"???

Wow, you drank all of the Koolaid, didn't you?

Feel free to teach that, but I personally don't have faith in your god "chance" (or should we name him "given-enough-time-everything-is-possible"?). No, the argument is neither compelling nor logical.

I understand however, that opinions differ...

[mr blur]

146. What absolute drivel.

Does your mother know you're still up talking to the grown-ups?

[phil89]

153. So your entire belief system

is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy? That is scary.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. You really don't have any clue about the current state of cosmological theory around how the

universe began, if you're going to stand by that 'random chance from nothing' strawman you keep propping up.

[jonno99]

175. Does the "the current state of cosmological theory" provide a clue as to "cause"?

Does it give an answer to the question: from where did matter originate?

[jeff47]

179. Yes

But since you will refuse the answer, there really isn't much reason to bother going into it.

Short version: From energy. E=mc^2 goes in both directions.

[jonno99]

181. Yes, that may explain the current state, but it doesn't do much to explain origins...nt

[jeff47]

182. No, it actually does explain the origin of all matter. (nt)

[jonno99]

183. There is a difference between "explaining" - and "offering an explanation".

The former requires verifiable proof - which you lack.

Which in the end, looks very much like a guess.

It may be a good guess, but it remains a guess...

[jeff47]

184. Nope, there's proof.

But again, you want to believe your story, so you won't look at the proof. You'll just declare it insufficient until you witness the big bang yourself.

At which point you'll declare the big bang the manifestation of your favored creation myth.

[AtheistCrusader]

191. Too literal. Flew right over his head.

[phil89]

186. But where does your God come from?

now you're into special pleading. Doesn't it bother you to have a world view based on logical fallacies?

[AtheistCrusader]

190. Yes it does. Here, I'll save you reading a whole shelf of books.

"'Nothing' is unstable".

Absolute dead-space nothingness, without even quantum foam, is unstable. And this isn't 'space' I'm talking about. 'Empty space', isn't empty at all.

That should save you a ton of searching, and help you on your way to finding an actual answer about the causes of the universe.

[Act_of_Reparation]

159. Flawed logic + anedcotal evidence = predetermined conclusion

Checkmate, atheists!

[jonno99]

176. Great gif! But I find it more than a little ironic that an atheists would use

"predetermined conclusion" as a smear against someone with whom they disagree.

[Act_of_Reparation]

185. So let me get this straight:

In your quest to understand the origins of the universe, you started off no particular opinion on the matter. You looked around and, without prior knowledge or experience, concluded the universe was designed.

[Warren Stupidity]

152. Oh right, you're the one who can't even get the ID argument right.

[jonno99]

177. I'm sorry, please fill me in.

I certainly would want to present a flawed argument.

[Warren Stupidity]

187. I tried to help you out but really it wasn't working.

"I certainly would want to present a flawed argument."

well you've succeeded.

[LostOne4Ever]

119. I am so scared of your imaginary friend in the sky beating me up....

[center]




[/center]

[beam me up scottie]

121. One of my favourites.

Thanks for posting it!

[Binkie The Clown]

140. The guys that wrote your book believed that the earth was flat.

So you have it on their authority that sky daddy is going to rescue you from death? Right. That's logical. NOT.

And for the record, I can't possibly fear god, because I would have no idea WHICH god to fear, there are so damn many of them in recorded history alone, let alone the hundreds of thousands of years of unrecorded religious beliefs. So tell me, which god should I fear? And why that one, and not the others? And what if the followers of the "true" god all died off and their "true" religion is lost to history? What then? Aren't ALL religions following the wrong god then?

Afraid of some particular one of 73 thousands gods? That's hilarious!

[skepticscott]

148. Tell your measly little god to bring it on

Tell every freaking god-concept that superstitious humans have ever bowed and scraped before to bring it on. Tell every cruel, capricious, jealous, mass-murdering Jehovah wanna-be to fucking bring it on.

Me against the field...steel cage match...any time, anywhere.

[okasha]

162. Bar fight!

[jonno99]

180. You see, it's responses like yours that give me pause to wonder.

I mean we're talking about something in which ostensibly, you don't believe - like the easter bunny.

Why so much over-the-top rhetoric? Why so much energy?

[skepticscott]

188. Good grief, you need to lighten up

If you thought I was remotely serious, you need to seek assistance...

[Mariana]

189. I think he or she knows you weren't serious.

Pretending to believe an atheist who makes such an obvious joke is serious is a ridiculous game that some believers like to play. I don't know why they do that, it's really weird.

I would like this poster to be more specific about what he or she was talking about in #28: "News flash for the militant atheists: if there is a god, there is no safety in numbers. Recruitment will not help you." I asked for clarification, but haven't got any answer.

[AtheistCrusader]

192. Because you aren't an atheist, you're probably completely blind and ignorant to the amount of shit

that is heaped in our direction, all the damn time. Some of it intentional, some of it fully ignorant.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. You're imaginary friend doesn't scare me, sorry.

[Mariana]

169. "There is no safety in numbers. Recruitment will not help you."

Safety from what? Why would they need help? Please be clear.

[guillaumeb]

29. Interesting article with a "National Enquirer" type title.

Especially the part:
"So non-believers are not only distrusted; they also stir up morbid thoughts, and perhaps raise discomforting doubts about what happens after we die. Given this reality, Cook and his colleagues conclude by admonishing atheists to avoid "militant denunciations of theistic conceptions of reality, and those who adhere to them."
If you're facing scorn, giving it right back may be an understandable reaction, but it does not further understanding. On the other hand, friendly dialogue that reveals alternative ways to find meaning in life and encourage morality just might."
My take:
"avoid militant denunications of theistic conceptions". What if both sides practiced that behavior? Could we then have the "friendly dialogue that reveals alternative ways"?

I have seen a certain amount of militant denunciation here, as well as a lot of condescension for people who identify as religious believers. Perhaps some of this negativity on the part of some DU atheists is a reaction, understandable, to the way they can be perceived by some people of faith. But at what point do we get past all that?

[jonno99]

31. Post of the day - IMHO!

[guillaumeb]

33. welcome to DU. I hope you enjoy it.

and thanks for the opinion.

[beam me up scottie]

39. That's rich coming from you.

What if both sides practiced that behavior? Could we then have the "friendly dialogue that reveals alternative ways"?

You were called out for stereotyping "fundamentalist" atheists in GD.

guillaumeb (1,916 posts)
1. Is it also acceptable to provoke fundamentalist type atheists?

How about incitement? Is that also a good idea?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6620549

guillaumeb (1,916 posts)
18. Someone who exhibits much the same behavior as a religious fundamentalist

Some examples are:
1) atheists who insist, with no real proof, that their particular beliefs are more valid than the beliefs of others. And also
2) atheists who "worship" people like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. This type of atheist uncritically accepts whatever Dawkins says on the subject of faith because Dawkins' particular "faith phobia" accords with what the individual atheist also believes.
3) atheists who feel that their atheism "proves" that they are smarter than people of faith.
4) atheists who feel that their "belief" that there is no creator is more valid than a person of faiths "belief" in a creator

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6620668

Have you learned nothing from that encounter?

[guillaumeb]

45. so by pointing out examples of behavior

I am therefore guilty of the same behavior? What interesting logic.

And my comments were a response to a rather silly post concerning the acceptability of provoking believers. If you can find ANY examples of me criticizing atheists for their non-belief, or mocking them for their non-belief, please post them. I never criticize beliefs or non-beliefs. I have asked for mutual respect numerous times. And mutual respect characterizes most of the dialogue here.

[beam me up scottie]

51. No, by making up shit to "prove" your point, you're promoting bigoted stereotypes.

And my comments were a response to a rather silly post concerning the acceptability of provoking believers.

You're doing it again, that op was about the reasons why religious fundamentalists should be confronted, provoked and yes, offended.

It is absolutely okay to provoke religious fundamentalists [View all]
In fact, we should not submit to following any religion's rules of behavior in order to "not offend".

I don't care if it's drawing a cartoon, or sitting next to a woman on a plane, or gay marriage, or abortion.

We should always refuse to obey their silly rules, furthermore we should ACTIVELY oppose their rules. If they want to obey their own rules fine, but they can't expect to force others to follow them. As an atheist, I bristle at any pressure or threats religious groups make to impose their to get other people to not offend or inflame them.

In fact, if we don't push back, we, in effect, succumb to their rules.

We SHOULD actively seek to offend the religious, and we should ALWAYS refuse to follow their rules especially when they try to bully us with threats and violence.

Your attempt to misrepresent it is another example of how you love to smear DU atheists.

[guillaumeb]

54. Thank you for proving my point without me naming you.

You actually did say:
"It is absolutely okay to provoke religious fundamentalists "'
You also said:
"We SHOULD actively seek to offend the religious..."

Given that you illustrate my point about rude, condescending behavior, what exactly is your quarrel?

Dialogue should be the response, not provocation and screaming. It is really difficult to hear anyone when everyone is shouting. That is, and always has been, my point.

If, like this post, I talked instead about ALL atheists being terrified of being wrong about the non-existence of God I would be attacked for being insensitive and rude.

[beam me up scottie]

57. What are you talking about?

I'm not the op but I do agree that one way to fight against religious fundamentalism is by mocking it, like the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo and like the guy who created the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And if mocking them makes apologists whine that we're actively seeking to offend all believers instead of just the bigoted assholes who want to force me to live by their ancient bigoted rules, then FUCK IT.

I'm all for offending them.

The op AGAIN, was about provoking fundamentalists:

I don't care if it's drawing a cartoon, or sitting next to a woman on a plane, or gay marriage, or abortion.

We should always refuse to obey their silly rules, furthermore we should ACTIVELY oppose their rules. If they want to obey their own rules fine, but they can't expect to force others to follow them. As an atheist, I bristle at any pressure or threats religious groups make to impose their to get other people to not offend or inflame them.

In fact, if we don't push back, we, in effect, succumb to their rules.

If you're not a religious fundamentalist, stop going out of your way to be offended by those who mock them.

And stop painting atheists as the bad guys, we're not the ones shooting people for offending us.

[guillaumeb]

61. I am not "painting atheists as the bad guys".

And I never have. I try to avoid generalization. There is no typical atheist, there is no typical theist. There are rude people on both sides, but rudeness does not promote dialogue. THAT is my point.

AS to:
"And if mocking them makes apologists whine that we're actively seeking to offend all believers instead of just the bigoted assholes who want to force me to live by their ancient bigoted rules, then FUCK IT.
I'm all for offending them. "

Is it possible that by you are driving away natural allies by your tactics? I personally know a number of theists who are very offended by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and theists like them. They should be your allies.

P.S.
I apologize for NOT making it clear that the comments I referenced were not yours.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Your first impulse after reading that op was to post about atheists fundamentalists.

As if anything your imaginary atheists did is in any way comparable to the religious fundamentalists the op was referring to.

Is it possible that by you are driving away natural allies by your tactics? I personally know a number of theists who are very offended by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and theists like them. They should be your allies.

I'm sorry but if someone is going to side with the folks at Westboro Baptist because of "my" tactics, then they were never my ally in the first place.

Liberal believers and atheists on DU fight against dogmatic religious fundamentalism for the same reasons.

I'm offended by lots of things said on DU, but any in-fighting shouldn't affect our resolve to come together on the big issues.

I apologize for NOT making it clear that the comments I referenced were not yours.

No worries.

[guillaumeb]

99. very nicely said

here:
"Liberal believers and atheists on DU fight against dogmatic religious fundamentalism for the same reasons.

I'm offended by lots of things said on DU, but any in-fighting shouldn't affect our resolve to come together on the big issues. "


Agreed. And we probably are in agreement as to what many of the big issues are, as well as the distractions. What bothers me is how successful the GOP is at deceiving some theists with rhetoric that does not match the reality of GOP politics.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Yes we are.

I was just talking to my neighbor today about what will happen once same sex marriage is the law of the land. There's a virulently homophobic church up the road and they're already preparing for the apocalypse - we had a good laugh over it.

I think you'll find you have much in common with DU atheists, you may not like us but we fight for other causes as passionately as we fight against what we perceive as dangerous religious influence.

[guillaumeb]

108. I also had a discussion about marriage equality with a neighbor.

I asked how two same sex people getting married could affect anyone's marriage? He had no answer. My wife knows a couple of women who have been partners for 25 years. They will not marry because they are afraid that their families would object. Truly sad.

As to your second comment, I do not dislike anyone here. I find some comments to be rude, and some comments uninformed, but until I attain perfection myself I cannot really say too much about that. I do not use the "ignore" feature because I like to read ALL the opinions in a post.

Happy posting. Time for the guitar.

[cyberswede]

64. You only do the right thing because you're afraid of consequences?

I do the right thing because it's the right thing.

[cyberswede]

67. Well, in my culture and period of time, I'm can differentiate between right and wrong.

How has the notion of "the right thing" evolved since the bible was written? Your argument deflates your own position.

[uppityperson]

74. What do you mean by "the lastest moral passing fad"? Example?

[uppityperson]

100. "Winning is the only thing that matters"? Wow. I am glad that that has changed.

[cyberswede]

81. Can you give me an example

...of something everyone else thinks is wrong, with which you disagree?

Or why life would be easier for you if there were no afterlife or consequences?

[beam me up scottie]

94. See ^^^THIS ^^^ post by Phil Robertson, jonno99?

Last edited Wed May 6, 2015, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

David439 (7 posts)

89. If there was no god and no judgement in the afterlife

There'd be no limits to the lengths I'd go to gain total control and dominance, protect my people and my family, and preserve the natural order. None whatsoever. That's about as specific as I feel comfortable being right now. Just be thankful that I believe in god and that my people already have most of the control, because many other groups in this world have no such restraint and wouldn't show any if they were allowed to seize power from us.

This is what atheists are afraid of.

I laugh at your god, it's his followers that terrify me.

[beam me up scottie]

97. You're not a strong person, you're weak and pathetic.

You have to follow instructions dictated by an imaginary being because you aren't intelligent enough to think for yourself.

Just be thankful that I believe in god and that my people already have most of the control, because many other groups in this world have no such restraint and wouldn't show any if they were allowed to seize power from us.

I'm not a violent person because my godless parents raised me to respect others, but if you were here right now I'd be tempted to kick your wimpy little ass for being such a doofus.

[beam me up scottie]

107. Yeah well you're coming up pretty short there too.

So far I've seen nothing from you that deserves any respect.

People that need a big scary father figure to keep them in line are weak.

[cyberswede]

114. ...and people claim atheists aren't moral. Mind boggling.

[beam me up scottie]

117. David makes a good case for atheism.

Unintentionally of course.

[cyberswede]

118. LOL

I didn't believe there were real live people who actually think that way. It's so illogical

[beam me up scottie]

120. It's scary as hell.

What happens if that lunatic decides there is no god ???

[Mariana]

170. Or, if he decides

that his god wants him to do those things he says he'd like to do. Or, that his god won't like it, but will forgive him and let him go to heaven anyway.

[beam me up scottie]

171. He's obviously fantacized about it a lot.

Probably gets a woody when he's thinking about it.

[Mariana]

172. Same kind of person that gets a thrill

when they fantasize about everyone they don't agree with being tortured in hell for eternity. Some folks get awfully damned gleeful, dreaming about the suffering of people who don't believe exactly as they do.

[beam me up scottie]

173. Yes, lol, more ethically superior christians.

We should aspire to be more like them.

[jonno99]

127. I think you're creating more straw men.

If a person believes "there was no god and no judgement in the afterlife", then by definition they are not "followers", making this guy just another control-freak on a power trip - no different from any other petty tyrant with whom society would have to deal.

[beam me up scottie]

131. "straw men"? You keep using that word...

I'll post this again and emphasize the parts you must have missed:

David439 (7 posts)
89. If there was no god and no judgement in the afterlife

None whatsoever. That's about as specific as I feel comfortable being right now. Just be thankful that I believe in god and that my people already have most of the control, because many other groups in this world have no such restraint and wouldn't show any if they were allowed to seize power from us.

Note the word 'If', it's important, and the sentence beginning with "Just be thankful that I believe in god..."

If a person believes "if there was no god and no judgement in the afterlife...There'd be no limits to the lengths I'd go to gain total control and dominance, protect my people and my family, and preserve the natural order.", then by definition they are "followers", making this guy just another whackjob lunatic who needs a god to stop him from committing unspeakable crimes - no different from any other whackjob lunatic who'll commit unspeakable crimes if he stops believing in the petty tyrant with whom society has to deal.

There, fixed that for ya.

[jonno99]

135. No, I got the word 'if'. And if I understand your argument it is that given past wrongs atheists

are wise to fear the "religious" - have I got that right?

But by dwelling on this quote though - "If there was no god and no judgement in the afterlife..." - it seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways. You feel the need to fear him because he is religious, but also if he is not religious.

Apparently this guy is naturally a tyrant. However, is this case society is saved from his abuses because he does believe in judgment & afterlife.

Personally I think the guy is using pretzel logic, rendering the whole discussion moot - but that's just me.

BTW - thanks for the Inigo Montoya reference - it's one of my great favorites.

[beam me up scottie]

137. I fear people like him because he needs a god to stop him from committing horrible crimes.

He actually said there are no limits to the lengths he'd go to to "gain total control and dominance, protect my people and my family, and preserve the natural order. None whatsoever" if he didn't believe in god.

What kind of person has that in their heart but doesn't act on it because they're afraid god might punish them in the afterlife?

You're damn right I fear him whether he's religious or not.


Would you let him babysit your kids? What if he suddenly had a crisis of faith?


And that guy is using the same "logic" many believers do, that atheists can't be morally ethical because we have no god to tell us how to behave.

It's another one of those atheist memes, like the ones you were peddling earlier.

Much more damning of theists who believe such things than atheists whose ethical lifestyles prove they're wrong.

[AlbertCat]

98. because many other groups in this world have no such restraint

But it's religious people doing most of the senseless killing these day.

"There'd be no limits to the lengths I'd go to gain total control and dominance,"

Kinda like religions!


I surmise you are just posturing and this is all bunk... like a gun nut doing open carry and spouting "protecting my family" bull shit. And they're mostly religious too...hmmmmm....

Either that or you forgot the sarcasm thingie.

[uppityperson]

101. What do you mean by "the natural order"?

[cyberswede]

103. You'd oppress other human beings to gain dominance?

And wouldn't your gaining control and dominance change the "natural order?"

Do you have an internal moral compass?

[cyberswede]

115. Yeah. Enough is enough.

[Terra Alta]

70. lots of atheists and non-theists

lead good, upstanding lives without having a "god" to tell them what the "right thing" is.

[cyberswede]

83. Again, you imply people only behave because they fear punishment by god.

That's utter horse hockey.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. other than around 2500 years of godless philosophy that describes a good life without god

you might have a point. But even if we accept your premise, since we can't even agree on what the gods demand of us with respect to morality, the gods are useless and we are back to having to figure it out for ourselves. Which almost all of us do.

[beam me up scottie]

91. Oh goodie!

A new toy for the kids to play with.

[uppityperson]

104. I think you are confusing religion and morality. There are plenty of amoral people who believe in

some god. Plenty of them who exercise little restraint in their treatment of others and to claim otherwise is ludicrous.

[uppityperson]

112. Having no concern whether something is wrong or right.

[uppityperson]

116. Wrong. It is possible to determine right or wrong without god. Again, many who claim

they believe in a god do really bad things to people and the world. Many of us do right not out of fear of some god but because we are smart enough to understand we are part of the world as well as having ethics higher than you seem to claim.

[Freelancer]

141. You do right because, although you were born evil, you have been corrected

by translations of books written by people who heard voices in their heads thousands of years ago. What could be more sensible?

[TerrapinFlyer]

79. Dumb All Over.. A little ugly on the side...

Frank sez TAX THE CHURCHES!

[Lordquinton]

87. Believers find it convenient to forget history

when it undermines their position. Sure in a vacuum someone like, for example, Dawkins may seem like he's projecting unfounded fears on peaceful groups who just want to be oppressed. But you'd have to erase almost the entirety of religious history. In one interview he even mentioned as how this is the first time in history that these conversation can even be had in the open, that people can declare themselves unbelievers, not even giving lip service to the church, without fear of strict religious reprisal.

Atheists have no fear of god, things that aren't real aren't that scary, it's the theists who think they are right that atheists are afraid of. You know, the ones who say things like "Death to non-believers" and such.

[Rhiannon12866]

88. Whatever anybody chooses to believe is fine with me, as long as they don't impose it on others.

That's my issue with the right wing zealots. They want to tell everybody else what to do.

[zazen]

126. I didn't think Jews, the original monotheists, believed in an afterlife? n/t

[gcomeau]

129. They do..

...they just don't dress it up with the same level of glitzy advertising hype and then obsess over it the way Christians and Muslims do.

A little on the subject from a rabbi:

http://www.reformjudaism.org/judaism-what-believed-happen-someone-after-they-die

[okasha]

134. Some do. Some don't.

[zazen]

128. just read the review: the conclusions aren't warranted from the data n/t

[Binkie The Clown]

138. Buddhist teacher Stephen Levine addressed a large gsathering once and asked the audience...

"How many of you are going to die?"

It took a really looooooong time before a few hands started to be timidly held up.

Most people cope with their own mortality by avoiding any thoughts about it. I remember once, many years ago when I was just in my 20's that, whenever I drove past them, I unconsciously averted my eyes from bus stop benches that had mortuary advertising on them. When I realized that I was doing it, a realized how foolish it was. Not confronting the issue won't make it go away.

Now many decades later, having confronted death all around me, mostly elderly relatives, but exceptions include my relatively young wife (cancer), a 30-year-old friend who dropped dead of a heart attack jst before we were going out for pizza, and a nephew who had a fatal stroke at age 22, I've come to simply accept my own impermanence. I don't have avert my eyes from billboards and change the subject when somebody mentions it.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that as an atheist, I don't have to worry about heaven or hell. I'm expecting neither. Hell doesn't frighten me any more than other fantasies like alien abduction or voodoo curses, and being dead is no different from the way I was before I was born. (I don't recall that being a bad state of affairs.)

I'm 70, and if I live another year I will have lived longer than my father. If I live another 25 years I will have caught up to my mother, who's still alive and kicking. Who knows. Who cares. Life is about living right here, right now. And I will die. And knowing that makes life all the sweeter.

[Freelancer]

144. Humanity is like a good string of Christmas lights. When one goes out, the rest keep shining

The only immortality that any mortal has, for sure, is humanity itself. We all approximate each other to some degree and throughout time. When we look up, we see the same stars that ice age hunters saw and that Martian terraformers will see. 'Continuum' or 'commonality' may be more fitting words for it than 'immortality', but the essence is the same.

[Binkie The Clown]

168. profound. :-) n/t

[Freelancer]

143. Atheists make life harder for believers, which also gives them comfort -- go figure

In my part of the country, if you don't think the Universe dictates books, people think you're an atheist. So I'm somewhat familiar with the dynamic.

In my opinion, you're either wired for religion, or not.

I agree with the article that, to most believers, every breath an atheist takes without getting smote by a bus, or (preferably to some) a lightning bolt, is a challenge to their core ideas. I would add that, while one would think that encountering a healthy, happy non-believer would grant the religious some wriggle-room to question their dogma, the opposite is usually true. For many believers, it forces a ratcheting down. So, because the atheist isn't miserable, believers tend to garrison themselves even further -- in effect, becoming more miserable, but glad to be that way.

Why do I live here, again? Hmm.

[muriel_volestrangler]

150. 'neutral or death-related words ... SK__L, which could be completed as either "skill" or "skull"'

Hmm, I hope they were bit more careful with their other options for the experiment. 'Skull' is an anatomical word; people can use it with no connection to death at all, and anyone studying biology or medicine might be particularly likely to think of it as something to do with life.