Ask the Religion Experts: What does your faith say about atheists?

[rug]

The Ottawa CitizenMay 6, 2012

KEVIN SMITH is on the board of directors for the centre for Inquiry, Canada’s premier venue for humanists, skeptics and freethinkers.

This question has everything to do with me yet nothing at all. I am of the Mark Twain school of thought where “faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Perhaps you’ll read words to the contrary: that atheism is a faith. Or perhaps it will be written that we are immoral, close-minded, cynics. Oh, those tired, baseless stereotypes. I pray they won’t be regurgitated by my faithful colleagues.

The question should be nearly impossible for theists to answer. We have much in common. As Dawkins reminds us, most people are atheists regarding the thousands of gods once worshipped by humans — we just go one god further.

We’re not angry at your God. We’re not lazy nihilists, preferring to grab extra z’s on Sundays. We simply prefer the facts. Give us some tangible proof and we’ll likely change our minds. Fact is, everyone is agnostic if they care to admit it — and we do.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Religion+Experts+What+does+your+faith+about+atheists/6574672/story.html

The rest of the article has the views of a Rabbi, a Pastor of a Bible Church, a Buddhist, a Muslim, an Anglican Priest, a Bahá’í and a Hindu scholar.

[cbayer]

1. I read this earlier today and enjoyed it.

The perspectives were different but had some commonalities. All seemed thoughtful and reasoned.

[skepticscott]

2. So what's your answer to the question posed?

Did your respect for the thoughtfulness of the article motivate you to actually formulate one?

[darkstar3]

3. Reasoned?

The rabbi thinks that atheists either reject God because of awful happenings in their lives, or because they simply don't understand God.

The pastor of the Bible church thinks that there really is no such thing as atheists, but rather just fools in denial.

The buddhist redefines atheism at the start of his answer to something far more narrow than it actually is.

The muslim is careful to note that he cannot judge, yet his final chosen quote from the Koran expresses a desire for witnessing to "the other" while at the same time maintaining a proper distance.

The Anglican spouts the same line TMO does, that atheists just don't understand Christianity (he is remarkably silent about any other faiths.)

The Ba'hai "leader" says that atheists are incomplete.

The professor of Hinduism courses contradicts himself, ending by saying that atheists don't believe in themselves and that his experience with them has been negative.

I wouldn't call this bunch of stereotypes lumped together from different believers anything close to "reasoned" or "thoughtful". In fact, I find a couple of those leaders' views offensive, uninformed, and in the case of the bible church pastor, remarkably insular.

[cbayer]

5. What a great example of how one's agenda can completely change how one reads something.

Rabbi:

An atheist who nevertheless abides by God’s word, and behaves accordingly, is looked upon more favourably than the misbehaving believer

The reality of atheism is a challenge to all believers to translate their belief in God into a way of living that is nothing less than noble and inspiring

Buddhist:
Advocates atheism

Muslim:

As for people with other beliefs or without any belief, no human being is qualified to judge another human being.

Anglican:

Atheists are no more a monolithic group than are people of faith. Their reasons for holding their particular world view may range from considerable sophistication to unexamined prejudice. In all cases, however, the Christian is called to show atheists the same respect, love, and concern as they would show anyone

Bahai:

My personal belief is that atheists cannot entirely fulfil their knowing and loving capacities without recognizing the Divine Source of all love and knowledge. Hopefully, atheists have also chosen a committed path of knowing and loving. Since I have no direct access to the spiritual state of soul of any atheist, I will not venture to hazard a judgment.

Hindu:

Atheism i.e. nir-vara-vda, “statement of no Lord”, has been a historically propounded viewpoint in many streams of Hindu philosophies. It is considered a valid albeit difficult path to follow.

All pretty positive stuff, imo. What did you expect? Religious leaders and scholars to fall all over themselves saying atheists have it right and they have it wrong?

[darkstar3]

9. I summarized. You quote-mined. I'll take one over the other any day, as one included context.

I stand by my summarizations. This whole article was just a bunch of stereotypes.

[cbayer]

13. I will take one over the other any day as well.

I think it's more objective to actually use the person's words rather than an interpretation filtered through an agenda and distorting prism.

[darkstar3]

16. So pulling a sentence out of context is better?

If that were the case then we could all claim that Richard Dawkins is a Christian.

[cbayer]

18. How could we do that?

[darkstar3]

20. Read the beginning of this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121820710#post30

[EvolveOrConvolve]

10. Perhaps that example extends to yourself?

[cbayer]

12. Of course it does. That's why I said it was a good example.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

17. And that's why I pointed it out

[skepticscott]

6. For "reasoned and thoughtful"

substitute "comfortably reinforcing my preconceived notions"

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. All religion involves a disapproval of someone else. That's what they have in common.

[cbayer]

19. Not true.

[darkstar3]

21. That article shows otherwise.

ETA: I know you don't want to see it, but anyone who can read the damn thing for comprehension will see that atheists are disapproved of by everyone who was interviewed. Even the buddhist, who had to redefine what the word meant in order to say anything about it.

[cbayer]

22. Not so.

[darkstar3]

24. Simple denial. Meh.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. You should use this as a learning opportunity

At the very least, think about why what you considered "thoughtful", was offensive to (at least two) atheists.

[cbayer]

28. It apparently wasn't offensive to the non-believer activist who did the interviews and wrote the

article.

That some are offended by it is of no surprise to me at all.

There are all kinds of atheists.

[darkstar3]

30. And how do you know that?

The "non-believer activist" who wrote the article made absolutely no comment about the responses he received from the interviewees.

[cbayer]

31. That's correct. He did not. Were he offended, I think he would have said so.

Could be wrong, but that's what I think.

[darkstar3]

33. It's not his blog. Perhaps he has some journalistic integrity.

Who knows? We certainly don't see much of it here in the states.

[cbayer]

34. He didn't mince any words in his opening comments and

I felt that most (except for one glaring exception) of the respondents did what he asked:

It’s time they accepted us as part of the human tribe. Everyone has questions about the mysteries of life; we simply have different answers. If our detractors ditched the clichés and got to know us a bit better they’d find, regardless of differing beliefs, we fallible mortals are very much the same.

You and others read it differently. The author didn't comment.

And that is what makes like so appealing - diversity of POV and perception.

[darkstar3]

37. Perhaps

that was his comment.

[cbayer]

40. Go snark about me to one of your friends, darkstar.

I am done talking to you.

[darkstar3]

42. Oh? Have you run out of ways to tell me that this article was thoughtful

and my offense is unwarranted?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

36. And what kinds are we?

The kinds who aren't allowed to be offended by things offensive to us?

[darkstar3]

38. You forget a post of hers earlier today...

"assholes are assholes," I seem to recall.

[cbayer]

39. You are allowed to be offended by anything you want, whether offense is intended or not.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

41. I never claimed that there was any offense intended

But that doesn't mean that the words weren't offensive, and I'm frustrated that you don't understand why.

(It perhaps makes it worse that no offense was intended, but the end result was still offensive)

[cbayer]

43. I have read the comments about why some find this offensive.

I am not sure what religious leaders and scholars could say about atheism that would not be offensive to some. They aren't going to embrace it. They aren't going to endorse it.

What I read was an acknowledgement of the existence of atheism, some speculation about why some people are atheists, a general agreement that being atheist does not make someone bad and that in general we all share commonalities despite the differences in beliefs.

You read it differently. Since it talks about a group with which you affiliate, I will take your feeling offended at face value. It exists.

Tell me what you would say to them other than that you are offended. What would you like to tell them that might offer them a better insight into atheism and atheists?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

46. An acknowledgement of atheism's existence is about all that it was

The rest was a caricature of atheists built upon pre-judged opinions. The problem is that these people are presumptuous enough to think that they get to define what atheism is or isn't.

If I wasn't so cynical, I'd say that they were building strawmen that make it easy to dismiss atheism as "people who are just angry with god" or "people who don't get it" or "people too lazy to care about themselves or follow the teachings of god" or "people who just want to sin".

Throughout the article, I could sense the pity these people have for atheists. It's revolting.

[darkstar3]

47. Well said.

[AlbertCat]

87. Throughout the article, I could sense the pity these people have for atheists. It's revolting.

BINGO!

Now I wonder what they think of each other.

Probably get the same type of "thoughtful" insights....

[Goblinmonger]

49. So there is some tension between what you say and what you do.

You talk about trying to see things from the other side. That you want to understand atheists and why they see things like they do.

Then, when we tell you that these reactions were offensive, you label us as overly sensitive and that nothing the religious can do would make us happy.

Here's what would have made me happy if just ONE of the religious leaders would have said: Atheists are just like anyone else that believes in god. Most are very good people. Some are not. But it is not because of their lack of belief in a god that those are not good people just like those that believe that aren't good people are that way because of their belief in god. My religion demands a belief in god, but that does not mean that I do not love all humans including atheists and wish the best for them.

Would THAT have been so damned hard?

[cbayer]

54. Did you read the article, because what you are saying was said.

I am willing to bet that you did not, based on your response here.

[Goblinmonger]

56. Yep. Read the whole thing.

Found pretty much all of them insulting to different degrees. What do I win?

[trotsky]

63. Why are you doubting someone else's perspective?

To such an extent that if the tables were turned, and an atheist said something like that, you'd probably admonish them for bashing the believer?

[Kalidurga]

4. Reason is not the right word....

when you are talking about a subject that is assumed to exist as an article of faith.

[cbayer]

7. Sure it is.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

8. I was highly offended by the views of the believers in the piece

The only commonalities among the various opinions were the thinly-veiled attempts to discredit atheism as a invalid viewpoint in a modern world.

[darkstar3]

11. I guess we both missed all the positive points, and just have an agenda...Oi.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

15. I'll bet we're just deficient in the "other ways of knowing"

[darkstar3]

23. According to the article, we're deficient in a great many things.

[dimbear]

26. For Christians, the verdict is just ignore them and avoid them.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." -- 2 Cor.6:14-17

This is a great improvement over the views in the OT which involved so much stoning. It is also IMHO an improvement over the Holy Quran, which allows (atheists) them to live only if they convert.

BTW, the original article reminds me of surveying conditions in antebellum slave plantations by asking the owners. Who really was likely to know?

[cbayer]

29. The whole point of the article (written by a non-believer)

was to get the viewpoints of religious leaders and scholars on atheism.

What? He should have asked atheists what atheists think of atheism to get that information?

Slave owners? Really?

[dimbear]

45. We know what their faiths say about atheists because they have written it down.

It's in the historic record. It's part of history. We also know that because of revolutions, reformations, and so on, the original intents of their faiths are curtailed, circumscribed, and thwarted.

That's not a sign of acceptance. It's a sign of resignation.

Many comparisons come to mind. Should we query butchers what they think of PETA? Cadillac salesmen about bicyclists?

Lots of choices.

[cbayer]

53. Who's we? Did you read the article?

I am willing to bet that you did not, based on your response here.

[trotsky]

81. cbayer, please read this post:

Imagine a scenario in which someone posted an article interviewing a number of religious leaders and asking them about their opinions on homosexuality. You read the article, and while there are a couple of comments you don't like, you believe that overall the leaders were accepting and tolerant of it.

Then imagine a number of homosexuals join the thread and claim they find it offensive.

Would your first reaction in that situation be to say, "I bet you didn't read the article, based on your response."?

Or would you take a step back and wonder if maybe they are seeing something that you aren't, because of your own biases?

[cbayer]

88. Point taken.

I understand that some find it offensive.

I do maintain that some people reacted without reading, which is SOP around here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. The atheist is the first person in the article to be asked

Kevin Smith was asked the same question by the Ottawa Citizen as the other 'religion experts' were. His answer was printed first - maybe because he's the atheist, I don't know.

[darkstar3]

75. More people need to read your post. I hadn't realized that, and many others hadn't either.

The atheist was an interviewee, not the writer. As far as I can tell there is no credit for a writer.

[cbayer]

76. Well, that makes a lot more sense.

You are so good at looking carefully, Muriel.

[cbayer]

27. I like this comment and agree with it.

DMG_
9:51 AM on 5/6/2012

I'm impressed that every religious leader managed to provide a nuanced answer that recognized the diversity of atheists and the fact that they hold many of the same values of seeking truth and doing good as their religious counterparts.

...with the singular exception of Rev. Rick Reed, who felt the need to slander a huge community of people he's never met as being dishonest in their non-belief and suffering from a "heart problem."

Given Reed's uncritical parroting of some of the most thoroughly debunked notions of "intelligent design," I think all Ottawa Citizen readers can see where the "head problem" lies.

[darkstar3]

32. That comment, just like your "thoughtful" one above,

ignores the fact that all of the leaders stereotyped atheists or redefined what atheism meant for their own convenience. The fact that you and the commenter you agree with cannot see the stereotypes is indicative of a problem you share.

[cbayer]

35. So be it.

[laconicsax]

70. What a tolerant and open-minded position.

How many times do you need to read the same take on why the statements in the article are offensive for you to even consider what is being said?

Are you unable to understand what the atheists on this thread are saying, or just unwilling?

[skepticscott]

44. What exactly does "nuanced answer" mean?

Other than that every religious leader questioned found a cowardly way to avoid saying what they really think: that atheists are dead wrong in not believing wholeheartedly that some sort of god exists?

[struggle4progress]

48. 1 John 4:7-8 seems to define atheists as those who do not love:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

[Goblinmonger]

50. Is that what you believe?

And if not, why post it? A little context from you would be good.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

71. So, atheists are hateful and can't feel love towards anyone?

Is that what the passage is saying?

[struggle4progress]

74. Try hard to avoid fallacious equivocation. When two conversants

use the same word with different meanings, it becomes more difficult to conduct a coherent conversation

Here, the text I cited explicitly defines: to love is to know God. That particular definition does not involve much about creeds or belief systems or intellectual assent regarding supernatural claims. It says that (regardless of anything else) those, who love, by loving know God; and that similarly (regardless of anything else) those, who do not love, do not know God.

If you confuse the meanings of the text with the meanings of your own words, you engage in fallacious equivocation

[Goblinmonger]

83. So you are the biblical expert telling us what this quotation means

so can you give me the original word that through many translations became "love" in that passage and let us know what the meaning of THAT word is so that we can fully understand it? Because your weaksauce interpretation/redefinition is based on how we use those words in English and I'm pretty sure that ain't the original language and I'm also pretty sure that the original language is going to show your interpretation as so much claptrap.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

109. I'm confused as to how you're parsing the scripture passage

Your words:

struggle4progress: 1 John 4, 7-8 seems to define atheists as those who do not love:

The quoted scripture:

1 John 4, 7-8: Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

It's pretty straightforward.
1) if you love, you have been born of and know god;
2) whoever doesn't love does not know god, because god is love;
3) the implication in #2 is that atheists are not capable of love;
4) atheists = hateful (you know, the opposite of "loving".

I'm not going to tapdance around the issue. I think you made that post to be inflammatory, knowing that the bible passage would be highly offensive to some of us. If you really meant to post the passage in the spirit of the meaning you claimed, then the post wasn't at all germane to the discussion.

[darkstar3]

77. A ridiculous notion.

I suppose next you'll tell me that because I love my wife, I know God.

One does not get to redefine the words "love" and "know" for their own convenience.

[trotsky]

82. Yes, we get a pat on the head.

Because when our cold, cold atheists hearts feel love or appreciate beauty, that's really god, and we are too stupid to realize/acknowledge it.

And yet it's atheists who are arrogant and condescending. Riddle me that one.

[LTX]

84. I would argue that when you feel love or appreciate beauty, you are in fact

drawing on the same synaptic pathways that give rise to sensations of god. Intuitive leaps at the intersection of emotion and sensory perception are everyday experiences for our particular brand of computer, and they regularly (and rather efficiently) supplant analysis.

[trotsky]

85. And I would agree with that assessment. n/t

[LTX]

86. Kind of makes you wonder whether god

isn't as "real" as love. Or (to venture a mite further into the immaterial) mathematics.

[edhopper]

52. The one thing I take from all the answers

is a hard fast frame of mind that there is no way the atheist could possibly be right. there is an absolutism about the existence of God.
Therefore atheist, "don't understand God" or "don't understand why there can't be proof of God", but basically all condescend to the poor atheists who just don't get it.

[cbayer]

55. What do you expect from theologians? Of course they don't think atheists are right.

Do you think they are right?

I doubt it.

[edhopper]

57. No

But it was more the attitude that atheist are less than complete that I find galling.
If we would only open our eyes and accept that which is impossible to see we would "get it".

They don't want to accept that many atheist were religious at one point and decided their precious beliefs are simply wrong.

[cbayer]

58. I can see how you would feel that way.

They are saying that they have something that you do not, and that is true. They have belief or faith or whatever you want to call it. Atheism is by definition the absence of that.

If one considers that thing valuable, then they are going to come across as saying that your not having it means you are lacking something of value.

At least one of the authors fully acknowledges that many atheists have been religious at one time. He even acknowledges that many were damaged by religious institutions and that is why they left.

There is no wrong or right here, of that I am convinced. But how is saying "their precious beliefs" with sarcastic overtones any better than what you complain about.

Maybe if people stopped bashing others for believing or not believing, the world would be a better place.

[edhopper]

60. I was being sarcastic, which I think is apropos to the "we just don't get it" attitude.

To say the formally religious atheist are so because we were "hurt" by religion. i.e. an irrational, emotional response to a personal pain, and not that many simple saw the illogic and irrational nature of those beliefs is VERY condescending.

[cbayer]

62. Do you not think that some people have abandoned religion because they were hurt.

Is that necessarily an irrational response? I would think that the blatant hypocrisy of being damaged by an institution that preached one thing and did quite another would be a perfectly legitimate reason for turning away from religion entirely.

There are as many reasons for being atheist as there are atheists, imo.

[edhopper]

65. I have know quite a few atheists

and I do not recall any who became atheist because they were hurt by religion.
I know a few believers who left one church or another for that reason. But most of the atheist I know came to be because they rejected the irrational.
There are probably some that did, but I feel it is a small percentage. I see the argument in the article as it is a widespread reason. I don't think that is true, I think it is rationalization on the part of people who don't want to accept that their beliefs can be logically rejected without emotion.

[cbayer]

68. I'll accept that, as it has been my experience as well.

However, I have met a few rageful atheists. Actually I will call them anti-theists, and they are a different group, imo. Most atheists I know are happy, glad to discuss and open minded. In fact, some of the most open-minded people I know are atheists. They may mock religion at times, but they aren't hostile towards it. The ones who are hostile have been hurt, in my experience, and those people are generally very intolerant and close minded.

That is just my experience and I am not saying it is widely applicable.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

72. There are many of us who are angry

Not for what religion did to us as believers, but what it continues to do to us as nonbelievers. (That shouldn't be surprising - the anger is on full display here in the Religion group)

[cbayer]

73. Yes it is on full display. I think it's sometimes misdirected, though.

There are people here who are allies, even if they are believers. There are religious people here who are fierce civil rights advocates, fighters for social justice and strong believers in separation of church and state.

Even some atheists are the targets of some of this anger. And don't dare say you are agnostic.

What do you think can be done to address that?

[laconicsax]

78. Why do you assume that you are the target?

While this is a response to you, cbayer, the "you" I use is more general and refers to those you describe in your first paragraph (I hope you don't mind my seeing you as one of them).

Why do you assume that when an atheist (for example) attacks religious people who aren't civil rights and social justice advocates and oppose separation of church and state, they are attacking you and those like you?

When theists attack randian, libertarian atheists, I don't take it personally because I can't stand Ayn Rand and am not a libertarian.

So why do you (specifically cbayer), not being a religious racist, homophobe, etc. take attacks on religious racists, homophobes, and theocrats personally?

[cbayer]

79. Individuals are routinely targeted and attacked here.

If you don't see that, you are part of the problem.

[laconicsax]

80. Who has attacked you in this thread for being racist, homophobic, etc.?

That's the issue you brought up--that not all religious persons are the racist, homophobic, misogynist, theocratic religious whack jobs that are frequent targets here.

So who in this thread has attacked you for being a religious whack job of that sort?

[cbayer]

89. You've twisted it. We were talking about the anger on full display here.

I agreed with you and said it is misdirected.

Individuals are routinely targeted and attacked here. It is a sport, complete with sports analogies and high fives. It is sometimes directed against shit stirrers who enjoy the sport as well, but it is sometimes directed against people who are participating in good faith and don't want that kind of hostile interaction.

This group was known for that prior to my participation and it is known for it still. Many good people, including atheists, don't visit here because the atmosphere is so toxic.

Again, if you don't see that, you are part of the problem.

[laconicsax]

91. I see you're not going to stop dodging questions.

Thanks for doing your part to maintain the toxic atmosphere.

[cbayer]

92. Because the question you are asking is not the subject.

You are asking why an individual, and I in particular, might be offended by a general attack on religion. You have changed the subject.

I don't think not answering a question leads to a toxic atmosphere.

What leads to a toxic atmosphere is stalking, harassment, ganging up on individuals, snarking about individuals between other members and attacking them in another group (which is presumably against the rules of that group). What leads to a toxic atmosphere is personal attacks, rudeness, mocking, general incivility and name calling.

No one avoids this group because people don't answer questions. Members avoid this group because of the hostile atmosphere.

Want to do a poll in H & M? I will design it with you and we can present it together.

[laconicsax]

93. That's not what I asked at all.

I asked:

Why do you assume that when an atheist (for example) attacks religious people who aren't civil rights and social justice advocates and oppose separation of church and state, they are attacking you and those like you?

This was in direct response to you when you said:

Yes it is on full display. I think it's sometimes misdirected, though. There are people here who are allies, even if they are believers. There are religious people here who are fierce civil rights advocates, fighters for social justice and strong believers in separation of church and state.

Now, it seems your statement was about misdirected attacks on progressive believers. Is that what you were talking about?

If so, then answer the question of why you feel that attacks on regressive believers are somehow attacks on you.

If not, then what on Earth were you trying to say?

[cbayer]

94. I don't think attacks on regressive believers are attacks on me (or others like me,

whoever they are).

I am often very harshly critical of regressive believers myself.

I think direct personal attacks on individuals is the problem here.

Talk about avoiding the question.

[laconicsax]

95. Then what was the point of your comment?

EvolveOrConvolve was talking about anger at regressive believers because of the horrible things they have and still do. Why then say that the anger at them is misdirected because there are progressive believers?

[cbayer]

96. She said that the anger towards believers was deserved and evident here.

I said it was often misdirected in this group.

If you are hurt by, say, a latino person, and then you respond by attacking all latino people, including those in your own neighborhood, what would you call that?

[laconicsax]

97. That's a distortion of what was said.

There are many of us who are angry. Not for what religion did to us as believers, but what it continues to do to us as nonbelievers. (That shouldn't be surprising - the anger is on full display here in the Religion group)

My original question re-emerges--if you're not one of the religious people EOC is talking about, why do you see the anger as directed towards you?

[cbayer]

98. Are you claiming that it is not personally directed toward me?

You might want to check out some of the posts in that group you host.

Anyway, this is fruitless. You appear to have no interest in talking about why this group is hostile and toxic, only in trying to pin me down to god knows what.

Please go fight with someone else.

[laconicsax]

99. So you do see attacks against regressive believers as attacks against you.

It might do you some good to read a bit more carefully and discern who is being criticized and for what. Worst case, you'll notice that you and the other progressive believers you outlined in #73 aren't the targets.

[cbayer]

100. No matter how many times I have tried to draw the distinction, you have failed to see it.

I will say this one more time. If you can't see the targeted behavior towards individual members that makes this place toxic, you are part of the problem.

And please stop labeling me. You have no idea what I am.

While you have defined yourself for all to see, I have not.

[laconicsax]

102. I apologize for labeling you as a progressive believer.

You are again dodging the question. Why do you see general anger at racist, homophobic, theocratic, etc. believers as anger at you?

I'm not saying that "targeted behavior" doesn't exist, I'm asking why you view general attacks against a group you don't belong to as an attack against you.

[cbayer]

103. laconicsax, I already answered that. I don't see it as an attack against me.

It is the targeted behavior against specific individuals that I object to. That is where I think the anger is misdirected.

[laconicsax]

105. I think you're mistaking anger at regressive theocrats for anger at you.

This is not to deny that you and others have been targets of anger and attacks (I think every regular here, regardless of beliefs or lack thereof has been), but it's pretty clear that EvolveOrConvolve was talking about anger at the regressive theocrats who make life suck for everyone.

To turn that into a lamentation of anger at a completely different group for completely different reasons is disingenuous.

[cbayer]

106. It's not disingenuous. It was an observation given in good faith.

I understand the anger at regressive theocrats. I share it. I'm not one of them and the vast majority of believers that post here are not either.

So what justification is there for focusing that anger on other members that don't fit that category?

[laconicsax]

107. It's typically context-dependent.

A few of the progressive believers routinely denigrate atheists as a whole. Others are merely content to continually bait the hooks.

Some of the atheists here have said some pretty provocative things as well while others continually bait the hooks.

You're not going to find a simple, one-size-fits-all answer to your question.

[cbayer]

108. Agreed.

[trotsky]

101. "You appear to have no interest in talking about why this group is hostile and toxic"

On the contrary, that seems to be what laconicsax was trying to explore the entire subthread. Trying to discern why you took a generic comment about regressive believers personally when you said you don't do that.

In many threads, it seems that this "religion group is hostile/toxic" meme is being abused to in turn attack others in a very underhanded and passive-aggressive manner. Ironically, making the group more hostile and toxic!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

111. One small quibble

"She" is really a "he", or at least that's what my wife thinks...

[cbayer]

112. My bad. Funny, though. People often mistake me for a guy here!

Which tickles my husband to no end!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

114. It's all good!

I can't even count how many times I've made the same mistake.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

110. And that anger is probably not going away any time soon

The point I was trying to make is that the anger comes from believers like those linked in the OP, not from something religion did while we were believers. I was attempting to dismiss the caricature created by many of the authors that atheists are atheists not because we lack belief in a deity, but because we're "angry" or "sinful" or any of the other invented justifications.

It's offensive to us when believers think deep down that we really DO believe in god, but we're too lazy/stupid/angry/etc to admit it. Those people aren't aware enough to realize that we really DON'T have a belief in god. All of the authors in the OP's piece take that position to one degree or another, and it offends me because it's obvious that none of them have taken the time to really understand what atheists are, at the core.

[cbayer]

113. I hear you.

My perspective is skewed because of some work I did with abused youth - cases sent to me from the Catholic Church. I never saw faith shaken as badly as I did with those kids, and with good reason.

I can understand the offense as well. Because I take at face value the position of atheism, I probably miss the offense when others don't. I have also lived primarily in pretty progressive, urban environments, so I also have not really seen the prejudice towards atheists that people experience in other environments.

[trotsky]

67. Neither I, nor any of the atheists I know, did that.

The only time I ever hear that as a possible reason people become atheists, it's a theist proposing it. Not saying it isn't possible at all, I've just never encountered it.

[rug]

59. The reverse is also true.

Atheists take the position that theists are wrong as well, usually with a lot more condescension and derision than what's present in the article.

[edhopper]

61. Yes, the reverse is true as well.

[trotsky]

64. It absolutely is. Of course the difference is...

that when atheists do that, they are blasted with both barrels as being insulting (and bigoted!) toward believers. When a roundtable of theists do it, meh, those stupid atheists must not have really read it because I didn't find it insulting at all.

[rug]

66. '

[AlbertCat]

90. all condescend to the poor atheists who just don't get it.

Which, once again, makes me wonder what they all think of each other.

I wonder how that differs from what they think of atheists.

[LiberalEsto]

69. Quite a few Unitarian-Universalists

ARE atheists.
And some of us are Christians, Buddhists, Pagans and many other faiths.

[GliderGuider]

104. Thank God I'm a Buddhist-Taoist-Vedantist-Baha'i-Unitarian-atheist

And not an Anglican, Jew, fundie Protestant or straight Muslim.

I particularly liked the Buddhist (reducing suffering and living for the benefit of others) and Vedantin Hindu ("God is matter of experience not proof!&quot perspectives.

I'm also very sympathetic with the Baha'i position: "atheists cannot entirely fulfil their knowing and loving capacities without recognizing the Divine Source of all love and knowledge." I understand what he means after spending several years working toward that recognition myself.

The others are far to bound up in their doctrine to be able to see value in a non-conforming perspective. The Rabbi almost made the grade, but not quite. The others? Meh.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. I honestly cannot remember atheists being mentioned in any church I ever attended

not when I was growing up--because Minnesota really was a lot like Lake Wobegon, with most of the people either Catholic or Lutheran--, not later on, because the churches I attended were pretty liberal and didn't waste a lot of time condemning people.

Personally, I'm with the much-maligned Apostle Paul (in Romans), where he talks about "righteous Gentiles" who have the law written in their hearts, i.e. are good people.

Most of the people I encounter, I don't know what their opinions are about religion. How they live is what matters.