Why do atheists spend so much time talking about religion?

sink · 15-07-2010 04:42PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Look at it this way: if everyone was a Christian the Christian forum would have plenty to talk about. If everyone was an atheist then the atheist forum doesn't appear to have anything to talk about. If you see what I mean.

That's because atheism isn't a belief system. There are no doctrines, no sacred texts no universal truths to be debated. The only thing that defines an atheist is a lack of belief in any deities.

It's the same thing with sceptics corner of the paranormal forum. If belief in the paranormal didn't exist, the sceptics would not concern themselves with ghosts, psychics and shamans.

We don't have a anti-Santa Claus forum for similar reasons.

robindch · 15-07-2010 04:46PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

True. But they do form the vast bulk of the discussion

No they don't -- anti-theism, in its broadest form, is a violation of this forum's charter.

Have you read much here which has made you think this? And if so, where?

Sam Vimes · 15-07-2010 04:48PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I spend time on other topics too but that wasn't really what I was referring to. What I'm noting here is atheism-as-a-worldview seems to devote all its time to anti-theism rather than getting on with the business of it's worldview.

Atheism isn't a world view, it's a lack of belief in god. Atheism is defined solely by what it is not and absolutely anyone with any world view can be an atheist. What you are saying makes no more sense than going into the soccer forum and saying that you find it strange that all they talk about is soccer and spend very little time on "soccer's world view"

Sam Vimes · 15-07-2010 04:49PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Look at it this way: if everyone was a Christian the Christian forum would have plenty to talk about. If everyone was an atheist then the atheist forum doesn't appear to have anything to talk about. If you see what I mean.

Yup, absolutely right. The only reason there is a word for atheism is that theism exists. If there was no theism there would be no atheism forum for the same reason we don't have a forum for people who don't collect stamps

edit: that doesn't mean that atheists would have nothing to talk about though. We would still discuss our various world views in the relevant forums

Mark Hamill · 15-07-2010 04:58PM

Anyone else getting any major deja-vu from this thread? Its just I'm sure I've seen the same ludicrous reasoning (atheists in atheist forums talk mostly about religion=>atheists everywhere only talk about religion) before? Anyway...

To answer points so far, atheism is the lack of belief in god. Thats it. There is no atheistic viewpoint on morlity, on death, on the world cup, only on the existence of god, so that is primarily discussed here.

Now when an athiest wants to talk morality, its fully welcome here, but the philosophical forum may be better suited, seeing as morality has bugger all to do with religion. Likewise death is better discusses in philosophy (for thoughts on what happens next) or biology (for thoughts on physical occurance during death), and the world cup is better discussed in the Soccer forum.

Now, the fact that most of the threads in this forum discuss religious related material is simply due to the fact that on top of peoples atheism, people also have opinions on the place of religion in various aspects of society. This forum happens to be better than others, as it allows for more general religious discussions (as its not tied to any one religion), and because here, non praisning of religious opinion isn't deemed inherently...disruptive.

smcgiff · 15-07-2010 05:05PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

My point was that atheism seems to concern itself with theism excessively, when there should be (I'd imagine) a whole raft of issues that could be addressed from the atheistic viewpoint. Morality struggles, sickness and death, life meaning, arguments that undergird your position. None of which need make any central reference to theism.

That's looking at atheism from a theist point of view. Atheism is an end in itself. I can see how theists can, for example, tie up their religion with morals, because it can be argued they believe their morals are connected with their religion.

A theist doesn’t believe in god(s), but can have equally strong morals. But that moral system would probably be discussed in a behavioural/science forum.

ShagNastii · 15-07-2010 05:19PM

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I think a lot of, but certainly not all, atheists talk about religion because it makes them feel smarter than other people. I don't think it necessarily applies to this forum, but in day to day life an atheist who brings up religion constantly does so because he wants to show everybody how smart he is to figure out the manifest logical problems associated with religious belief. I am not a theist, but I would gladly spend time with the most devout religous believer ahead of one of these rabid atheists who so often lack anything approaching tact, and merely throw out boring old refutations of Pascal's wager or rant on about Russell's teapot.

I can't believe no one has commented on this. I practically never post in this forum but saw this topic on the main page and I must admit it is something I have thought about quite a bit.

I was raised Roman Catholic (like most here in Ireland) but like many people I have come to understand that logically the whole "theology thing" really does seem like a whole load of mumbo jambo. I understand in evolution and most things atheists say. So there is no doubt I can look at the whole almighty god thing (and religion in general) for the fairytale farce many here look upon it, but I don't.

I don't go to mass, I am intelligent enough to know religion is a delusion. But deep down I do think it is a nice thing to believe! Is this wrong?

I guess I'm passively atheist and I'm passively theorist. The whole thing seems like a whole "you're wrong we're right" and a "we've right you're wrong". In my view Richard Dawkins AND the pope are self rightest tools:eek:. Anyone understand my point of view.

What deus says I'll echo at times when I here someone activity say they are atheist I instantly thing "Oh Sh*ite, here is one of those people with a chip on their shoulder".

I hate to come across as someone who is pro catholic but I went to a catholic school. Is it that big of a deal, did me no harm?

Edit: As stated never really visit this forum so I had a look. First thread I noticed was about Joe Coleman. Just reeks of "Ha ha look at the stupid theorists, ain't we great". Why waste energy debating and discussing this plank and the drivel he spews?

Sam Vimes · 15-07-2010 05:23PM

antiskeptic, I think the problem here is the commonly held view of atheism among religious people as just another type of religion whose followers dogmatically follow atheist doctrine in all areas of our lives.

This view doesn't quite fit with what you've noticed in this forum, that pretty much the only thing discussed is religion and not the "atheist world view" that you would expect us to have if atheism was a religion.

The reason that pretty much the only thing discussed is religion is that pretty much the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in a god or gods. The commonly held religious view of atheism is a straw man constructed for the purpose of dismissing our arguments because we're supposedly as dogmatic and gullible as any religious person and by noticing that we don't behave as you would expect such people to, it looks like you've taken the first step towards realising that. Congrats

Dades · 15-07-2010 05:28PM

antiskeptic, we don't have a church, so we have to congregate here.

Ickle Magoo · 15-07-2010 05:36PM

ShagNastii wrote: »

I can't believe no one has commented on this.

If it wasn't so oft repeated and rebutted, they probably would. It's impossible to state what you find ridiculous about religion without pointing out, well, what you find ridiculous about religion. The only thing more boring than these ninja rabid atheists I keep hearing about are the boring, debate stifling accusation that anyone refuting religious claims (which are still deemed perfectly acceptable to throw around, they are just belief and cute and harmless, it would seem) - and daring to use rationality to do so - is arrogant, rude, disrespectful, rabid and probably done by baby eaters.

I would also argue that whether attending catholic school did you harm or no is missing the point by several miles - it's about choice and baseless unwarranted interference; in peoples personal lives, education, law and politics.

m@cc@ · 15-07-2010 05:42PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Surely there are thousands of topics relevant to your position as an atheist that you'd like to discuss other than the anti-theist position.

Such as? Here, lets save some time, they talk about religion so much because they secretly can't get enough of it. Done.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Morality struggles, sickness and death, life meaning, arguments that undergird your position. None of which need make any central reference to theism.

Theres a Humanities forum for that stuff. I don't believe in racism, would it be silly for me to comment on racism just because I don't believe in it? Of course not. Take it outside brother.

ColmDawson · 15-07-2010 05:52PM

ShagNastii wrote: »

I can't believe no one has commented on this. I practically never post in this forum but saw this topic on the main page and I must admit it is something I have thought about quite a bit.

I was raised Roman Catholic (like most here in Ireland) but like many people I have come to understand that logically the whole "theology thing" really does seem like a whole load of mumbo jambo. I understand in evolution and most things atheists say. So there is no doubt I can look at the whole almighty god thing (and religion in general) for the fairytale farce many here look upon it, but I don't.

I don't go to mass, I am intelligent enough to know religion is a delusion. But deep down I do think it is a nice thing to believe! Is this wrong?

You go on to call Dawkins a self rightest [sic] tool, but to be honest, the statement of yours I've emboldened above strikes me as more likely to be perceived as arrogant than anything Dawkins says.

As for it being a nice thing to believe, please visit the Hazards of Belief thread.

ShagNastii wrote: »

I guess I'm passively atheist and I'm passively theorist. The whole thing seems like a whole "you're wrong we're right" and a "we've right you're wrong". In my view Richard Dawkins AND the pope are self rightest tools:eek:. Anyone understand my point of view.

Dawkins does not proclaim himself the creator of the universe's representative on Earth. He also admits that there may be a god and would amend his views if evidence arose. I think you're being rather harsh.

ShagNastii wrote: »

What deus says I'll echo at times when I here someone activity say they are atheist I instantly thing "Oh Sh*ite, here is one of those people with a chip on their shoulder".

This is the kind of thing that really annoys me. A lot of people seem to think that atheists should just shut up and stop spoiling the party, when really there are plenty of reasons to be outspoken against theism. Please read some threads around the forum and you'll find things that ought to make you a little bit prouder of not subscribing to religion.

ShagNastii wrote: »

I hate to come across as someone who is pro catholic but I went to a catholic school. Is it that big of a deal, did me no harm?

Even if it did you no harm, there are others for whom Catholic schooling resulted in a fear of hell, or perhaps years of struggling to detach themselves from the indoctrination of their childhood. That makes it a big deal, I think.

ShagNastii wrote: »

Edit: As stated never really visit this forum so I had a look. First thread I noticed was about Joe Coleman. Just reeks of "Ha ha look at the stupid theorists, ain't we great". Why waste energy debating and discussing this plank and the drivel he spews?

I assume you mean 'stupid theists'. Anyway, I really don't think the majority of regular posters here have expressed that sort of arrogance.

Overheal · 15-07-2010 05:54PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm curious. When I scan down the list of topics in this forum I see that nigh on every issue revolves in some way around religion, in the anti sense of the word naturally.

I know that atheists consider themselves to be defined as people who lack a belief in God but that shouldn't mean their sole interest is being anti-religious. Surely there are thousands of topics relevant to your position as an atheist that you'd like to discuss other than the anti-theist position.

Why is this? Why is it that the raison d'etre for this forum centres around (nay requires the existance of) an unbelieved in God. Should I suppose that if Ireland was 100% secularised there would be no topics of discussion left for atheism?

Why do Christians spend so much time talking about religion?

I'm curious. When I scan down the list of topics in the Christianity forum I see that nigh on every issue revolves in some way around religion, in the strictest sense of the word naturally.

I know that Christians consider themselves to be defined as people who have a belief in God but that shouldn't mean their sole interest is being religious. Surely there are thousands of topics relevant to your position as a Christian that you'd like to discuss other than the theist position.

Why is this? Why is it that the raison d'etre for that forum centres around (nay requires the existance of) a believed in God. Should I suppose that if Ireland was 100% secularised there would be no topics of discussion left for Christianity?

Deus Ex Machina · 15-07-2010 05:55PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If it wasn't so oft repeated and rebutted, they probably would. It's impossible to state what you find ridiculous about religion without pointing out, well, what you find ridiculous about religion. The only thing more boring than these ninja rabid atheists I keep hearing about are the boring, debate stifling accusation that anyone refuting religious claims (which are still deemed perfectly acceptable to throw around, they are just belief and cute and harmless, it would seem) - and daring to use rationality to do so - is arrogant, rude, disrespectful, rabid and probably done by baby eaters.

I would also argue that whether attending catholic school did you harm or no is missing the point by several miles - it's about choice and baseless unwarranted interference; in peoples personal lives, education, law and politics.

That is absolute garbage, first off you can't rebut the claim that there exist over the top atheists who love nothing more than to spout off at the drop of a hat, you have seen them as much as I have I am sure. Also, somebody who is ostensibly arguing in favour of logic shouldn't be throwing out straw men, I specifically stated that my criticism didn't apply to all atheists, just a particular group amongst them, you are the one who extendted it to "anyone refuting religious claims". I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out that you are one of these annoying atheists who can't stand to sit in a room without telling everybody about the omnipotence paradox and that Jesus probably didn't exist.

Zombrex · 15-07-2010 06:08PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was under the impression that atheism was a lack of belief in God

It is.

You say something like "God exists, he is as described Bible, he wants to you to X, Y Z"

And I say "No, I reject what you say". I might say "because I think you are making that up"

If the only reason to base belief in the accuracy of your claims is you making the claims then by rejecting your claims I lack any belief in your claims. This includes lack of belief in your God, since that is part of your claim.

antiskeptic wrote: »

an absence of belief rather than the preference for a competing set of beliefs (a competing set of beliefs being required in order to leverage the rejection of theist beliefs).

I don't have to have a competing set of beliefs to reject your claims. It helps, but it is not necessary.

If you said "I just saw Tom Cruise and we played poker together and then we went to Mars in a space ship" I don't need to know what you actually did in order to reject the claim that you did that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Now you appear to want it the other way..

If it appears that way to you then you might want to pay closer attention to what we are saying to you :P

antiskeptic wrote: »

Something other than anti-theism?

In general or on the atheism form?

Do you subscribe to the notion common with some on the Christianity forum that the forums are affiliation based, for example the Christianity forum is for Christians to discuss what they like, rather than a forum for the discussion of Christian issues.

My understanding is different, that on Boards.ie the forums are topic based, not affiliation based. The Atheism forum is for discussing atheism, not for atheists to discuss what they want. The Christianity forum is for discussion of Christianity, not for Christians to discuss what they like.

If I have a topic for discussion that isn't relevant to atheism I discuss it another forum on Boards.ie, such as discussing a film on the Film forum.

strobe · 15-07-2010 06:08PM

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

That is absolute garbage, first off you can't rebut the claim that there exist over the top atheists who love nothing more than to spout off at the drop of a hat, you have seen them as much as I have I am sure. Also, somebody who is ostensibly arguing in favour of logic shouldn't be throwing out straw men, I specifically stated that my criticism didn't apply to all atheists, just a particular group amongst them, you are the one who extendted it to "anyone refuting religious claims". I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out that you are one of these annoying atheists who can't stand to sit in a room without telling everybody about the omnipotence paradox and that Jesus probably didn't exist.

Seeing as she doesn't do that in any thread on boards.ie she posts in that isn't specifically about religion I would be very very surprised if she was one of those people to be honest.

I don't know where you meet these atheists that can't sit in a room without saying "Jesus probably didn't exist" out of the blue Deus, but I have never come across a single one in my life. I have met a few where if the topic of religion comes up somehow they give thier view on it, but never anyone that would say "Oh.....you think Germany deserved to win the world cup? Well did you know in Germany 30% of people are Christians. Speaking about Christianity...................." I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins at all, but I really doubt even he would be talking to someone about his summer holidays and suddenly go off on a tangent about atheism.

I think the problem is anti-skep and you to a lesser extent look at Atheist Ireland or this forum or something else where a group of people are grouped together specifically to talk about atheism or religion and say "wow some of those people really spout of at the drop of a hat about religion". Well.....of course they do. But when at thier weekly cookery class I can't really see them bringing it up.

Ickle Magoo · 15-07-2010 06:11PM

Deus Ex Machina wrote:

That is absolute garbage, first off you can't rebut the claim that there exist over the top atheists who love nothing more than to spout off at the drop of a hat, you have seen them as much as I have I am sure. Also, somebody who is ostensibly arguing in favour of logic shouldn't be throwing out straw men, I specifically stated that my criticism didn't apply to all atheists, just a particular group amongst them, you are the one who extendted it to "anyone refuting religious claims". I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out that you are one of these annoying atheists who can't stand to sit in a room without telling everybody about the omnipotence paradox and that Jesus probably didn't exist.

And yet, ironically, I'm not the one scrabbling in the dirt throwing ad-hominems, am I....?

My post was in response to ShagNastii's surprise at no-one commenting on your post, it's an oft repeated and oft discussed topic in the forum, I very deliberately wasn't responding to your post specifically, for all the reasons I mentioned. Your post above just added a few more.

Zillah · 15-07-2010 06:53PM

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I think a lot of, but certainly not all, atheists talk about religion because it makes them feel smarter than other people. I don't think it necessarily applies to this forum, but in day to day life an atheist who brings up religion constantly does so because he wants to show everybody how smart he is to figure out the manifest logical problems associated with religious belief. I am not a theist, but I would gladly spend time with the most devout religous believer ahead of one of these rabid atheists who so often lack anything approaching tact, and merely throw out boring old refutations of Pascal's wager or rant on about Russell's teapot.

This is me. I am one of these atheists. I love beating religious people over the head with my scepticism. I'll also throw a few digs at those supporting psychics, homeopathy, alternative medicine, prophecy or any other sort of magic. Their confusion, tears and offence is like nectar and wine to me. I savour it, I relish it. I don't care if they feel stupid, ridiculous or insulted.

Rabid? I believe the word you are looking for is "correct".

liamw · 15-07-2010 07:46PM

ShagNastii wrote: »

But deep down I do think it is a nice thing to believe! Is this wrong?

No, you're pretty much with 90% of the people in this country who would rather block their ears and live a comforting lie than face reality head on and be intellectually honest with themselves.

But that's OK, you keep living that way if it makes you feel better but please do not make out that being so passive is a good thing.

Nemi · 15-07-2010 08:58PM

Zillah wrote: »

This is me. I am one of these atheists. I love beating religious people over the head with my scepticism. I'll also throw a few digs at those supporting psychics, homeopathy, alternative medicine, prophecy or any other sort of magic. Their confusion, tears and offence is like nectar and wine to me. I savour it, I relish it. I don't care if they feel stupid, ridiculous or insulted.

Rabid? I believe the word you are looking for is "correct".

I wouldn't feel I go looking for trouble, which is a little bit of self-delusion as I do enjoy provoking people. I don't particularly want people to agree with me. For all I know, Jesus is a god, and the Pope holds his master franchise on Earth. Its not as if I'm going to be consulted by the Ultimate Power in the Universe over what seems like a reasonable system of governance.

As to the forum here, I'll actually slightly contradict what was said earlier about the focus of the forum being discussion of atheism and not atheists discussing stuff. I think it is very valuable when theists contribute to threads here. But, for me, I find the chief benefit on offer here is that we can read and react to views expressed by other atheists on that set of philosophical and moral issues presented by atheism. I'm not a Dawkins fan (is anyone?). But I do feel that a set of issues exists that do benefit from discussion.

Valid criticism can come from any source. But I feel what I've gotten from discussions here is some picture of where my own thinking might be deficient, and some picture of where atheists may share common blind spots. I've no particular interest in combining with other atheists to undermine the credibility of religions. In fact, some religions seem to be doing a pretty good job of undermining their own credibility, without any help from the likes of us.

Dades · 15-07-2010 09:22PM

Overheal wrote: »

Why do Christians spend so much time talking about religion?

I suspect many "Christians" spend no time at all. That's why they're still Christians.

Deus Ex Machina · 15-07-2010 09:22PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And yet, ironically, I'm not the one scrabbling in the dirt throwing ad-hominems, am I....?

My post was in response to ShagNastii's surprise at no-one commenting on your post, it's an oft repeated and oft discussed topic in the forum, I very deliberately wasn't responding to your post specifically, for all the reasons I mentioned. Your post above just added a few more.

It isn't an ad hominem if it is directly relevant to the issue at hand, which in this case it is, and even so my statement didn't go as far as certainty, I merely put forward an hypothesis.

Also you did refer to my post, so I am within my rights to respond. I couldn't be a bigger advocate of the application of logic and critical thinking, and thus I am not myself a theist, my problem is with those whose atheism is the focal point of their personality, those who belittle the religious. I have spent a great deal of time around atheists of all types, and I generally get along very well with them. There is a small percentage who consider the religious to be stupid, refer to them as troglodytes and sheep, and dispense with common decency in discussion with them. If you have been lucky enough to have never met these people then that is your good fortune, but I assure you they are out there, and there are few groups of people I have met more uncomfortable to be around.

Deus Ex Machina · 15-07-2010 09:24PM

Zillah wrote: »

This is me. I am one of these atheists. I love beating religious people over the head with my scepticism. I'll also throw a few digs at those supporting psychics, homeopathy, alternative medicine, prophecy or any other sort of magic. Their confusion, tears and offence is like nectar and wine to me. I savour it, I relish it. I don't care if they feel stupid, ridiculous or insulted.

Rabid? I believe the word you are looking for is "correct".

They don't feel stupid, they probably pity you, if the picture you paint is anything like reality I know I would.

Dades · 15-07-2010 09:41PM

Zillah's really a pussycat.

Stercus Accidit · 15-07-2010 09:41PM

preamble to the Irish constitution wrote:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

:rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo · 15-07-2010 09:45PM

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

It isn't an ad hominem if it is directly relevant to the issue at hand

It isn't fallacious if relevant to the issue at hand, the moment you stoop to making personal assumptions and passing derogatory remarks about posters rather than tackle their posts it most certainly is an ad hominem.

Deus Ex Machina · 15-07-2010 10:11PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It isn't fallacious if relevant to the issue at hand, the moment you stoop to making personal assumptions and passing derogatory remarks about posters rather than tackle their posts it most certainly is an ad hominem.

I tackled your post, you beat up a straw man, I am quite happy with how it went to be honest.

Ickle Magoo · 15-07-2010 10:16PM

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I tackled your post, you beat up a straw man, I am quite happy with how it went to be honest.

As I've stated ad nauseum now, I wasn't discussing your post specifically nor even directing my post at you. You had to stoop to making ad hominems at me specifically without tackling my post at all - at which point you loose all credibility, never mind claims of rationality. You also clearly don't know what constitutes a strawman nor ad hominem. If that makes you happy...woo, go you. *high fives*

Deus Ex Machina · 15-07-2010 10:30PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As I've stated ad nauseum now, I wasn't discussing your post specifically nor even directing my post at you. You had to stoop to making ad hominems at me specifically without tackling my post at all - at which point you loose all credibility, never mind claims of rationality. You also clearly don't know what constitutes a strawman nor ad hominem. If that makes you happy...woo, go you. *high fives*

High five indeed, it was directed at my post in the way it was written, whether or not that was your intention is another matter. The statement that your post was a straw man is very much in line with the phrase "tackling" your post, so you are wrong there too. You focus on this supposed ad hominem which I explained was relevant and therefore not fallacious. What more is there to say?

Ickle Magoo · 15-07-2010 10:40PM

Get yourself a dictionary?

ad hominem (plural ad hominems)
(logical fallacy) A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
A personal attack.

Deus Ex Machina wrote:

I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out that you are one of these annoying atheists who can't stand to sit in a room without telling everybody about the omnipotence paradox and that Jesus probably didn't exist

Why do atheists spend so much time talking about religion?

Comments