Atheism and anger: does majority rule?
Greetings!
I'm not a Bill O' Reilly fan by any stretch. If anything, though I'm not sure of this, he's probably a far-right religious person who is more aligned with Fundamentalism than not. Nonetheless, his point is well taken. Or, at least he is raising the question that appears to be a valid one. He is suggesting that the majority of Atheists are angry.
As a Christian Existentialist (or Liberal-moderate Christian if you prefer) myself, my observation has been, that much like the Fundy, the typical Atheist appears to be angry all the time. Even Einstein commented on that prevailing thought process in so many words, here:
I'm not a Bill O' Reilly fan by any stretch. If anything, though I'm not sure of this, he's probably a far-right religious person who is more aligned with Fundamentalism than not. Nonetheless, his point is well taken. Or, at least he is raising the question that appears to be a valid one. He is suggesting that the majority of Atheists are angry.
As a Christian Existentialist (or Liberal-moderate Christian if you prefer) myself, my observation has been, that much like the Fundy, the typical Atheist appears to be angry all the time. Even Einstein commented on that prevailing thought process in so many words, here:
Comments (111)
If someone is publically identifying as an atheist and then talking about religious people or religion, then they are likely to be angry because religion has had so much power over minds and society. There are likely many instances where atheists come into public view in other contexts and either you just do not know they are atheists or even if one does for some reason, they are not coming off as angry. They are then speaking aobut other issues. Vocal side-takers in society are often angry, period, regardless of what the issue is or what side. And I say this as a theist. Religious people have to understand how much power religions have had in society and the vast amount of power abuse those religious have perpetrated. Religions are also responsible for intra-psychic violence which a lot of atheists (and theists) assume is part and parcel of believing in God. Theists who thinks these facets of religions are not intra-psychic violence - because guilt and shame are seen as good or not even noticed by them - will obviously not call these facets that. If religoius people, and especially liberals ones, cannot understand the incredible anger generated by the religions, my suggestion would be to find an atheist and ask them and really try to listen. Say that you are going to listen first, so perhaps they will be calm about it.
And that's the toilet calling the bathroom sink white having Bill OReilly say atheists are angry. He was a bully, often angry and screamed over guests on his shows apart from the things he did to women and people lower down on the staff of Fox and elsewhere.
He was, both publically and privately, an aggressive prick. And now he sees this as a quality of atheists? Maybe he's coming out...
Yep. Absolutely. He could be projecting some inner Gilligan's there. Then on the other hand, it seems, so are the angry atheist's.
Thank for your contribution. Listening is important. Challenging the status quo is another issue altogether... . The same energy should be directed toward uncovering the hypocrisy and false paradigm's…not to mention all the other political baggage and psychological 'pathologies' associated with same :yikes: .
Hmmm, well:
Greetings!
I'm not a Richard Dawkins fan by any stretch. If anything, though I'm not sure of this, he probably had some personally traumatic experience with religion that influences his perspective. Nonetheless, his point is well taken. Or, at least he is raising the question that appears to be a valid one. He is suggesting that the majority of religious people are delusional.
As an atheist (or agnostic atheist if you prefer) myself, my observation has been that, much like someone who is detached from reality, the typical religious person is delusional all the time. Even Einstein commented on that prevailing thought process in so many words, here:
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Well, O'Reilly is a professional bullshitter, so what he says is on him (and why are you watching this garbage anyway?) But if you really think that "the majority of atheists is angry," then you know nothing. Atheists are as heterogeneous a group as the population as a whole, and being angry is certainly not a distinctive trait of theirs. (Citing Einstein as an authority on this issue is clueless or disingenuous - he wasn't an authority on sociology of psychology, and he's been dead for more than half a century.)
Yo bonghits,
There is a little irony in your parody.!
Are you thinking you could be the majority?
LOL
But to be lectured about that by O'Reilly is like being lectured on weight control by Chris Christie.
Hi SC!
Thanks for your thoughts there. If you're saying science cannot multitask then I suppose that's also saying something about you. That's another paradigm buster.
And right now, relativity still holds, at least for now ! Haha
Nice! Actually, it's not just my perspective.
LOL good one Frank. I agree. Albeit he did ask the question for a reason. Although I didn't see the full clip ( edited video) I think the context was relative to atheism protesting against prayer, and other first amendment rights.
To that end, that's where the anger rears its head. Personally I think they should teach both in public school.
Bonghits,
You seem like a good candidate for this question. I don't know if you're from the states here but even if you're not, you might could answer this question, since you're an atheist. Do you feel resentful that America has In God We Trust on our currency?
Tough hope, though...particularly with the "atheist" aspect.
We tend to get locked into negativity on words like liberal, socialist, communist, atheist, and the like. We need some small steps forward...and then a lurch toward them.
Luckily, we see more and more of that here.
Perhaps an "openly" non-theist candidate can come forward an make a splash.
Yeah. I'm thinking about attacking some of the problem through education.
I know one could argue a slippery slope here, but having a class in public school that covers atheism, theism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. I think would be very helpful.
For instance my beef about fundamentalism goes back to early church politics and the dismissal of 'lost Gospels' and other texts such as Spinoza's philosophy... . Let students make up their own minds. There's nothing wrong with vetting all.
At the same time it's worth noting the virtues (and vices) of Christian philosophy are practiced subconsciously. One virtue being the Golden rule.
Resentful...a bit severe, but probably, yes, a little.
Are you resentful that it was not added to our currency until 1956?
Quoting 3017amen
You may want to re-read my "parody"? It never even suggests atheists are the majority? I am not sure what "irony" you are referring to either?
I would venture to say that the sort of thinking that views “the other” in black and white terms and makes blanket generalizations about them is wrong. Obviously I can’t speak to your personal experiences with Atheists, but assuming you’re being honest, and I have no reason to doubt that, your experiences alone don’t warrant generalizations of this magnitude. It is a fact that all humans experience anger sometimes, but no one experiences anger all the time. That being said, I do feel that a person can become angry quite often when specific topics are brought up as a result of their personal beliefs, values, and experiences. I would assume that most Jews are easily angered by Nazi propaganda, dogma, doctrine, etc. It appears that Atheism and Christianity have a generally antagonistic relationship. Often on both sides. So I think it naturally follows that a Christian/ Atheist would appear angry more often than not when these ideologies are discussed.
@3017amen, I must commend you for starting this thread. I have often ridiculed you on these pages, and I still maintain that you suck as a philosopher, but you obviously have other fortes and admirable virtues that are not philosophy-oriented, but humane, accepting, socially inclusive, empathetic and thus sympathetic. You are a psychologist in this sense more than a philosopher, and you are a peacemaker, as this thread shows.
Or maybe you are a poet. I dunno.
Quoting 3017amen Then there is the silver rule, and then there is the bronze rule.
Right you are. One thing that should happen as soon as possible is: All comparative religion courses (there are tons of them) should include agnosticism and atheism as part of the comparisons.
Quoting 3017amen
Agareed!
O' Reilly calls atheists angry because they sue schools for having kids sing a Christmas Carol. Now, this practice would also piss off Jews and Muslims. Children who are not Christian should not be asked to sing Christmas carols.
The real problem here is excess Statism.
For what reason should the government be involved in the field of education in the first place?
Parents may (or may not) appoint service providers to assist them with the education of their children, but from there on, we can witness a gigantic Statist land grab in which politicians have the temerity to impose their views onto other people's children by dictating the terms under which education is organized, aka, the public-school indoctrination camp.
I want the politicians expelled, kicking and screaming, out of all the land grabs that they have unlawfully appropriated.
That is one of the main reasons why the core of my finances is in bitcoin. Our financial blockchain-based technology is clearly better. Sooner or later, we will effectively manage to bankrupt and destroy state-run fiat currencies, and in that way, expel the politicians from the field of money. The politicians have to go, while by themselves they will not agree to go. So, we will simply have to make them go.
Our goal is to compete away and thoroughly destroy excess Statism until it has been completely annihilated. Excess Statism is the enemy. Furthermore, our stuff is simply smarter and better than their outdated crap. In fact, we should do the same for education, and destroy excess Statism there too.
...Mmmmm… , well, thank you?
Look I'm just trying to spread the love. We've got to uncover these deep feelings of resentment, anger and so forth. Life is too short.. Even Einstein talked about religious feelings (positive feelings) in his observations and work in Cosmology... awareness is key. I mean, just read cognitive science/William James... .
To that end, I have yearly mantra's with my friends, some of which have included the concept of awareness. It was awesome. We would say...'hey, any awarezness today?' (We put a Z on it for fun.) We learned so much from it we extended it another year. (We would see things in business meetings where there were MIT grads who were so angry it more or less stifled their professional growth, as it were. And they seemingly were unaware.)
Then we had another one called 'engage with a smile', which is basically the law of attraction. It's amazing how many people I've met through that... . I work in a City and live in the country, (and play in a band part-time) so I have opportunities to interact with folks and try different things relative to human nature stuff. This year's mantra is Faith. It helps with worry and rumination. What does it mean to have faith... .
I know all this is somewhat idealistic. I'm not trying to fix the world-obviously I'm not qualified or capable-but I bring these questions into focus so that they can possibly go a long way in the discovery and uncovery of Being. We all have gifts; let's not limit ourselves with an overemphasis on negative energy. Discussion is good.
Sentient existence must exist for a reason.
Yep. And thanks for your contributions there. This stuff is real. It's deep and hurtful. Man made Religion can give the concept of God a bad name. People have been scarred for life in the abuses of same. But it doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.
But guess what, we live in the information age now. Why can't we move past the old paradym's and be a little more sophisticated about our views (say, concerning EOG ?). There is no reason why we can't. Wouldn't that help with the anger issue?
When I see Ronald Reagan Jr. on TV with his infamous commercial where he say's ...'I'm an unabashed atheist not afraid of burning in hell', he comes across as having an axe to grind... . It's as if he's projecting his ignorance about something.
Yep. We're back to, perhaps, what Einstein posits concerning the Cosmic Religious Feeling(s):
https://www.thymindoman.com/einstein-on-the-cosmic-religious-feeling/
...just some inspiration from a man who was at best, an agnostic. My question is for the atheist; wouldn't agnosticism be a better alternative?
Yup. Especially those atheists who make claim to science, logic, and reason.
Agnosticism is where science leads; agnosticism is where logic leads; and agnosticism is where reason leads.
Yep x 2. I know it's hard to be objective all the time. (Actually it's kind of impossible.) We all can't be like the fun character of Dr. Spock. That's probably one reason why I'm somewhat fascinated with the distinctions between, say, indictive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Haha.
Yep. I agree to the extend of separation of church and state, as being a good thing. Kind of a no-brainer, but did you know that countries like Syria do not separate politics from religion and vise versa?
This is one of the reasons they fight all the time.
But there again, one musn't dichotomize, and throw the baby out with the bathwater. In a free democracy, we must make laws that provide for such peaceful expression while at the same time discouraging extremism and discrimination. Easier said than done I know.
I am actually not familiar with the details of how Syria works. Many countries have implemented a Statist approach to education resulting in the widespread presence of public-school indoctrination camps. Teaching Christianity to the children of Christian parents is most likely what these parents want, and therefore, in my opinion, the best solution. The same remark can be made for children of Jewish or Muslim families.
Quoting 3017amen
Not all the time. In fact, there was not much of that kind of fighting going on in the Ottoman empire until its last decades.
Quoting 3017amen
From an Islamic point of view, people cannot make new laws, because God has made all the laws already.
I personally do not see any legitimacy in laws invented by someone who is just another person, just like myself. I simply do not respect that kind of laws. That is not a form of "extremism". It just acknowledges the principle that players cannot be allowed to be player and rule maker at the same time. It would give them too much of an advantage over the other players.
Furthermore, filling out a ballot paper is certainly not sufficient to effect that, because that does not amount to putting skin in the game. That approach has simply no credibility.
"Discouraging extremism" is actually a misnomer. It is more of a feeble attempt to convince religious people to put secular law above religious law, and to put politicians as law makers above God as sole law maker (or even next to). That will never happen.
Religion is about communities self-governing their own affairs. It is not just about "peaceful expression". For example, the religious community has its own marriage and divorce laws. We will not consider whatsoever to ever adopt someone else's views on these matters.
Believe it or not, my first serious engagement with the god issue was through atheism - I was bowled over by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet, the so-called four horsemen of the atheism. It's as if I discarded a belief before I even adopted it. After a couple of years living with the atheistic crowd, I began to lose the faith that I never actually had: I went public with my atheism and was quite happy to wear the badge of disbelief.
Fortunately, I decided I should check out other points of view on god and encountered agnosticism. Agnosticism, to me, is the refusal to commit to a side in the god-debate for the simple reason that the evidence and arguments from both sides of the divide are unsatisfactory and this is an incontrovertible truth and thus is the best option in my mind. Both unfortunately and as expected, agnosticism doesn't get as much publicity as its more flamboyant cousins, atheism and theism, and so people, unaware of its existence, simply don't have it in their list of available belief options. I don't blame anyone for it though; after all to say "I don't know whether god exists/not" is rather dull and uninteresting.
Well at least you don't come across as angry with an axe to grind, regardless... .
As far as uninteresting, this is one reason I like to read from theoretical physics... whether it's from Dawkins, Einstein, or probably my favorite Paul Davies, it's all good. I take bits and pieces from all perspectives.
Though Dennett comes across as the stereotypical angry or resentful Atheist, or maybe he's just an angry man LOL. He doesn't get very good book reviews.
Thanks for sharing. I suppose life must be good when folks can find the time to get angry about such things.
Then why are the religious just as angry?
Quoting TheMadFool
What if you followed every tenet of your religion, for instance, Christianity, and once in a while fantasized about your neighbours ass... and your faer daddy would condemn you for eternal suffering in hell fire for that. Would you still call him perfect and fair? The believers have more to doubt than the non-believers... the believers have the daily, the yearly, the monthly and the minute-to-minute restrictions they need to fight to keep with tooth and nail against Satan's temptations. There, you may have a miserable life, but at the end you hope to sit on the right of Jesus the Christ, except once in your 89 years of earthly life, you thought of thy neighbour's ass... bang, you end up in hell, forever to suffer in brimestone and hellfire in eternal, horrible suffering.
Maybe that's why the religious are angry. They are envious of the freedom and liberty the atheists enjoy without the confines and the yoke of prescribed restrictions by religions. I don't blame the religious for being envious of the atheists. Except... isn't envy a deadly sin?
I agree...it is rather dull and uninteresting.
BUT...(a huge BUT)...if the objective is to lessen the influence of religion in our lives...agnosticism provides a stronger, more realistic approach to that end.
Essentially, the atheistic approach is to say, "Your blind guess that there is a God IS WRONG...and my blind guess that there are no gods IS CORRECT."
That approach is going nowhere...and actually is counterproductive. It reinforces the idea that blind guesses about this issue...MAKE SENSE.
News flash: They don't.
Better to simply say: We do not know if gods exist or not; the evidence (such as exists) is so ambiguous as to be worthless; and making blind guesses about it is about as good as using a coin flip...so let's not do it.
Look...it ain't gonna work anyway. The religious will almost always decide it makes sense to presume a God...and the atheist will almost decide to be arrogant in his/her denial. But at least we would be working toward the end in a reasonable way.
Or at least, that is my opinion.
atheist,
Let's get real. Are you angry about something? I mean dude, you've got to slay those Gilligan's!
Are you not more sophisticated than that? In other words, you judge people for not being good philosopher's, yet if you study the Philosophy of Religion, you would see that religious dogma is simply that, dogma.
If you were a true atheist, you would care less about this kind of stuff. But, apparently, your belief system is weak. Why can't you just say the EOG is false, rather than project your apparent frustration and/or vengefulness and/or resentment. Get over it.
You can't seem to let it go. Why do you have an interminable axe to grind? Go ahead, vent. But how about resolving the discrepancy... .
tic toc tic toc
Why not just get over his anger if he has that more than others?
Why tell other people to just move on, rather than move on yourself. So he vents a little in a philosophy forums. Just move on yourself. Live the value yourself.
If he hits someone, then call the cops or whatever.
What is so triggering for you about emotions? Is your belief system weak?
See, how ridiculous that is.
Maybe you should read the thread instead of troll it.
Otherwise , to answer your concern, it's called tough love.
Amen, please allow me an AMEN to this!
Look I'm not trying to give flippant responses.
Here's the thing:
1. We are reasonably educated adults
2. The worn-out paradigms from grade school should no longer apply to those who have a reasonable amount of intellect.
3. There is no need to overthink emotions. Anger is anger. The question becomes what should one do with that anger.
4. How healthy is it for the individual to be angry and resentful over the same thing for years and years
5. Would education and the study of religion in all of its history, provide insight to the false paradigms that are considered antiquated and no longer apply.
6. In the information age of the 21st century are we not sophisticated enough to apply common sense when enterpreting Christian philosophy (the Bible's neither a physics book/medical science book).
7. Embrace interpretation errors, lost Gospel's, forbidden text's (Spinoza's) , translation errors, religion exclusivity (King James version excludes the book of Sirach; American Standard includes
same), metaphor, allegory, simile, euphemism, etc. etc..
Maybe I just don't understand the dynamic behind this interminable state of anger and resentment.
(Without getting into detail it is worth noting I am well aware -personally- of the dysfunction and abusive behavior coming from our religious institutions. Unfortunately, all of us have had experience with, or are exposed to, dysfunctional behavior including unexpected disappointment associated with many facets of the human condition.)
It's a bridge no side wishes to cross, yet wants all on the other side to cross to their side.
Anger is a better emotion to employ to deal with this situation, than peaceful negotiation. Peaceful negotiation leads to nowhere... anger leads to nowhere... except it gets rid of the frustration and venge built up. Anger, when properly dished out on unsuspecting passer-byes (by street preachers), can feel very good for the angry person.
The reason angry commentators rise to the top is that it resonates with the masses who stand behind the ideology which that angry person supports.
Everybody is angry. And we are not going to take it any more.
This is why I say you ain't no philosopher. Because:
- to a chicken farmer you can't say don't count your eggs
- to a mathematician you can't say "live with the erroneous answer"
- to a doctor you can't say "malpractice suits are good for you"
- to an engineer you can't say "live with the collapse of the bridge you built"
and
- to a philosopher you can't say "accept arguments that defy the law of non-contradiction."
Incredibly bright and astute insight.
Quoting 3017amen
You don't do anything with anger. (Obviously you've never been angry, otherwise you'd know.) Anger is the resolution of an untenable situation. It is the final result, it is not something that you do something with. It makes you do things, it does not let you do things to it. You are getting farther and farther away from your clear insight, which you expressed as "Anger is anger".
Religious people are not angry at atheists. Religion is a matter of self-discipline only. There is no requirement for you to have any self-discipline at all:
In principle, nobody cares if you believe in God or not. It just means that you could be incompatible with religious people for particular contract types. For example, religion has a framework for marriage and divorce. If you do not subscribe to these terms and conditions, you cannot marry someone who does.
That is a generalized principle, actually.
If you do not subscribe to the terms and conditions of your gym club, you cannot become or remain a member of it.
Just like we need a regulatory framework for using gym clubs, we also need one for marriage and divorce. Since atheism does not propose any framework for that contract -- or for any contract for that matter -- it is doubtful that marriage can even work at all for atheists.
Quoting god must be atheist
Religious people are not envious of atheists. The lack of personal self-discipline and of a regulatory framework for an entire set of standard agreements, is not something to be envious about. It would be like saying that people who watch their carb intake and regularly exercise would be envious of obese individuals who suffer from type-2 diabetes.
It's your word against mine. We both have reasons to support our opinions, but they are opinions verifiable only by empirical means and both of us lack the statistical verification required.
You did not convince me. I still am on the opinion, and you can't deny that it's as valid as yours.Quoting alcontali
Again, you are one religious person. Do you dwell in the minds of all religious people? No. Your argument is as valid or invalid as mine.
You settle philosophical matters by killing your opponents.
So far I am still alive because I battle only Christians on their beliefs. I shalt never battle Muslims. For fear of being hurt or killed for it.
Of course. Human behaviour is generally not even testable ...
Quoting god must be atheist
You believe what you want!
Quoting god must be atheist
ha aha aah ha ha! ;-)
Quoting god must be atheist
Then don't ! ;-)
Quoting god must be atheist
Me? ;-)
Quoting god must be atheist
I have not looked up the details of these cases.
Quoting god must be atheist
Strange, because I do not battle Christians on their beliefs. Muslims consider Christianity to be another branch that emerged out of the Mosaic congregation, just like the Rabbinic and Islamic ones did. A good part of the Sunnah (=transmitted traditions) are therefore a shared heritage.
In the case of the complaint about O'Reilly's complaint, I actually agree with his opponents. Christians are not supposed to impose their views on non-Christians by asking their non-Christian children to sing Christmas carols. Still, I also believe that children of Christian families are meant to be singing them.
On the other hand, there is enough in common between Muslims and the other Abrahamic branches for numerous Muslim families to find (private) Jewish and Catholic schools suitable for their children to enrol in, apparently, even with a preference for Jewish schools. It works like a charm for private schools. The problem of insensitivity mostly occurs in the public-school indoctrination camps.
Quoting god must be atheist
Your fears are predictable, actually.
The believers fear God. The non-believers do not fear God, but fear instead the ones who do fear God, because that is the natural order of things. It is a hierarchy that naturally emerges from the laws of nature. Hence, what you are telling me now certainly does not come as a surprise.
I can honestly say I have not.
Tough love was a term developed for caregivers of at risk children then spread as part of authoritative parenting. So you are continuing a condescending attitude with a guiding heuristic that is condenscending. It doesn't matter what his posts say.
One can be tough and not accept certain types of behavior, stand your ground and speak truthfully to someone without being condescending and without pretending to read their minds.
I was not suggesting you be nice to him. It's not a binary situation, where you are are all nicey nicey or you respond with what you are calling tough love. There are many ways of responding, and given your seeming to have the goal of reducing anger, I was suggesting that your approach is a poor one.
Is your approach off limits for discussion?
I am trying to see if the thread itself is trolling. I have some criticisms of the science of the OP, which you did not respond to in my first post, though you thanked me for that post. And so I extended them here in a later post you did not respond to....
IOW we are just supposed to accept the generalization based on the evidence of Mr. O'Reilly. Many people have the impression Christians are per se angry. Impressions. Is it true, however, in either case?
Theoretically you are judging people for being angry for a long time. What do you do in your thread that is in some way trying to remedy this or deal with such people with tough love?
Generalize about them with poor evidence: a la O'Reilly as evidence. When it is pointed out that this is poor evidence focus on other issues. You also deal with someone who is angry with condescension and mind-reading. When it is pointed out that perhaps your approach is just as much a part of the problem, this is called trolling. It seems like trolling to me to generalize about people without evidence, then when they get angry, condescend to them. When criticisms are aimed at your approach, call that trolling and never respond to those criticisms.
How convenient.
I've had run ins with god is an atheist. I am not his pal, nor do I share is worldview in a number of ways, not being an atheist.
Condescension is not going to defuse anything, and it itself is a form of aggression. And that would seem to be important to you, given your supposed goals. Since you and your behavior/stance seem to be a taboo subject in the thread, I'll leave the thread to you. I find the immaculate to be poor discussion partners.
What could be the reason for this?
It could be that people simply love a good fight. For that there has to be a strong rivalry and what better rivals then arch enemies, theism and atheism? Agnosticism simply doesn't cut it as a strong enough challenge does it? I mean a person who thinks god exists would see a person who's position on the issue is "I don't know" less threatening than someone who denies the existence of god. The situation, atheism-theism in the limelight and agnosticism sidelined, reflects our psychology and we're worse for it because agnosticism is comparatively more rational and is being completely overshadowed here.
:up:
Even odder that you find it odd that I gave Amen an AMEN on the comment. I saw it to be a nail being hit squarely on its head.
Look, Coben...we all can be angry. If a person is arguing (discussing) in an Internet Philosophy forum...and does not occasionally show some anger...that person should probably leave the forum and take up crocheting.
I do not mind the "anger" of atheists, although I often laugh at the scorn and contempt some atheists show for Christians and other theists. They hurl vindictive toward the absurdness of Christian "beliefs"...while espousing stealth "beliefs" every bit as absurd in the opposite direction.
Like either side can make any reasonable comments about the unknown!
In any case, if I have stepped on any toes (seemingly because of anger over others being angry)...I apologize. It would be hypocrisy of the first order to do so...and I have never intended it.
Quoting Coben
Look, Frank and I get it. It's really simple, it's called tough love. Why would we want to see someone/people suffer from this torment?
Coben, I really do appreciate your exhaustive analysis of the problem, however, I didn't really see where you tried to pinpoint an answer. Did I miss something there? please correct me if I'm wrong.
I've suggested 7 succinct ideas that might provide some fodder toward reconciliation of the problem. I even encouraged any form of emotional expression that might help viz purging this angry resentment towards Christianity. I also did this in order to shed light on some outdated group-think.
I think you are mixing apple and oranges. You are confusing emotions with discursive argumentation. For example, you seem to be saying that since hypothetically you don't believe in philosophical determinism, then one should argue instead for freedom of the will. Emotional intelligence and/or well being is a cognitive process, no?
The OP is alluding to a cognitive solution. And aside from my 7 suggestions which you seemed to ignore, I used tough love as an example of what a friend might say to another friend. I care that people are angry. If by flushing-out the resentment from, say, those 7 ideas, or some other hurtful experience, then that would be a start in the so-called healing process.
Now at the same time, we are adults; not babies. So sometimes we got to put our big-boy pants on and confront the emotion. Hence, many atheists are seemingly projecting some deep seeded, obscure negative emotion. My concern is if we wallow in the drama, nothing gets flushed out. Ever hear of the term analyze till you paralyze?
This is what I don't understand. If I'm an atheist, I would not be angry toward Christianity because it would have no effect on my emotional well being. So, my question is why are Atheists so resentful when it makes better sense to say 'I don't believe in God, therefore, I'm happy'?
What would help with the anger of Atheists is Christians refraining from making sweeping judgements about Atheists (and the reverse of this also applies). However, I think there is also a distinction to be made in the kinds of aggressive/antagonistic comments made on either side. An angry Atheist will make comments ridiculing Christianity, but angry Christians often make more personal comments, such as claiming that an Atheist is evil, going to hell, needs to beg for forgiveness, and is generally deserving of hate and is to be shunned. Personal attacks are more likely to elicit anger. In other words, the Christians started it and have historically been more violent towards nonbelievers.
Yep. Primarily, it's called the danger's of Fundamentalism and/or extremism. Accordingly, extremism attacking extremism... .
This is very dependent on the particular persons upbringing. For example, if someone was raised as a Christian, but later became an Atheist, it is very easy to harbor resentment. They would be resentful of the fact that from their perspective they were lied to and coerced to live this lie. They would also be vigilant in wanting to prevent this from happening to others.
But you would have to flush-out the meaning of 'lied'.
Holding these beliefs have real emotional effects, and affect how a person structures their life.
Agreed. But aren't we more educated than that...shouldn't we know better? And if not, shame on me, you, or anyone else.
I've been down that road. But I didn't seek fellow enabler's who perpetuated the false paradigm's. Again, read my item #7.
I gotta be honest with you on this, Pin...I see 50X's more invective hurled at Christians by atheists...than invective hurled by Christians at atheists. It is not even close.
I very seldom see a thread started by Christians aimed at belittling atheists...and see dozens upon dozens of threads started by atheists aimed at belittling Christians.
And I've got no dog in this fight. I am an agnostic...taking aim at both Christians and atheists at times. I just think you are all wet on what you said up above.
Yep. Me too. I see a lot of atheists trolling threads that are unrelated to EOG discourse. For instance, threads that are talking about phenomenology or metaphysics. It suggests some sort of axe to grind (not to mention resentment/anger issues).
Some people define themselves through social deviance. So, some guys are gay, and it's just part of who they are; they don't make a major production out of being gay. Or queer, or whatever the fuck. Some people are communists, neo-nazis, vegans, radical environmentalists, and all sorts of other political positions that might be a kind of 'deviance'. Some people combine social deviance with a set of resentments. People who do that re likely to present as angry gays, angry communists, angry vegans, and so on and so forth.
Angry social deviants are likely to combine anger with their deviance. So, angry gays, angry incels, angry atheists, angry what-have-you.
There are atheists who maintain a fairly high level of resentment toward society, and they will present as angry atheists. There are strong religious believers who also maintain a set of resentments, who will come off as angry -- angry Roman Catholic, maybe. Or angry Moslems.
All sorts of people have reasons to be resentful.
Death and violence statistics are quite alarming in Eastern Asia/ Atheist Communist countries. That's a good question though, I can grab some statistics for you if you'd like.
In the meantime just a short sound bite:
"People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image - that is, what they imagined God might be like - said lead study author Julie Exline, Case Western Reserve University psychologist.
In studies on college students, atheists and agnostics reported more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers.[113]
Just from a common-sense perspective it certainly square's with the notion that people who have such Faith would be less inclined to be angry about same. But like I said I'll be happy to find some stats from both sides...good question.
I just noticed it here on this forum here lately... .
This definitely seems to be the case with "internet atheists" by a vast majority.
If by "atheist" you mean someone historical like... er… Bertram Russell or David Hume, I have no comment.
In the past, my speculation is that it isn't solely the case with "athiests", but people or groups which created or are participated in for the sole purpose of being "against something/everything" but for nothing.
Most of the cesspools that comprise the so-called internet atheist "community" (which are only usually distinguishable from 4chan or 8chan by most of the members' lack of a sex life) seem like they're nothing but whiny "gripe" sites for people who claim to be against religion, Christianity, but are generally for little or "nothing"
Usually using nonsense definitions of "religion" to begin with, either out of stupidity or malice, or often falsely conflating "religion" with mythology or "mythic imagery" or symbolism akin to that or those of Carl Jung's archetypes, while at the same time showing no intelligence or education on what mythology actually is or means within the contexts of cultures, history, anthropology, and so forth, whether of a religious or secular variety (much as they falsely conflate "atheism" with Secular Humanism, pop "scientism", and so forth).
Said things, of course having nothing to do with "atheism", as atheists have existed since Epicurus and before any modern scientific thought, or the emergence of any secular Humanist thought, as per Auguste Comte's school of "positivism" during the French Revolution, which is said to be the forerunner to Secular Humanism (Secular Humanism, as per their statement of principles is not "atheism", nor solely a "lack" of belief in God, but is a dogma, or set of "religious" or philosophical principles and beliefs held to by "faith" or axiom, recognized as a "nontheistic" religion by the US Supreme Court, along with others of said variety, such as Daoism).
David Pakman addressed the claim appropriately. There are angry Christians, angry tall people, angry vegans, etc. O'Reilly wouldn't be incorrect because he, himself, is a scumbag. Judging his claim based on his personal characteristics would be an ad hominem fallacy. His claim is merely a throw-away anecdote because he cannot substantiate his claim beyond anecdotal evidence, which comes vis-a-vis his motivated reasoning lense.
Thank you for that wonderfully lucid contribution IBB. In a similar fashion it's been my sense that a lot of those kinds of atheist's who rely on much of what you said, have not really studied the history of religion for themselves (much less the philosophy of same).
It seems to be more or less, at best, a regurgitation of some erroneous fundamentalist interpretation or something from kindergarden... .
Don't take this the wrong way but you're sounding like part of the problem and not the solution. In other words, do two wrongs make a right?
You're just repeating the ad hominem...good job! The question was, why are atheists suing the government... resentment and anger most likely.
What ad hominem??
Obviously we aren’t smarter than this. Look at the insults that are thrown around even in this thread, and I’m not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. Should we know better? Of course, but that simply isn’t the case. Sarcasm and one-up-manship are just too tempting to resist. Along with proving your intellectual superiority. If item number 7 on your list were adhered to I’m sure things would be different, but it isn’t.
If you’re only referring to Atheists in this forum, you are likely correct. I am referring to society in general. Watch any televangelist, or attend practically any church long enough and you will hear Atheists being disparaged. My claim is also that history bears this out. The number of nonbelievers who have been killed in the name of God far outnumbers the number of Christians or even Theists in general that have been killed in the name of Atheism. Also, I would suspect that you are more likely to encounter Atheists in a philosophy forum than in society at large, simply because those who engage in philosophical discussions are more likely to have received a higher education than the general public, and Atheism and education are correlated.
For the record, I would agree that a lot of Atheists are resentful towards Christianity for the reasons I earlier explained. I’m not trying to defend anger or animosity from either side, just observe and hypothesize.
That sums it up in a nutshell, yes.
Atheists that show up on this forum tend to be a peevish lot, stewing in all sorts of bile and bilge.
I have heard some younger (and older) atheists fulminating about stupid 'sky gods' and superstitious believers, etc. Some of them do seem to carry a heavy cross of anger, resentment, disappointment, and so on. I'm not sure what it is, exactly, they are angry about. Some of them have (they report) never had much religious experience, so why the intensity of feeling? I can see why someone who had a harsh form of religion shoved down their throat would be pissed off about it once they escaped. But a lot of atheists were never captive, so had no need to escape.
One thing: I think being an angry atheist can be a stance that some people adopt. It's another way of being a social deviant--staking out a not-too-crowded defendable territory. In this god-soaked social milieu, declaring "there is no god" or "God is dead" is a pretty easy way to achieve meaningful social deviance. (It beats joint a violent gang, for instance.).
And there are refugees from religion. I've met an awful lot of former Jehovah's Witnesses. There are versions of Baptist, Catholic, Islamic, belief and so on that some atheists have happily escaped from and now declare it the case of their disbelief. It was a bad experience for them.
Pass along any handy stats you might have. But various Abrahamic regimes (Christian and Moslem, mostly) have had very discouraging violence and death stats at times. Just take the United States which performed near extinction on native people, carried about by at least nominal Christians. The murder rate in various parts of the USA (some urban cores, southeastern and parts of western US) have some of the highest rates of individual violence in the world. Granted, we aren't an officially religious country.
Good point
I agree that there is plenty of anger on both sides...and, unfortunately, in society in general. Not sure if it has always been this way, but it certainly is now. I really would like to see us all get along a bit better. Perhaps some of my feelings about this rub off from another forum where I post...and where the atheist seem to be in high dudgeon almost every moment.
As an aside, and with my tongue planted firmly in cheek, your remark, "Atheists in a philosophy forum than in society at large, simply because those who engage in philosophical discussions are more likely to have received a higher education than the general public, and Atheism and education are correlated"...immediately caused me to think..."Hummm...I always though education and agnosticism seem the more proper fit."
Everyone is making wonderful points keep them coming. This is a very emotional issue. When I read some of this I get a little emotional about it. There's a lot of existential angst hidden underneath a lot of this stuff.
As I've alluded to previously I certainly understand the psychological damage people have experienced...not to mention all those who've perished from religious wars throughout history...
.
I think much of it comes back to our ego (sin of pride). It's one thing being proud of your accomplishments, your family, so on and so forth but it's entirely another to have exaggerated self worth.
I’m sure it’s both. Probably more accurate to say that religious belief and education are inversely correlated.
99% of everything comes down to our ego, for better and worse. It is bad to have an exaggerated self worth, and also to get your sense of self worth from your conviction in unprovable beliefs like the EOG. Although I’m certainly guilty of this myself at times.
Indeed, I know many people who simply choose to not believe in god because they think it makes them more rational and even smarter than others who do.
That probably stems from many scientists choosing to not believe in god. Since scientists are 'smart people' , many just follow to derive this sense of self worth you speak of
I think the problem is not with religion but with the masses who will blindly follow one interpretation of a religious text and glorify it as the only correct one. But then, you can't really blame humans for being humans.
I guess, all of this, religion, war is simply a reflection of how corrupt humans are and while we may have been gifted with rationality, our animal nature still reigns supreme sometime.
As I've alluded to previously I certainly understand the psychological damage people have experienced...not to mention all those who've perished from religious wars throughout history...
[/quote]
This is a common folk or cultural myth, and a rather naĂŻve and superstitious one at that; in reality, however, it's highly debatable that whatever the inherent traits which manifested themselves in "religious" wars are, that they exist solely within a "religious" contest, often simply using a simplistic, superstitious, or nonsense definition of "religion" to begin with and reinforced via circular reasoning.
It's arguable that there was a strong profit motive in every war, whether marketed as "religious" otherwise, much, as how most wars in civilized, 1st world nations are motivated by national pride or ideology (e.x. nationalism, capitalism, communism, socialism, etc), rather than "resources" as ignorant and false childish myths about war tell people or insinuate (it's "resources" for the war, not "war for resources) - there isn't arguably any practical difference between a war in the name of a "religion", and won in the name of any other type of ideology or political stance.
Given that scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology, as well as most of the philosophies of major law and legal systems or institutions (e.x. Common Law theory; Zimbardo's Standford Prison Experiment) more or less confirm that warfare and violence among men and women is an innate part of who we are (not a good one to devolve into, but a part of one nonetheless), such as having roots in biology, I would like to think that silly and archaic notions such as the above would be extinct rather than continuing to be blindly repeated.
Also, probably very accurate to say that religious belief and innate intelligence are inveresely proportional. (I.e. the more religious, the less likely to be intelligent, and the more intelligent, the less likely to be religious. --- explanation given here for the benefit of our more relgious brothers on these forums.)
Exceptions exist. Coben is smart.
(There is no inverse correlation... only negative, positive, or none. (-: )
I so totally agree with this post.
Although some wars are ideology based (such as the recent wars in Nicaragua, in Viet Nam, in Cuba), most wars are economics-based. Scarce resources or the control over them are fought for.
Also, one might argue for saying that wars over ideology reflect on the longer term a war over economics, too.
--------------
It is interesting to note, however, that the argument you, IvorbyBlackBishop, made was not against something one of the atheists said on this board, but was against what 3017Amen said. This I believe is noteworthy.
Although some wars are ideology based (such as the recent wars in Nicaragua, in Viet Nam, in Cuba), most wars are economics-based. Scarce resources or the control over them are fought for.
[/quote]
Don't think so, this is only the case in the most impoverished areas of the world; the majority of wars in the civilized world are fought over ideology, national pride, and so on.
WWI, for example, started over the assassination of a lone political political figure, and cost far more in material resources to wage than the loss of the politican amounted to; it's resources for the war, not silly myths like "war for resources", the war in an end in and of itself.
(Even in the animal kingdom, this myth has been debunked, with it being documented that animals such as dolphins and others fight or kill "for sport", rather than "resources" or pure material "survival").
You and I read and studied and believe the teachings of completely different textbooks on history.
The WWI was started over the squeezing out of the countries that formed the Axis powers of the possession of colonies and thus out of the riches the colonies offered to their European owners.
Germany had two measly colonies in Africa; Austria-Hungary had no colonies other than "Franz Jozef Land" in the Arctic north of Russia. Turkey had mainly barren, desert land, and the crude oil in its possessions in the middle east was not an issue then.
In contrast, the rest of Africa was owned by Britain, Portugal and France; Canada and Australia were quasi-colonies of England the Glorious; India was fully an English colony.
"The sun never sets over the British empire". It rose and set over the German-Austrian empires within a few hours of each other.
This suggests that animals are corrupt. Are they? (Wars happen when humans become corrupt and wars happen when the animal nature of humans reigns supreme.)
True, but this wasn't a case of "famine", starvation, or survivalism as one might see in hunter-gatherer societies, or impoverished areas of the world like Sub-Saharan Africa..
It was about egotistic conquest; much as how a person buying a Ferrari with a top speed of 200 MPH (which they can only legally drive at up to 60 MPH) isn't simply about "needing a ride to the local Walmart".
I am not implying that animals are corrupt by nature. They simply don't have the means to be corrupt. Their desires and behaviour are strictly based for survival. However, when the superficial desires of humans (superficial in regards to survival) combines with his/her primal nature, the product is death and destruction but not for the sake for survival or because it was necessary, but to fulfill the superficial desires.
Animals will engage in fights strictly when it is necessary or aids in survival. Humans will engage in violence when it is necessary (justifiable) or simply in pursuit of their wants (corrupt nature)
Ofcourse, it is not an easy task to discern a neccesary fight from a unnecessary one, but it is common sense that such a distinction exists.
Good point. Actually I find the opposite true. Considering the study of, say, both theoretical physics and cognitive science, the overwhelming evidence suggests a purpose behind conscious existence.
It's the extreme polarization, from both sides, that's dangerous. The extremist views have clouded the mind's of many smart people.
That is where I disagree. I believe there cannot be any universal purpose (one that applies to all humans) kinda like an existential nihilist.
Quoting 3017amen
Indeed. People don't think for themselves and often reject the conclusions they deduce themselves if it does not match with the 'Smart People Worldview'.
You would have to support that view from a cosmological basis. Meaning, conscious existence and self-awareness. Cosmic consciousness is a topic covered extensively by many including one of my favorite's, William James.
James would argue that all religions, no matter how seemingly different, have a common core; both believe that it is possible to identify this core by stripping away institutional accretions of dogma and ritual and focusing on individual experience; and both identify mystical illumination as the foundation of all religious experience.
To parse that further, perhaps, one might want to ask about the differences between an objective truth and a subjective truth. And what kind of meaning each of those have to humans... .
Good point! Similarly, a lot of truth can be conceived through paradox and contradiction. How can we integrate these dichotomies?
It might be worth considering to first start with parsing the differences between "belief and knowledge" as you alluded.
For instance, a subjective truth ( as apposed to an objective truth from say mathematics) is a truth that one experiences personally. How then, does one convert that into knowledge(?). Should one make inferences based upon a particular happenstance or subjective experience? Do inferences suggest a kind of knowledge of some sort? And finally, could one combine the two truth's and somehow translate that into a synthetic a priori judgement about one's experience(s)?
The same applies to maths and numbers. For a long time, zero was not acknowledged but it was always implied. Zero is infinite (chaos), from this One is formed. A division of the infinite making it now divided. It can be seen as a boundary from infinity, putting infinitiy on the outside of the one (or as we would write it 01).
Knowledge could be likened to a jigsaw puzzle. When all the corners fit, you accept it as "new" knowledge and the piece is placed within the picture. Beliefs are the pile of puzzle pieces you group together because they are "similar" to the picture or they relate to each other. Some people like to put all the straight edges together is a pile, or match them by colour. It doesn't matter how it's done, what matters is that it takes place. People have different ways of making the piles, as people have different beliefs. When you have enough puzzle pieces together, you can start putting them in place (converting them to knowledge).
So, belief is a precursor to knowledge but not necessarily. Some peoples beliefs are simply wrong. If pointed out, the wise ones will change their beliefs. All of this is performed using the power of discernment.
If you have a belief, it's because you don't have the knowledge, or you have only part of it. You cannot believe something you know, and you cannot know something you believe. They are exclusive. .
Are there any truths that exist that you don't know? Of course not. Because your knowledge to you is truth, unless by the power of discernment, you realise the belief was wrong, in which case it is dropped and subtitude. Science does precisely the same thing and has been doing so for years. Today X is scientific fact, but tomorrow when it's proved wrong, Y will be scientific fact and X will be dropped and forgotten.
We haven't been able to prove what "thought" is. We haven't be able to prove for "consciousness" is. We haven't been able to prove what "sub-consciousness" is. And yet these are the tools we use to answer the question of universal purpose. Assumptions are no different to beliefs. If you believe there is no purpose, then you wont look for one. This is sometimes called a "life spectator", refusing to start the race for fear of there being no point. However, the belief means there definitely wont be any point because you didn't look for it. Fortunately, rebirth gives us another opportunity to try again... and again... and again!
Yes, there are many. The Neo-Kantian in me must repeat the infamous synthetic a priori judgement: all events must have a cause. Do we know that, in part, it is true?
Quoting Antidote
That of course, would not be accurate. The said synthetic a priori statements is a combination of both knowledge and belief.
In a practical sense, when someone say's they've had a religious experience (ineffable), they believe their experience was real, hence real knowledge to them. Or when a scientist discovers a novel idea and/or formula, they believe that was real knowledge. Or when a musician writes a new piece of music, that becomes his own truth, belief and/or knowledge.
So really, when one talks phenomenology and/or consciousness, things are not quite so distinct.
There is a school of thought that suggests the sub conscious mind already knows the patterns of existence and our conscious mind is simply a torch lighting up this knowledge as we go along.
Sure. Generally speaking, the nature of consciousness and subconsciousness working together violates certain rules of formal logic/p and-p.
Yet just another mystery in life that is something beyond logical possibility.
I mentioned I don't believe in a universal purpose. We just don't have to look towards God for purpose while justifying his existence based on phenomena that seem strange and mysterious. Everyone I know of, myself included, has sudden bouts of extreme devotion towards god and a sense of amazement towards 'his' creations. This is by no means any evidence of anything at all.
However, what I didn't say was that we should not be looking for any sorta purpose whatsoever. I think we should be finding our own individual purposes, something that is perhaps unique and satisfying to us and acceptable to others. This is only to cope with the dread of a universally meaningless existence.
Just because we weren't born with a inherent purpose doesn't mean we cannot create one for ourselves.
The OP topic truly does not interest me very much...but what you wrote here does. if I may...
...did you actually mean "I don't believe in a universal purpose"...or did you mean "I believe there is no universal purpose?"
Those are two different things...and the "I don't believe X..." structure often is used when "I believe not-X is intended.
Okay I see how you interpreted it.
I didn't say 'I don't believe in THE universal purpose'. I said 'I don't believe in a universal purpose' which should translates to 'I don't believe in the existence of universal purpose'.
Regardless, I apologise for any confusion I would have caused. BIt of a newbie to philosophy so still haven't gotten used to the jargon and sentence structuring yet.
I don't fully agree, as it appears to be a re-creation of purpose, but one you have made up for yourself within the parameters of what you find acceptable. There is a difference between "finding purpose" and "creating a purpose".
Quoting StarsFromMemory
Universal meaningless is where we are at already until we find our purpose so perhaps its not as dreaded as the potential for both death and judgement, and upon an unfavourable judgement, a return to try again - or wasted time.
Quoting StarsFromMemory
If we accept that nothing happens without a cause, then your birth most certainly did contain a purpose - it happened for a reason. The fact we cannot remember the purpose right now does not mean there was no purpose. If you were born without a purpose, then there was no cause for your birth, in which case, you shouldn't be here.
One could say, because it is difficult find our purpose, it seems reasonable that making up another one to suit our own desires/needs appears to make sense. But, if there was an original purpose, then your new purpose is simply a distraction - simply spinning your wheels.
While there are a few edge cases where religious beliefs can be factored into a decision, here in the US secular law has precedence over religious law.
Okay, initially I didn't intend to use this thread to discuss purpose.
First - you are advocating for the presence of a universal purpose for all humanity. May I ask on what grounds are you making that claim? Also, do you know anything about the nature of this purpose? Is it only meant for humans? or is it for all life on this planet?
Second - How can you possibly justify presence of a universal purpose knowing how insignificant a place humans occupy in this universe?
Quoting Antidote
What do you mean by 'cause'? All births occure due to the fertlisation of two gametes followed by developement of an embryo . Where does purpose come into all this?
Quoting Antidote
What do you mean 'shouldn't be here' ? There is no choice nor does the fact that 'I am here' entail a purpose for my existence. Bacterias are here too, do they also have some universal purpose? Rocks are here too. What is your point?
Quoting Antidote
'Our' refers to humans? or to all living creatures? or to everything in existence ? On what grounds do you assume that only humans have a universal purpose, if you are making such an assumption that is?
Do you think bacterias and viruses and bats have a universal purpose? Or are we the lucky ones?
In short, there is simply no reason to believe in the existence of a universal purpose and if there is no reason to believe in it, there is no reason to look for it. Might as well look for unicorns.
Of course, existentialism is alive and well there. I would rephrase 'inherent purpose' to say self-aware, conscious existence, or simply, self-awareness. But I would also keep in mind searching for a purpose is, in itself, not mutually exclusive from an intrinsic type of objective or universal purpose. In that sense, there are those in the cognitive science world that posit life is both a discovery and uncovery, of Being.
As such, the existential element you suggest I believe, is very accurate here. But, to not take it a step further, would be ignoring our truth in that way of Being. Meaning, we both, at the same time go out in the world and discover purpose, and we also look from within to uncover our own uniqueness (talents, strengths, weaknesses, our will/to find purpose to begin with, and all the other why's of conscious existence) through various means of introspection, etc. (We uncover those things from consciousness.)
That in itself suggests or leads to conscious thought and self-awareness being something beyond Darwinian purpose/causation/logic. And that in turn usually leads to the questions concerning the metaphysical nature of our existence viz consciousness/self-awareness.
In short, we have self-awareness for some reason. The metaphysical features of consciousness should intrigue anyone who is willing to explore what is hidden behind their experiences in living this life; our will to wonder about same.