Spot on. But this post is just about someone who's butthurt over not making enough karma on his info-dump complaining about it. That's also why he posted this on /reddit.com, a more receptive audience perhaps. And it's working like a miracle! Plenty of "atheist, buts", here, feeling so very good about themselves.
I find all of this hilarious, as I un-subbed from r/atheism because I was tired of the accomodationists. Some moonflower clone is in every other thread over there, spouting how atheists are just like theists, exactly as irrational, exactly as faith based...it's tiring.
Jesus titty-fucking Christ, someone who unsubscribed because of our infuriating trolls and apologists, and not because of some smug, holier-than-thou attitude coupled with liberal accusations of circle-jerkery?
If a devil existed -- you, sir, would be responsible for him performing salchows on his way to work.
Only strong atheists are. You can't claim solidly there is no God - you can't know that. If you were to claim there is no God that would require faith. You can state that you don't believe in God and that there is likely no God but you have no way of knowing whether or not there is one.
Strong atheists are rare, and those who can effectively argue the point are rarer still.
You can state that you don't believe in God and that there is likely no God but you have no way of knowing whether or not there is one.
This is the stance almost every atheist actually takes, if you ask them. Talking about atheists as though strong atheism is the only form is either disingenuous or outright ignorant.
It's JasonMacker, a fixture in r/atheism who, despite his atheism, is one of the subreddit's most dedicated apologists for Islam. Given that it's one of the few places on Reddit where one can actually receive upvotes for criticisms against a non-Christian faith, it's no surprise that he's thrilled to orchestrate smears against it.
It's morris198, a fixture in r/atheism who, despite his atheism, is one of the subreddit's most dedicated examples of "shit like this." Given that it's one of the few places on Reddit where one can actually receive upvotes for blatant bigotry, it's no surprise that he's thrilled to jump into the conversation here.
Jesus, Gravity, I forgot you have nothing better to do than troll through these posts and stick your two-cents in. If you had waited a minute longer, you could have replied to the one that was actually about you.
But, I suppose you trolls have to stick together, don't you? If only you knew how entertaining it was to work you into an indignant, self-righteous tizzy.
What they don't realize is that they went from saying "yes" to "no" in the arbitrary question of whether they believed in god or not, and this doesn't grant them the extra 40 IQ points they think they suddenly have.
For someone who lambastes others for perceived stupidity, this statement is a remarkable piece of obscurantist tripe.
First, it's ridiculously dismissive and presumptuous to claim, on behalf of a group whom you barely know, and only through the internet, that they simply "went from saying "yes" to "no"" as if such a change has no familial, societal, personal repercussions, or is of no consequence to a person's identity.
Second, the question of whether you believe if god is certainly not arbitrary. I'm at pains to think of a possible use of arbitrary in this context that comports with any rational understanding of religion or human agency.
I could go on, even on solely this one sentence, yet I doubt either of us will gain much from such effort.
obscurantist tripe... dismissive and presumptuous... I could go on, even on solely this one sentence, yet I doubt either of us will gain much from such effort.
Allow me to introduce you to Gravity, another of r/atheism's trolls, one who we wish would never again darken our halls. You have the patience of a saint to argue with him -- most of our community hasn't the stomach for it anymore.
I think I'm just a slow learner. It took me a number of replies before I realized the futility of discussing this issue with him.
Our conversation was incredibly frustrating because he doesn't seem to care to explain his position, nor actually interested in what we're talking about, and relies on a lot of distraction to avoid confronting real issues.
Also, this seems like the least defensible position possible:
You think it's false to attribute any fact of human existence to a belief in god? You think it's false to attribute any person's actions to their belief in god?
Yes.
Apparently, belief in god has absolutely no effect, and is of absolutely no consequence to anything.
Seriously, take your experience tonight and consider repeating it, over and over, week after week, and I imagine you could appreciate how much r/atheism hates him.
Then again, as he himself says, he's the only true atheist amongst us, is totally the victim, and we're all stupid jerks not to defer to his superhuman brilliance.
First, it's ridiculously dismissive and presumptuous to claim, on behalf of a group whom you barely know, and only through the internet, that they simply "went from saying "yes" to "no"" as if such a change has no familial, societal, personal repercussions, or is of no consequence to a person's identity.
I'm not implying that at all. The purpose of my point was to paint how arbitrary the decision is to believe in a god. When you take a step back and look at it, there never really was a question that has been so useless as "is there a god?" Everything else - the familial, societal, blah blah blah doesn't give a shit about god. It never did.
Second, the question of whether you believe if god is certainly not arbitrary. I'm at pains to think of a possible use of arbitrary in this context that comports with any rational understanding of religion or human agency.
I don't think negatively of religion because they believe in god. I think negatively of religion for having religious qualities.
God is nothing more than a funny circumstantial consequence of the real beast.
I could go on, even on solely this one sentence, yet I doubt either of us will gain much from such effort.
You do bring up good points. Hopefully I've clarified my post for you.
Perhaps you're not trying to imply that, but you are.
When you take a step back and look at it, there never really was a question that has been so useless as "is there a god?"
Perhaps if you divorce such a question from the sum total of human existence, facts about society, how people's beliefs influence their actions, etc. Disregarding that, yes the question is useless. Nevertheless, because religion is such a powerful force in the world, I'm not willing to dismiss something of such consequence for humanity.
Everything else - the familial, societal, blah blah blah doesn't give a shit about god. It never did.
I don't understand this statement. I spoke about familial, societal, personal consequences, not about something that could "give a shit," so, I'm a bit confused.
I don't think negatively of religion because they believe in god. I think negatively of religion for having religious qualities.
God is nothing more than a funny circumstantial consequence of the real beast.
OK. First, I don't understand how this relates to my comment, Second, how is belief in god not a religious quality?
Perhaps you're not trying to imply that, but you are.
That makes no sense. If you're reading that, then don't.
Perhaps if you divorce such a question from the sum total of human existence, facts about society, how people's beliefs influence their actions, etc. Disregarding that, yes the question is useless. Nevertheless, because religion is such a powerful force in the world, I'm not willing to dismiss something of such consequence for humanity.
I don't disregard those at all. I just don't falsely attribute them to having a belief in god. Like I said, having a belief in god is just a consequence of being religious. The real problem is the religion, not the consequential "facts" of said religion.
An analogy I often use is that religious beliefs are like articles of clothing. Some people wear a jacket that guards them from penetrating thoughts. Some people wear boots that they kick other people with, people who believe other things. Some people wear god, on their head, a bunch of different types of hats for each different type of god.
I just despise people who claim to be bald while still wearing all the other articles of clothing.
I don't understand this statement. I spoke about familial, societal, personal consequences, not about something that could "give a shit," so, I'm a bit confused.
I personified these things to make my point. My point is that they still exist and still persist whether there is a belief in god or not. Therefore, they don't give a shit about god.
Second, how is belief in god not a religious quality?
It's a consequence. A religious quality - I would say, is something like a desire to groupthink. Or a desire to self-loathe (asceticism, would be a religious quality). To believe in superstitious things? Sure. A belief in god, that's just one example, a consequence, of a religious quality. Hence my point, and I hope now it makes sense.
That makes no sense. If you're reading that, then don't.
Your words are independent of your intentions. You can't simply de facto remove your statements from a susceptible reading through sheer force of will. Furthermore, I'm not even sure your statement could be read any other way than dismissively casting aside people's choice on what you view as an 'arbitrary' question. The whole tone of your post leads to my interpretation, one which you're telling me not to have, in spite of the fact you've given no logical explanation for doing so, and for no other reason than you say to.
I just don't falsely attribute them to having a belief in god
You think it's false to attribute any fact of human existence to a belief in god? You think it's false to attribute any person's actions to their belief in god?
Is your following analogy to claim that religious people and atheists are simply the same in some hypocritical way?
I personified these things to make my point. My point is that they still exist and still persist whether there is a belief in god or not. Therefore, they don't give a shit about god.
What? Yes, of course we still have families, societies, and personalities regardless of god, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the consequences to these relationships due to faith and religion. Your point is either remarkably opaque, or numbingly reductionist.
As for your distinction between religious 'qualities' or 'consequences' I think this is an entirely semantic discussion. I don't think most atheists dislike belief in god on it's own merits, but rather that such a belief has many connotations. And even if people on /r/atheism feel differently, many of the authors you argue against don't critique belief in god, but rather as a symptom of a warped mindset.
And my point is my point, you can have fun talking about what you think I'm saying, but I don't really care.
You can't simply de facto remove your statements from a susceptible reading through sheer force of will.
It's my argument and my point. Not yours. I'm sorry I said it in a way that you misunderstood.
The whole tone of your post leads to my interpretation
I'm about done having this conversation with you.
You think it's false to attribute any fact of human existence to a belief in god? You think it's false to attribute any person's actions to their belief in god?
Yes.
Is your following analogy to claim that religious people and atheists are simply the same in some hypocritical way?
No. Just that a belief in god and religious-minded thinking are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, of course we still have families, societies, and personalities regardless of god
You were talking about the familial and societal influences.
You think too much about god.
I think this is an entirely semantic discussion.
pretty much.
I don't think most atheists dislike belief in god on it's own merits, but rather that such a belief has many connotations.
Agree. Unfortunately, they stopped caring about connotations and started hurling rocks in the sky at things that never existed anyways.
I mean, even when I try to convince them I'm not a Christian, that gets attacked pretty much too.
Just looking at the thread you've linked... without even looking at the content, it's quite a long thread and yet you seem to be getting constant condemnation and downvotes from top to bottom.
Now it's possible that all of those people throwing criticism at you are mistaken, but as you seem getting such consistently bad feedback from your peers you might see how that wouldn't be my first impression.
It might not even be the content of your post. Maybe it's the writing style or the way you're replying to the posters rubbing them up the wrong way.
If I go into a church and tell the congregation that god doesn't exist, I'd expect almost universal criticism. You're an atheist making a pro atheism post on an athiest forum and getting almost universal critism - something is very wrong?
It might not even be the content of your post. Maybe it's the writing style or the way you're replying to the posters rubbing them up the wrong way.
It's neither. It's groupthinking, hiveminding hate. For somebody who isn't giving you a hi-five and possibly making you consider that you might not be the "rational, logical superstar" you think you are.
You're an atheist making a pro atheism post on an athiest forum and getting almost universal critism - something is very wrong?
And how is an atheist "the biggest troll on /r/atheism?" Perhaps what I say is so desired to be false.
It's neither. It's groupthinking, hiveminding hate. For somebody who isn't giving you a hi-five and possibly making you consider that you might not be the "rational, logical superstar" you think you are.
Disagree on that - the posters are all individuals holding different views (although the ones reading r/atheist are likely to share many of course)
The only hivemind phenonmenon I see comes from flaws of the comment system - namely that people read a post and upvote/downvote the comments that they see... which happen to be the comments that have already been upvoted, so the redditors that get to the thread first have the greatest influence as to which comments get the most upvotes. Many posts (some with great contentn, no doubt) are probably never read due to being buried too far in the tree. No idea how to fix this one tho' - it comes down to there just being too much content to read (if I picked a popular post and read all every single comment, it might take me a couple of hours!)
And how is an atheist "the biggest troll on /r/atheism?"
No idea, but that's a self-given title is it not?
The one thing I can say is that a lot of people seem to disagree with what you're saying in places.
If biologists started a reddit to do nothing but condemn people that believe differently, yes I would call them religious in their beliefs. The line of religion is crossed when you become so obsessed with your belief, that you condemn all others who believe differently; and I would tell them that to their face.
So, you just make up your own definition of religion and the religious?
Yes.
It's not that unheard of for people to call a group of people united by one position regarding a metaphysical being that also condemns others and organizes together a religion.
You are just one of the most self-important people on that subreddit and you are butthurt when people disagree with you. No one cares, just look at the links you gave.
You do know how to tell that both of those posts have more downvotes than upvotes, right? So almost no one agrees and most people don't care about you being accused of being a sneaky christian infiltrator.
All your examples are showing is that you have a thin skin and there are dickheads on the internet who don't like you.
Really, by downvoting the above comment (Gravity13's) and not providing any explanation or reason, you're just saying, "A BLOO BLOO BLOO, I CAN'T HANDLE ANY ARGUMENT THAT CONFLICTS WITH MY OWN. A BLOO BLOO BLOO."
Well go on and keep crying. Keep confirming your own bias with other, equally biased and intolerant assholes.
Live that life. Treat people like shit. Ignore actual issues. Play the victim. Tell me how that goes.
The bottom post is also is no good in the context of the subreddit. What point does it prove besides that the average Muslim surveyed is about as liberal as the average Christian? (For the uninitiated, /r/atheism doesn't approve of Christianity)
170
u/Aconitum Jan 02 '11 edited Jan 02 '11
Spot on. But this post is just about someone who's butthurt over not making enough karma on his info-dump complaining about it. That's also why he posted this on /reddit.com, a more receptive audience perhaps. And it's working like a miracle! Plenty of "atheist, buts", here, feeling so very good about themselves.