Bah humbug. I see no problem with you being anti-religious and aggressive. If you believe something then you sometimes have justification in letting it be known. When you share a belief that is important to you you do what artists, writers, entertainers, sages, friends, counsellors and politicians do - you dare to put your head above the parapet and shout - there is a better way - its brave and its an exciting part of being human in a free speech society. Its much much easier to sit in the cheap seats and boo but unfortunately we have a sufeit of cheap seats and a cacophany of boos. This world needs more believers and passionate teachers - its the tension that drives forward human thought and action.
Why is it considered so wrong to be anti-religious or aggressively atheist?
by nicolaou 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Qcmbr
..and your talking cr*p about God and religion :P
-
aniron
I think the answer lies in the question "aggressively" being the keyword. The anti-religious and atheist I have met have usually been aggresive in their attitude when I've spoken to them. I have met ones you could say were "religiously fanatical" in their atheism or anti-religious stance. It seems to be a trait among those I have talked to that as I calmly speak to them about my faith. They are the ones who start to get hot under the collar and lose their temper.
As a Christian "religion" has done more damage to the Christian faith than any atheist. "Christians" spend more time arguing amongst their various denominations than they do with anyone who is atheist or anti-religious. Raising a point about doctrine with a person of another denomination, can provoke a more violent reaction than if I was speaking to an atheist.
-
Frannie Banannie
Nico, it's because most people are like John and Mary, whose attitude is....
"Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
-
nicolaou
Alright, I concede that 'aggressive' comes across very negatively, perhaps I should have said 'assertively' instead. Still, I think it is possible to express ones views assertively/aggressively while at the same time remaining polite and without giving offence.
Zealots come in all different flavours, nic.... and they're seldom appreciated.
True enough Scully, I hope you don't think of me as a zealout - I hope no-one does! It's just difficult to reign in my enthusiasm sometimes, I really do feel passionate about explaining my atheism. Why? Because it has helped me so much, I see it as a natural progression from my state as an indoctrinated and unreasoning JW, through the beginnings of my mental release as an 'inactive fader' to my final emancipation!
It's wonderful! That's why I want to share. (Good god, I do sound like a zealot don't I?)
Okay, okay, I'll ease up - a bit.
-
AuldSoul
Until atheists have done the impossible and actually proven the non-existence of something, or have accomplished the highly improbable and objectively balanced in the scales the benefit to cost of religion as it pertains to the future evolutionary progression of the species (a basic necessity for moral judgment regarding anything outside oneself) I will continue to believe it is wrong to be anti-religious or aggressively atheist.
Because it is hypocritical to stand on the side of Science and preach that which lack Scientific basis.
But, I also will continue to believe it is wrong to be pro-religion or aggressively theistic.
As to what I can prove to someone else, Nicolaou, I believe my first dog's name was Gretchen. She was a brindle hound dog of mixed heritage. I firmly believe that. I can't prove it to you, however. I know others I can call on who might recall the same fact, and they will be equally incapable of proving it to you. But then, it doesn't matter whether I can prove it to you, does it? It is a fact. I have personal knowledge of it. Even if she were the only brindle hound dog to have ever existed it would not change my certainty regarding my experiences.
Similarly, despite the fact that the offending toast is long gone, and the toaster, too, I know for certain that making toast can set a house on fire. Even if it had never happened to anyone else, you could not remove that experiential knowledge from me, nor convince me by logic to give over the conviction that I have regarding the potential dire consequences of making toast.
Personal facts are possible. Every human has some personal facts that they cannot prove empirically. They remain facts, despite the incapacity to prove them true to someone else.
You asked Arthur why he would believe something he couldn't prove. Why would I NOT believe that my personal experiences are valid evidence for the purposes of informing my personal beliefs?
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
Finally-Free
I don't care if someone is religious or athiest. Someone else's beliefs are none of my business, and vice versa. But I have no use whatsoever for people of either persuasion who try to get in my face with their beliefs. If I'm interested in modifying my beliefs I'm capable of doing my own research without having anyone looking over my shoulder offering unsolicited opinions. And if I require an opinion, I'll seek out someone whose credentials I can personally verify. Since leaving the watchtower, I won't tolerate spiritual or intellectual policing from any source.
W
-
XJW4EVR
Personally, I don't have an issue talking to an atheist. As a childen of God atheists have dignity and worth. Where I generally, draw the line is when insulting and pejorative comments such as these
dangerous bunk
and
farcical nonsense
are used. It is at that point when I stop the conversation, and say good day. Why do you find it odd that people get angry when you insult their core beliefs with statements sucah as those?
My opinion is that, I have the right to believe you are wrong, and you have the same right to believe the same about me. What you don't have the right to do is to shut me up, and to limit my God given rights. I have no right to do the same to you.Yes, I believe that rights are not bestowed by a government, but by God, hence the term inalienable in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
Life liberty & the pursuit of happiness are considered inalienable int he U.S. Declaration of Independence. I get happiness from sharing my faith with others. When I have shared with atheists, many identified themselves, and expressed the desire not to hear what I had to say to them. This I respect. I will ask their reasons why they are atheist, and most will elaborate, and others will get hostile.
Therefore hostility is evident on both sides of the arguement. Personally, I prefer to get along, and if you tell me no once, I will move on.
-
PrimateDave
Hey, Nicolaou!
I have also come down the same path as you, from being an indoctrinated Witness (all my life) to atheist. Actually, I wouldn't consider myself anti-religious, so much as indifferent to religion. But, like you I sometimes feel like setting theists straight, so to speak, on this message board. I have started to reply to messages many times and decided not to. Lately, I realized, what's the point, really? Many of the posters will not change their beliefs just because I present what I think are convincing, logical arguments. I can type until my fingers bleed, and they will still come up with "well, you can't prove that god(s) don't exist." You and I know that the burden of proof lies with the individual making the extraordinary claim, but they will refuse to recognize that point. Well, fine. No skin off my teeth. Like the lady said to the telemarketer: "When I want what you're selling, I'll call you." Feel free to post those links to articles and books that support your (and my) position. Some people will read what you say and come to the same or similar conclusions as you have. Others will not. That said, perhaps we can all get along fine if we respect one another as fellow beings with feelings regardless of our beliefs. Celebrate our diversity.
Dave -
AuldSoul
The burden of proof lies with anyone who claims to have proof. Logical, or otherwise.
The one challenged for proof may have never claimed the capacity to prove it, so why would they need to prove it?
An extraordinary claim does not require extraordinary proof in order to be believed. It only requires proof in order to be scientifically proven, the context which gave rise to the maxim in the first place. If you choose not to believe extraordinary claims that you can't prove, wonderful for you. But don't s*it on my plate just because you don't like what I'm eating. I might just have subjective personal proof sufficient to compel my belief. Subjective personal proof cannot be objectively proven, nor can it be examined objectively.
The one claiming someone is wrong to believe what they believe should be able to demonstrate why they wrong, whether that is a theist claiming error on the part of an atheist or vice-versa. The one calling "Bulls*it!" has the burden of proof, or disproof, as the case may be. In other words, all extremists have the burden of proof because all extremists are certain the other person is wrong, and they don't mind saying so. Often inconsiderately, often rudely, often without regard for impacts.
I don't really think we have a LOT of extremists here, though.