Atheists: Why Are They so Malicious?

[nichjake]

I’m happy my belief system doesn’t require me to hate other people, and act so maliciously.

Being an Atheist I take offence at that remark. It you knew anything about atheism you would know that it doesn’t require anything of the people who are atheist…I can almost guarentee you as a Catholic have more hate and malice towards other people than I or any other atheist I personally know. That guy is dumb, granted…but there are religious people just as dumb and just as offensive.

They all fall into one of two categories: 1) ignorant, 2) malicious

Unfortunately, most of them fit into the latter… otherwise they wouldn’t be as vocal as they are about slinging mud at everybody else.

As an Atheist I have to completely disagree. I am not ignorant and I most certainly am not malicious. If you believe all Atheists are ignorant and or malicious than you have a VERY narrow point of view in that area.

There are some dumb overzealous atheists but there are also religious folk that are just as bad. You should see some of the garbage we atheists put up with on our forums. We have a short tolerance span for people who come to insult/convert us so it usually ends in the religious zealot running away with their tail tucked or being banned.

 

[Kevin42]

I’m happy my belief system doesn’t require me to hate other people, and act so maliciously.

I don’t know if you would call this thread malicious, but it certainly does not seem charitable. I myself being a Catholic, am also offended by this because this sweeping generalization that atheists equals arrogant, rude, and whatever else you called them insults many of my friends. Many of my friends are atheists, and I must say, if some of them only had faith, they would make better Christians than many people who supposedly are Christian. It is rare that I come across an atheist in everyday life who is a mean person. I certainly don’t agree with my friends who are atheist, and they know that I don’t agree with them. That being said, all of my atheist friends are lovely people to be around. I am thankful that God has put them in my life, and I pray for their conversion.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

And the above illustrates why atheists get a bit testy with theists, if not for the reasons the author intended.

Atheists will point out that theists misrepresent what atheists do or do not believe, that they try to shift the burden of proof (and in the above case, admit that such proof is lacking), and that atheists are entitled to decide what evidence is admissible or not.

With minor edits, I could change the subject of the quoted material from atheists to theists. What response do you expect were I to post it on an atheist forum?

You are right about that, but again not for the reasons you state. I’ll leave it to the reader to figure it out.

Try to understand I am not talking about the everyday engagements with atheists (which happen more often than we even realize). I’m talking about engaging one in a debate about God. They will, with a few exceptions, usually follow the path I have stated above. Simply changing the word ‘atheist’ with ‘theist’ in this case makes the statement nonsensical. I’ve seen that strategy happen on this forum so many times it’s almost laughable. Surely you can find a more persuasive argument for your side.

Another misdirection you seem to be using is being ‘offended’. Since when is being confronted with a different viewpoint the same thing as a malicious attack against your person or character? I reject your tactic of making somebody else’s opinion a personal issue for yourself, especially when the comment wasn’t directed to you. You would certainly know it if somebody made this thread about YOU instead of a conversation about differing opinions. This seems to be a common problem in this thread, not just yours.

BTW, I would be more than happy to post this on an atheist site. There would be a 100% chance that somebody will go out of their way to make it a true statement. Somebody on that forum, within 10 posts, will make a personal attack against me and start name calling.

 

[whatever]

They will, with a few exceptions, usually follow the path I have stated above.

Then your personal experience is diametrically opposed to mine.

Simply changing the word ‘atheist’ with ‘theist’ in this case makes the statement nonsensical.

How about this:

I think it has to do with the angle of their argument. They have no absolute proof that there is a God (I know, before you get started, no real proof there isn’t either, hang with me for a minute) so all they can do is attack you personally. They bring what they consider to be ample evidence that there is a God and if you don’t except it you must be totally ignorant. So the only position they can argue from is against your ridiculous (their mind, now) lack of faith and how is it possible that you do not see their irrefutable facts? Their next stronger position is anger, it’s all that is left, logic is not working.

This accurately summarizes the majority of the exchanges between atheists and theists who visit atheist forums that I’ve witnessed. Non-sensical? Tell me about it…

I’ve seen that strategy happen on this forum so many times it’s almost laughable. Surely you can find a more persuasive argument for your side.

This wasn’t an argument, but a reference to each side having to own up to their own ‘characters’.

Another misdirection you seem to be using is being ‘offended’. Since when is being confronted with a different viewpoint the same thing as a malicious attack against your person or character? I reject your tactic of making somebody else’s opinion a personal issue for yourself, especially when the comment wasn’t directed to you. You would certainly know it if somebody made this thread about YOU instead of a conversation about differing opinions. This seems to be a common problem in this thread, not just yours.

Another common complaint about theists who visit atheist sites is a lack of reading comprehension.

By the way, I have observed more than a fair share of theists who take offense at any criticism of their beliefs and attribute it to malice. Under the circumstances, it’s entirely reasonable for me to question the OP’s definition of ‘malice’.

BTW, I would be more than happy to post this on an atheist site. There would be a 100% chance that somebody will go out of their way to make it a true statement. Somebody on that forum, within 10 posts, will make a personal attack against me and start name calling.

Feel free to do so, but you’d just make my point – posting a tired old saw will not be well received.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I was refering to the atheists I encountered on youtube.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

Then your personal experience is diametrically opposed to mine.

So are our theologies. No big surprise, right? Have you argued the EXISTANCE of God with any atheist? So I guess your experience with them would be of agreeing and of little value to my assertion.

How about this:

This accurately summarizes the majority of the exchanges between atheists and theists who visit atheist forums that I’ve witnessed. Non-sensical? Tell me about it…

This wasn’t an argument, but a reference to each side having to own up to their own ‘characters’.

I could have swore I was talking about character to begin with. Didn’t I contrast the position of atheists to theists? How does reversing the roles add any value to the argument?

Another common complaint about theists who visit atheist sites is a lack of reading comprehension.

This has nothing to do with our discussion.

By the way, I have observed more than a fair share of theists who take offense at any criticism of their beliefs and attribute it to malice. Under the circumstances, it’s entirely reasonable for me to question the OP’s definition of ‘malice’.

I agree. I would say being called a ‘retard’ would qualify, but we should wait for their answer.

Feel free to do so, but you’d just make my point – posting a tired old saw will not be well received.

Who’s point would I be making? I am asserting that many atheists seem to not be able to debate without resorting to name calling or other personal attacks. What was the point YOU were trying to make? That I am right?

 

[whatever]

I was refering to the atheists I encountered on youtube.

Did you ask them? It’s unlikely anybody here knows the individuals well enough to answer in their stead.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Did you ask them? It’s unlikely anybody here knows the individuals well enough to answer in their stead.

Kind of hard to ask someone a question when they either block you from contacting them, or call you names for asking questions. I was hoping for people’s opinions here.

 

[Suat]

Well, based on these comments in your first post, I (as an atheist) would say that you are the same as he is :

But I guess that’s the typical nastiness of internet atheists…

I’m happy my belief system doesn’t require me to hate other people, and act so maliciously.

Vast generalizations and ignorant comments, as his were.

 

[whatever]

Have you argued the EXISTANCE of God with any atheist?

Of course I have, and we agreed that the common definitions of ‘god’ are incoherent or epistemologically questionable; we further agreed that ignoring the above there’s insufficient evidence in support of the god hypothesis and that our time is better spend doing something more fruitful until a theist comes up with a new twist.

I could have swore I was talking about character to begin with.

Indeed you were. In #14 you said that an atheist who passionately hold his or her position must be hateful, or close to it. Unless I missed a comment, your next one was #35, in which you pontificated about the alleged weakness of the atheist position, prompting atheists to fall to anger.

Didn’t I contrast the position of atheists to theists?

Not that I noticed.

How does reversing the roles add any value to the argument?

Would you care to explicitly state the argument you refer to?

This has nothing to do with our discussion.

We don’t have a discussion and I would even hesitate to call it a debate. Another common complaint of atheists about theists is their obliviousness to nuance and subtlety, resulting in blunter language than proper decorum calls for.

Who’s point would I be making? I am asserting that many atheists seem to not be able to debate without resorting to name calling or other personal attacks. What was the point YOU were trying to make? That I am right?

My point, of course. Rude atheists exist, rude theists exist, and having your patience worn down by attrition and testily answering tired old saws is not the same as malice. If you knowingly post a tired old theist saw in an atheist forum, you have no grounds to complain if it’s not well received.

Technically, I don’t know what your point really is until such time as you quantify how many atheists many atheists are. Is it 5, 10, one hundred, or 50% of those you’ve encountered? It doesn’t matter, though. I can see how your participation in an atheist forum might unfold.

Whatever.

 

[whatever]

Kind of hard to ask someone a question when they either block you from contacting them, or call you names for asking questions. I was hoping for people’s opinions here.

What makes you think anybody here is qualified to answer the question about these individuals? And Suat has a point, you generalize a bit hastily.

 

[Hellisreal]

That man would NEVER come here to share his views. You Tube is more his thing, and his “audience” too.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

Of course I have, and we agreed that the common definitions of ‘god’ are incoherent or epistemologically questionable; we further agreed that ignoring the above there’s insufficient evidence in support of the god hypothesis and that our time is better spend doing something more fruitful until a theist comes up with a new twist.

That was EXACTLY what I said. Thank you for providing the proof of my point.

Indeed you were. In #14 you said that an atheist who passionately hold his or her position must be hateful, or close to it. Unless I missed a comment, your next one was #35, in which you pontificated about the alleged weakness of the atheist position, prompting atheists to fall to anger.

Do you consider unfortunate paraphrasing a valid counterpoint? I never said that they were hateful. I also never said they had a weak argument.

Not that I noticed.

Would you care to explicitly state the argument you refer to?

Go back and re-read the inverse argument you have offered as a rebuke. You might find the original meaning, but only if you read the sentences together as I wrote them.

We don’t have a discussion and I would even hesitate to call it a debate. Another common complaint of atheists about theists is their obliviousness to nuance and subtlety, resulting in blunter language than proper decorum calls for.

How fortunate for me that you have been neither. Sometimes honesty and truth doesn’t need a pretty wrapper of meaningless, or nearly meaningless, words. Perhaps those that fancy themselves as intellectuals like to use vague language and pass it off as being too complex to be understood when in reality they have no idea what they are trying to convey. I’m not one of those people.

My point, of course. Rude atheists exist, rude theists exist, and having your patience worn down by attrition and testily answering tired old saws is not the same as malice. If you knowingly post a tired old theist saw in an atheist forum, you have no grounds to complain if it’s not well received.

Technically, I don’t know what your point really is until such time as you quantify how many atheists many atheists are. Is it 5, 10, one hundred, or 50% of those you’ve encountered? It doesn’t matter, though. I can see how your participation in an atheist forum might unfold.

Whatever.

More than once there has been mention of generalities (usually followed by another generality by the accuser). The simple matter is you can either be general in your assertions, or be specific toward a single person. There is no way to be neither and make any sort of point, now is there? And since we are trying to be nice and not name names it is going to have to be the former. I see that you have taken to the same writing style so I’ll assume you agree.

To answer the ‘tired old saw’ accusation. If you put yourself in a public forum you can hardly expect to not be approached. To somehow insist that you are only to be addressed using new and interesting arguments in response to the same old atheist drivel is, frankly, narcissistic. Why should they get to decide who is enlightened enough to entertain them and not have a shred of human decency for the others?

These will be my concluding remarks on this topic. There is nothing more to be gained by conversing with somebody who’s only counterpoint is to reverse your own thoughts and call them new.

God Bless.

 

[exoflare]

or 3) just don’t care enough to advertise they are atheists therefore you never really notice them.

I can see that.

I’m an Agnostic/borderline Athiest but I don’t have anything against religious people, let alone rising to the level of maliciousness. I’m also not ignorant and have studied several religions. I was even baptized Mormon at one point.(although I never believed in it)

Okay. But I was specifically referring to hardcore, convinced of their beliefs, atheists here really…

My mother recently remarried after the death of my father and my new extended family is Catholic, and researching their religion I came across here. I find the mix of viewpoints to be interesting.

Good for you… glad to have you on the forums.

 

[TheGoodLife]

He is just another nasty, mean, hateful, arrogant atheist.

But I guess that’s the typical nastiness of internet atheists. I am very disappointed. I was hoping Brett Keane would be the first reasonable internet atheist I would run across. I guess there are none.

I’m happy my belief system doesn’t require me to hate other people, and act so maliciously.

Just a thought…for all we know, this Keane person could be a Christian posing as a hateful atheist just to give atheism a bad name.

The atheists who I know in real life are kind, loving people (some moreso than the religious crowd). They are pro-humanity, meaning they respect the cherish all life and truly are working toward making Earth a better place. They just simply don’t buy into the existence of an unseen God. They don’t believe in abiding by an unseen God who believes that certain groups are inferior (i.e. homosexuals and women). For them, religion is just a thing made up by people who seek comfort and discipline. These atheists I know say they don’t need a God or religion to keep them on the straight-and-narrow.

I believe there is a Creator, but I don’t think any less of my atheist friends. I’m sorry you had to deal with such a cruel character on the Internet. That person is in a league of his own and shouldn’t be put into the same group as the majority of atheists.

 

[cheddarsox]

That man would NEVER come here to share his views. You Tube is more his thing, and his “audience” too.

Don’t be too sure about that. I belong to another religious forum, where people responded to his hateful videos and he showed up to “discuss and learn”, but was his same hateful, name calling, rude self. He pretty quickly got himself banned, but not before causing a good bit of mischief.

He was not interested in debate, learning, listening, etc, just in making fun, name calling, and trying to show how stupid everyone who doesn’t hold his viewpoint is.

 

[Hellisreal]

Don’t be too sure about that. I belong to another religious forum, where people responded to his hateful videos and he showed up to “discuss and learn”, but was his same hateful, name calling, rude self. He pretty quickly got himself banned, but not before causing a good bit of mischief.

He was not interested in debate, learning, listening, etc, just in making fun, name calling, and trying to show how stupid everyone who doesn’t hold his viewpoint is.

I dont know what to say except I am hoping he will not come here, if he cant be civil.

 

[CCM08]

I think it is wise to separate an atheist (someone that really has no belief in God) from individuals that are angry with God for whatever reason. Someone that’s actually an atheist isn’t going to bother wasting the little time he/she has to exist (in their opinion) with an impossible argument, proving a negative.

 

[nichjake]

I think it is wise to separate an atheist (someone that really has no belief in God) from individuals that are angry with God for whatever reason. Someone that’s actually an atheist isn’t going to bother wasting the little time he/she has to exist (in their opinion) with an impossible argument, proving a negative.

Finally, something I can fully agree with! There are, in my opinion two classes of Atheists. Those like me who’s disbelief is rooted in calm logic and natural conclusions…and those who’s disbelief is rooted in anger over something the god they used to believe in failed to do or because something bad happened. There are of course people who are just angry in general…those are the people to stay away from

 

[Ahimsa]

Atheists aren’t malicious. They’re simply misunderstood. They want a Big-Mac with cheese, just like the rest of us.