Atheist Egos - Are all atheists like this?

[MistressCaridad]

I've attended a Christian community group / bible study for a majority of the year, so I'm clearly open minded about Christianity.

The thing is, you're calling Atheists weird and insinuating that they're stupid hypocrites while you presumably take your take your meaning of life from a book that makes nothing but unsubstantiated claims or otherwise outright false claims. The core tenant of the Abrahamic faiths is fealty to a being that there's no proof exists.

Moreover, the Christian philosophy in particular is one that promotes a slave mentality. You are nothing without God and everything you have is because of God. Making an effort to be subservient to an imaginary being doesn't make any sense.

You and other atheist bashers ITT are propping up a strawman caricature of fedora atheists, when the vast majority are not strongly against Christianity, and simply find no reason to believe it.

I’m nonreligious myself and I think that hardcore fundamentalist stances in any belief system are harmful, unproductive and don’t make one any more “enlightened” or “smart” or “better” than anyone else.

I don’t think the point of this thread was “reeeeeeee atheists bad Christians good” at all. I think the point was more “if someone has to be a cunt to prove their belief system is ‘better’ than anyone else’s then that just makes them a cunt and not any ‘better’”. That was what I was trying to say. The fact that Dawkins and those like him don’t believe in a god or supernatural realm doesn’t make them an asshole, it’s that they can be cunts about it and make every discussion turn back to the EVULS OF REEEEEEEEEELIGION that makes them assholes. (It’s a shame about old Dick, he really did some decent scientific work before he got latched onto his “I AM VERY SMART” brand of atheism.)

 

[Cedric_Eff]

I’m nonreligious myself and I think that hardcore fundamentalist stances in any belief system are harmful, unproductive and don’t make one any more “enlightened” or “smart” or “better” than anyone else.

I don’t think the point of this thread was “reeeeeeee atheists bad Christians good” at all. I think the point was more “if someone has to be a cunt to prove their belief system is ‘better’ than anyone else’s then that just makes them a cunt and not any ‘better’”. That was what I was trying to say. The fact that Dawkins and those like him don’t believe in a god or supernatural realm doesn’t make them an asshole, it’s that they can be cunts about it and make every discussion turn back to the EVULS OF REEEEEEEEEELIGION that makes them assholes. (It’s a shame about old Dick, he really did some decent scientific work before he got latched onto his “I AM VERY SMART” brand of atheism.)

I can tell you that the relative I’m talking about doesn’t even know who Richard Dawkins is.

 

[Syaoran Li]

I think the worst part is that Dawkins later became a victim of his own creation when the Evangelical Right lost steam and radical Islam became protected under the Progressive Stack.

Dawkins even mellowed out very slightly later on and IIRC, later denounced the dangerhairs and pseudo-intellectual fedora atheists.

Also, I think the late Christopher Hitchens is probably the one most responsible for militant atheism, both the fedora and dangerhair wings of it. And unlike Dawkins, he was neither a scientist nor a true intellectual, just a mildly witty journalist douche who was lucky enough to die before SJW callout culture got really big.

I mean, I am a religious person myself, but I think militant fundamentalists of any belief are unpleasant at best and dangerous at worst, whether it be Evangelical fundies, jihadists, or radical atheists.

Remember that the Puritans, the Taliban, and the Bolsheviks all had one thing in common.

They were all violent fundamentalist whackjobs.