Angry atheists

I see alot of angry atheists on this forum.
People who think that talking down to their opponents make them better.
I guess its not just confined to atheists. But there cirtainly are alot more than the theists on this site.
This is not a comparrison between atheism and anger, or arrogance. Just a slight towards these particular people, you know who you are. Atheism is supposed to be about intelectual honesty. Yet arrogance clouds the mind, stops you from accepting that you know you may be wrong, if you come on here to show people errors in their thinking, you wont do it by upsetting them. If however you come here to flame others belifes, I feel sorry for you, and hope one day you can come to terms with your faults

See hear, if if one person believes in rationality and another does not, they will never be able settler the differences in their beliefs and justifications with a rational debate and irrational one cant work, so the rationalist must try and convince the other his beliefs are wrong through any manner that can get though to the other.

If reason wont get through, we are left with more emotional and physical methods.

In the case of the Internet, emotional traps and attacks against the irrationalists line of thinking are all the rationalist can use.

Effort are often futile because irrationalists are adept at being emotionally ignorant.

The last and final non-physical solution for the rationalist is for the ridicule of the irrationalist for his beliefs, that is for the people around irrationalist to ridicule him for his beliefs.

Looks like theists spell in mysterious ways too.

Im dyslexic deal with it

With good reason.

can`t see the forest for the trees? a conversation usually goes like this (A-atheist T-theist)
A: Theres no reason to postulate a god because 1. By definition its less probable then assuming a universe always existed. 2. Consciousness can’t exist without assuming regularities in the environment, which require a pre-existing environment. 3. theres no evidence or reason to suggest it past appeals to emotion/irrationality.
T: No no, personal experience, rejection of probability assessment, you’re arrogant, you’re arrogant.

I haven’t had a discussion with any seriously religious or faithful person on this forum who doesn’t jump to ‘you’re arrogant’ past my first post, and its because I talk about statistical probability and evidence. If your belief can be sensically compared to superman in terms of probability/evidence, i’m not being arrogant to say so.

Arrogance in what? Most atheists accept that Thor, Superman, Easterbunny, God, they could all exist, what we say is that theres no evidence for them and no coherent way to suggest they exist. For statistical probability reasons, for reasons highlighted in artificial intelligence research and numerous biological sciences, theres no demonstratably good reason to say they exist without significant evidence, which there is none.

I can’t come in this thread and start talking about the spaghetti monster creating the universe, and thats obviously ridiculous for a lot of reasons.

  1. Where did the spaghetti come from? Where did its eyes come from? Where did its brain and noodly apendages come from?

They were always there and created everything else.

That is just a statistical leap of such bounds that it doesn’t, can’t, make any sense. It would be more sensical to just assume a universe was always there, or some basic property of it, no matter how unbelievable it sounds to you or me, because no matter how insane that is, postulating somthing that much more complex and unlikely without massive evidence is just that much more insane and crazy.

eyes don’t pop out of thin air, brains don’t pop out of thin air, and suggesting gods do isn’t any better, infact its a lot worse.

Theres an old creationist arguement that says the chance of an eye coming from random chance is too small, evolutionists agree, the chance that by chance atoms/cells would come together to form an eye is too small to ever happen, the great leap statistically can’t be made, so, one needs to explain how that eye ended up as an eye without being that way originally. The only way to explain this is by extremely slow, step by step modification.

There is no other anwser for how an eye could exist, there is no other explanation for how anything complex with specialized function could exist. Let alone such a complex thing as a god.

Ridicule is not exclusive to the rational thinker, it proves nothing, it cannot further any argument because anyone can do it, wether right or wrong about a subject. Ridicule is highly unconvincing, it shuts people off, puts their barriers up. Someone is far less likely to accept something if they are under attack. Common use your head. Ridicule in these cases are also not the last solution used. I myself have become angry when somone just cant grasp a concept, I have no problem with that. It is a common occurrance a natural reaction when frustrated. What gauls me is when people go in all guns blasing from the onset, this is not a last resort its the first thing tried, and generally means that the person has already made their mind up and will accept no argument at all no matter the content of the post. Again this is not a slight against atheists just the ones that have not learnt the vaule of politeness.

Ive explained in other posts why your comparrisons like these are uncompelling. However I dont know why your bringing it onto this thread, this has nothing at all to do with the arguments that atheists use. Discussions are about arguments its about the conduct used in these arguments


The conduct is used because people who don’t know much about physics, probability, biology, etc, make widely improbable and crazy claims, and act as if people are arrogant to dismiss them, and then they point to appeals to emotion/irrationality when people say:

  1. theres no evidence, and its outsided reasonable statistical probability. theres an agenda to even asy it without evidence.

Theists respond poorly when their beliefs about god, the afterlife, they’re dead family members etc are questioned, they respond rudely with little justificaiton, hence the percieved arrogance in the responses you get.

no you didn’t.


Typically, very few non-religious people are willing to tell another person that they are going to suffer hellfire for eternity for not believing in a specific god. I’m sure you can understand how that might tend to upset the non-believer. :unamused: Some of the folks might even be a bit angry when confronted with such claims. And as for arrogance, there are a couple of theists of the Christian variety in the forums of late that ought to make even theists angry.

Like all generalizations, you might be just a little wide of the mark.

Its not the argument that makes people call you arrogant, its the insults that you place with them and your rejection of arguments without placing a counter argument. People disagree with me all the time, yet I cannot think of a time when I have been called arrogant. If everyone is calling you arrogant in your arguments perhaps that says more about you than them.

Yeah I realy did.

Thats not the case though is it friend. If it were all scientists would be atheist. Your responses have been poor, so poor that in our last encounter you could not even respond to the arguments that I proposed. Saying something does not make it true wheter you are atheist or not, you need to back up your arguments and relate them to what the other person is saying rather than using arguments that dont relate at all or my personal favorate, just denouce the argument as being wrong without even posting an argument.

I’m not an angry atheist … I generally have an unpleasant temperment, but that’s Sicilian, not atheism.

Or did you mean angry about being atheist?

Or angry at other atheists?

That’d be: “I’m dyslexic, deal with it.” Or does your condition involve punctuation too…? Mind you - at least you capitalized your ‘I’. Which puts you ahead of the “the only other things i rite r on my cellphone” crew. So gold stars all round. =D>

But you missed a golden opportunity to spell ‘dyslexic’ in a wildly comic fashion. Ah well. #-o

yeah, look at the statistics how many of the top scientists are atheist/agnostic? What was it, 90/80%. Its a huge percent of them.

You didn’t explain anything away, either.

The only reason fundamentalism flourishes is because its fed by an environment of moderation, though, a lot of people are fundamentalist 50% of americans or so apparently. Another reason to be angry is that it isn’t secular/humanism thats preventing stem-cell research, etc.not that theres anything moderate about suggesting a god without evidence, thats radical by nature.

So not only is faith nonsensical and baseless whether the claims could be true or not, faith is demonstratably harmful again and again.

I can’t even believe we’re having this conversation, tell me in this thread how its more likely to postulate a god then by assuming some basic environment always existed, how does that make sense exactly?

Im not making a generalisation. This is aimed at specific people not atheists as a whole. I actually like weak atheism I think they have a very logical view on things and give very compelling and interesting arguments. As a deist I dont get along with the dogma of christianity, but is it fair that all theists be put in with the same ilk? Either way I think its the flamers, (and they do tend to be atheists on the religious forum at least.) that make this place unenjoyable, which is a shame because I love listening and arguing on the subject. Remember that to the fundie christians Im going to hell too :frowning: