Internet Atheism

I won't go out of my way to start on religious people but if there is a discussion I will make my beliefs known, but I don't think less of religious people as such.

I think that faith can be a positive thing in many people's lives and that many religious people do, if they're honest, know the things their religion states can't be or aren't necessarily 'true' but it's not important and that their faith is their faith.

Now on the one hand I think that's crazy person behaviour but on the other I think it's fair enough.

Personally I have had very very few experiences where someone has tried to push their beliefs on me, and it's never been a friend or an acquaintance, only a person who is actively out to convert strangers.

I don't think it really matters if you're religious or not as long as you conduct yourself like a normal reasonable person and I think these days religious nutters are pretty rare.
 
The problem is rooted in Richard Dawkins who has relatively successfully promoted his brand of militant atheism in best-selling novels such as 'the god dellusion' etc. He doesnt say let it be, he says get out there, challenge people and fight it.

Internet Atheists are the Jehova Witnesses of the modern age, and just as indoctrinated. It would be amusing, except closing the front door is rather final, but people on the internet come back again, and again, and again, and again, and SURPRISE again with the same old tired arguments.
 
No problem with atheism or religion I only have an issue with aggressive forms of either, too many people in Internet debates think that it is acceptable to use language in a way they never would in a normal face to face discussion of an issue. People on both sides of the argument make it impossible.
 
A very wise man (imho) once said;

People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with that statement.
 
The Internet doesn't have time to pander to the feelings of people with stupid. Many people try to do their bit to help people afflicted with stupid but there just isn't enough investment and the war against stupid isn't a war you can win.

Jokes aside there isn't anything wrong with being spiritual in my opinion, but organised religions are typically another beast. The unbelievers are judged just as hard from the religious folk, except the unbelievers attempt to use logic and reason whilst religion is based on faith.

I know which I prefer but I don't normally feel the need to belittle people for not getting it. It doesn't help that science itself is flawed. I mean it'd be great if it weren't for all those pesky people involved but it's hard to have faith in science when there are documented cases of scientists basically making **** up.

Meh, we're all stupid at the end of the day anyway. I'm agonostic either way. Theres no way to really know what started it all. I have fair doubt that either science or religion will ever really answer the question either way. It's not worth fighting over.
 
Last edited:
The Internet tends to be used more regularly by (comparably, although you wouldn't think so on OcUK :p) people of greater intelligence, more broadly minded and more in tune with science. Naturally, they are more likely to reject tales and 'beliefs', etc.

That's why the Internet may seem 'atheist'. That's also why communities like Reddit, Hackernews may also seem liberal as opposed to conservative.
 
BunnyKillBot said:
The problem is rooted in Richard Dawkins who has relatively successfully promoted his brand of militant atheism in best-selling novels such as 'the god dellusion' etc. He doesnt say let it be, he says get out there, challenge people and fight it.
Click to expand...

Religion is a detriment to this world... it is worth fighting a war against. Hence the need for a military ;)
 
Hatter The Mad said:
The Internet tends to be used more regularly by (comparably, although you wouldn't think so on OcUK :p) people of greater intelligence, more broadly minded and more in tune with science. Naturally, they are more likely to reject tales and 'beliefs', etc.

That's why the Internet may seem 'atheist'. That's also why communities like Reddit, Hackernews may also seem liberal as opposed to conservative.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's more broad minded. The below is a good example.

Hatter The Mad said:
Religion is a detriment to this world... it is worth fighting a war against. Hence the need for a military ;)
Click to expand...
 
Some people are just curious.
But some just can't respect other's beliefs.

I disagree with many aspects of many religions and atheism also, but i respect the people and their beliefs. Well... so long as they don't try and ram it in my face.
Nobody has the right to force a belief on others. Inform, teach and debate, but approach with respect.

With a lot of things on the internet, you're anonymous and a psychological barrier drops where people have the ability to let rip at others with new confidence and a lack of consequence.
 
BunnyKillBot said:
The problem is rooted in Richard Dawkins who has relatively successfully promoted his brand of militant atheism in best-selling novels such as 'the god dellusion' etc. He doesnt say let it be, he says get out there, challenge people and fight it.
Click to expand...

I love how the bar of the use 'militant' is much lower for an atheist than it is for a believer. Isn’t a militant someone engaged in warfare? When was the last time you saw Dawkins with a rocket launcher?

The problem here is atheists are being held to a lower level of what expected of them, unless you STFU and keep you non-belief to yourself then you are labelled a ‘militant atheist’, whilst of course the religious can go around ‘spreading the word’, selling books on the subject, doing talks and the like and yet that is fine and not ‘militant’.

Go and turn on a Sky box for example and show me how many hours a week are aimed at the religious and how many are given to people like Dawkins. So you’ll sit by with nearly 100 ‘God Channels’ and with the BBC practically becoming a spokesperson for the Anglican church every Sunday (Songs Of Praise, the Big Questions etc) but Dawkins gets two documentaries on Channel 4 and suddenly we have a ‘militant’ on our hands.

Have you ever been to hotel and found one of Dawkins’ book in the room? I haven’t but I’ve found plenty of Bibles. Are there buildings all over the country whose only purpose is to covert and maintain people into atheism? No but there are countless churches, synagogues and mosques.

If Richard Dawkins, by releasing a few books, doing a couple of documentaries and being a public speaker make him a ‘militant’ then that must make your average vicar an ‘extremist’.
 
Last edited:
Rossi~ said:
Some people are just curious.
But some just can't respect other's beliefs.

I disagree with many aspects of many religions and atheism also, but i respect the people and their beliefs. Well... so long as they don't try and ram it in my face.
Nobody has the right to force a belief on others. Inform, teach and debate, but approach with respect.

With a lot of things on the internet, you're anonymous and a psychological barrier drops where people have the ability to let rip at others with new confidence and a lack of consequence.
Click to expand...

So why is evolution taught as fact to kids? Is that not forcing beliefs on them? It doesn't matter whether you believe evolution is fact, it should be taught as theory.

I find it amazing that atheist parents are happy telling their kids about the tooth fairy yet not God.
 
Last edited:
Jason2 said:
So why is evolution taught has fact to kids? Is that not forcing beliefs on them? It doesn't whether you believe evolution is fact, it should be taught as theory.

I find it amazing that atheist parents are happy telling their kids about the tooth fairy yet not God.
Click to expand...

I got taught evolution and creationism at school as well as other religious topics in RS / RE lessons. A range of belief systems.
Parents choose how their kids are brought up and what they learn. That's the way it'll always be.

However, we're talking about us Adults in the 'world' we call the Internet.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Nazi is, but militant isn't:
Adjective
Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause: "militant Islamic fundamentalists".
Click to expand...

True to an extent, though people often use the term 'militant atheist' to simply describe someone who is outspoken in their non-belief. I would never describe a preacher as a 'militant Christian' even if he was standing on a street corner telling sinners they were going to hell. I see estebanrey has already addressed this as I was typing this out too and made a similar, more eloquent point!
 
Jason2 said:
So why is evolution taught has fact to kids? Is that not forcing beliefs on them? It doesn't whether you believe evolution is fact, it should be taught as theory.

I find it amazing that atheist parents are happy telling their kids about the tooth fairy yet not God.
Click to expand...

It is taught as 'theory', but I think you need to look up what theory means--as per usual a misunderstanding of the word leads you to believe, from what you've said, that it's "not 100%, therefore it shouldn't be taught". You don't get what a theory is in that case and you misunderstand the fundamentals of what science is and why it's so widely accepted as a source of information and understanding, and I don't want to enlighten you when the information is freely online.

And really? Comparing the tooth fairy to God? One will dictate a larger portion of your life, the other one will give you 50p every other 3 months until puberty... A little silly.
 
Offer me an alternative to the big bang and evolution which doesn't rely on vague and spurious claims of the existence of a flying spaghetti monster and I will entertain it.

As it stands, the viewpoints of the main world religions (and I rather suspect all religions) are so ridiculous and poorly argued for that they deserve each and every morsel of ridicule they receive.

In my opinion, of course ;)
 
Jason2 said:
So why is evolution taught as fact to kids? Is that not forcing beliefs on them? It doesn't matter whether you believe evolution is fact, it should be taught as theory.

I find it amazing that atheist parents are happy telling their kids about the tooth fairy yet not God.
Click to expand...

Evolution is taught as a theory. It's taught in the first place because as far as we know it's near as correct as can be. There are numerous Gods, some religions have several. They can't all be right, so a reasonable person must conclude that it's possible none of them are real.

As for the tooth fairy, simple minds need icons and stories to help them make sense of things they don't understand
 
I do love how internet atheists say that religion is close minded, idiotic and its against there right to have someone's belief force upon them, the irony of the matter is of course internet atheists do exactly that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom