11 Things an Atheist Can't Do

[Ltl89]

I don't know what you're referring to. The implication is that there are a lot of atheists suing people for trivial things and I don't know this to be a thing so I need something specific. Meanwhile, I can find plenty of examples of religious people actually trying to get their religion pushed onto other people, cases like banning books from curriculums or trying to get creationism taught alongside science in public schools.

A prime example would be David Silverman's style of running American Atheists.  I agree with his views on religion, but let's not act like he can't be condescending to others in his presentation and sometimes sues for the purpose of getting attention.  This is coming from someone who is a stanch believer of the separation of church and state.  But suing a locality for something like having a Christmas tree outside of townhall seems a bit frivolous.  I'd argue that the christmas tree is used in such a widespread way that it hardly presents a spiritual endorsement of Christianity.  The same can be said about the "9/11 cross".  It was part of the rubble and the fact that it signified a spiritual importance to some people, doesn't make it a state endorsement of Christianity.  However, I do think they fight some good battles as well and help advance a more secular society.  It's just those small things that I think are either frivolous or a waste of time compared to the more important issues we face in the atheist community. 

That being said, the religious cases exist as well.  Both are equally problematic, though it's more rampent in the religious community as they have much more power and influence compared to atheist groups. 

[Ltl89]

NSFW due to some language. Is this guy too "loud"? I hope you'll watch the whole thing if you're going to comment on it. It's not that long.

As for this video, it's going for humor while trying to make a point through entertainment.  I don't have a problem with it at all, probably because I agree with the sentiment, but I can see some people getting upset with the tone he uses.  For me, it would be a problem if he spoke one on one to another person calling them those names.  However, doing a form of stand up is a bit different than saying those things directly aimed at them in conversation.  I suppose I give comedy some room because it's striving to make people laugh and entertain. 

*Edit.  I'd like to note that by agreeing with his sentiment I mean that I agree with his point, but don't agree with the name calling.  Though I try to excuse stand ups as mockery is part of humor and a comedian's job.  However, that shouldn't be the tone of an in person civil debate and how we speak to and view one another in general society.  I'm not sure if that makes sense, but that's just my own opinion on the subject. 

[DriftingCrow]

NSFW due to some language. Is this guy too "loud"? I hope you'll watch the whole thing if you're going to comment on it. It's not that long.

I don't think he's too loud. Though, I am not too sure what you'd like commented on, the what makes a book sacred thing or the language/tone LTL commented on. 

[dalebert]

I think the measure of what's "too loud" should depend on what you're responding to. For instance, I completely understand someone responding in a "very loud" way to acts by the very loudly hateful Westboro Baptist Church. On the other end, I have some religious friends myself who aren't hateful at all and my tone is obviously going to be very different with them. Without context, I think it's rather ridiculous to sweepingly call atheists "too loud" or "obnoxious". It is an attempt to silence them and de-legitimatize their anger which in some cases is actually very legitimate and valid. There are plenty of religious people who get up on soap boxes and spew hateful thoughts. That's their free speech and I won't deny them that. On the other hand, I won't criticize a comparative response by an atheist or agnostic who wants to get up on their soap box and respond in kind.

[Jess42]

I think the measure of what's "too loud" should depend on what you're responding to. For instance, I completely understand someone responding in a "very loud" way to acts by the very loudly hateful Westboro Baptist Church. On the other end, I have some religious friends myself who aren't hateful at all and my tone is obviously going to be very different with them. Without context, I think it's rather ridiculous to sweepingly call atheists "too loud" or "obnoxious". It is an attempt to silence them and de-legitimatize their anger which in some cases is actually very legitimate and valid. There are plenty of religious people who get up on soap boxes and spew hateful thoughts. That's their free speech and I won't deny them that. On the other hand, I won't criticize a comparative response by an atheist or agnostic who wants to get up on their soap box and respond in kind.

Your brilliance is scary. I definately agree dalebert. Kind of like all the stink that was made becuaus Satanists at Harvard, I believe, were wanting to have a Black Mass. Freedom of religion as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone should never be critisized. Me personally, I think the founding Fathers should have worded it differenty to Freedom of Beliefs. Even Atheism is a belief system because you have to believe that there is no God. Still though I can't see why so much animosoty from both sides.

[Ltl89]

I think the measure of what's "too loud" should depend on what you're responding to. For instance, I completely understand someone responding in a "very loud" way to acts by the very loudly hateful Westboro Baptist Church. On the other end, I have some religious friends myself who aren't hateful at all and my tone is obviously going to be very different with them. Without context, I think it's rather ridiculous to sweepingly call atheists "too loud" or "obnoxious". It is an attempt to silence them and de-legitimatize their anger which in some cases is actually very legitimate and valid. There are plenty of religious people who get up on soap boxes and spew hateful thoughts. That's their free speech and I won't deny them that. On the other hand, I won't criticize a comparative response by an atheist or agnostic who wants to get up on their soap box and respond in kind.

I agree with most of what you say here.  Often there are many atheists that are accused of being obnoxious and impolite when they aren't being that way.  Even though I feel it happens, I think the "rude atheist" is a minority that happens to be vocal and is no way reflective on the majority of us. And yeah, I have noticed that it's often a strawman used to silence debate.  Sadly, people sometimes take disagreement or diversity to be a personal affront.  In any case, I just wish the overall conversation about religion was more polite and constructive.  I'm sure you like I have talked to a theist about these things in a civil manner only to be told we deserve to rot in hell for simply not agreeing with them.  Charming, right?  I just try to be careful in not becoming the equivalent of that on the other side, even if it can be insanely frustrating at times.

As for the Westboro Baptist Church, I feel the best strategy is to ignore them.  Those people feed off of the attention they get, though I certainly understand the strong reactions against them.  They don't deserve civility to be extended to them and no one would be obnoxious for verbally putting them in their place after all that they've done. 

[Ltl89]

Your brilliance is scary. I definately agree dalebert. Kind of like all the stink that was made becuaus Satanists at Harvard, I believe, were wanting to have a Black Mass. Freedom of religion as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone should never be critisized. Me personally, I think the founding Fathers should have worded it differenty to Freedom of Beliefs. Even Atheism is a belief system because you have to believe that there is no God. Still though I can't see why so much animosoty from both sides.

I see what you mean, but a lack of a belief isn't really a belief system. 

[dalebert]

As for the Westboro Baptist Church, I feel the best strategy is to ignore them.

I agree. I just used them as the most obvious example. I find it difficult to even be angry with them because they seem so completely insane to me.

I see what you mean, but a lack of a belief isn't really a belief system. 

Exactly. Some make a distinction with two different terms--strong atheist and weak atheist. A strong atheist is less common. That is someone who has a positive belief that there is no god. Most, myself included, would be called a weak atheist, i.e. lack of belief due to lack of any particular reason to believe. A weak atheist is open to a change in beliefs upon the discovery of new evidence.

[Arch]

Sometimes, the mere mention of a person's atheism is treated as a loud and obnoxious pronouncement. The same thing often happens when a gay man keeps a "couples" picture on his desk at work or when a lesbian mentions that she and her partner want to adopt a baby. Such people can experience aggressive accusations that they are shoving their "lifestyle" down everyone else's throats. Actually, they are just living their lives--the way everyone else does, with an occasional quiet reference to how they live. Most atheists aren't on a soapbox; they are just living their lives. And they sometimes get a disproportionate response from non-atheists.

[Ltl89]

Exactly. Some make a distinction with two different terms--strong atheist and weak atheist. A strong atheist is less common. That is someone who has a positive belief that there is no god. Most, myself included, would be called a weak atheist, i.e. lack of belief due to lack of any particular reason to believe. A weak atheist is open to a change in beliefs upon the discovery of new evidence.

Yeah, I would fall in the weak atheist category as well; however, I usually say I'm an agnostic-atheist or a secular humanist when identifying myself.  I probably should stop doing that because it tends to confuse the hell out of people, lol.  But the fact is there most likely will never be a way to fully disprove or prove a god exists.  Carl Sagan's "Dragon in the garage" argument illustrates this pretty well.  I can't see how anyone could claim definitive knowledge either way, so I can't understand strong atheism.

Sometimes, the mere mention of a person's atheism is treated as a loud and obnoxious pronouncement. The same thing often happens when a gay man keeps a "couples" picture on his desk at work or when a lesbian mentions that she and her partner want to adopt a baby. Such people can experience aggressive accusations that they are shoving their "lifestyle" down everyone else's throats. Actually, they are just living their lives--the way everyone else does, with an occasional quiet reference to how they live. Most atheists aren't on a soapbox; they are just living their lives. And they sometimes get a disproportionate response from non-atheists.

That's true.  I've experienced that when opening up my mouth in my own family about these things.  Everyone else is allowed an opinion, but I'm a bitch if I just say how I feel and it happens to disagree with their stance. 

[Hikari]

I would certainly say at least those who were referred to as "strong" Atheists do indeed have a belief system, the belief is in a lack of a god, and usually the supremacy of science, which is most certainly a belief. There is even a certain dogma attached to the absolute resolute belief that there is no god, where there really isn't on the idea that god is unlikely, I daresay it even requires a certain amount of faith to absolutely refute the existence of god.

I think one would have to classify my thinking as some sort of belief because not only do I not believe in divinity, I also actively do not want to believe, I am not some impartial person upon which evidence would have any effect. I am not the sort that needs Dawkins like arguments to refute god, I don't want to believe, therefore I don't, it is a much more emotional choice, and one that requires a certain amount of blind faith since I am not really looking for or at any evidence that runs counter to what I want to believe.

I am also weary of the idea that lack of a belief does not constitute a belief in it's own right due to the fact this line of thinking could be used as a justification to discriminate against atheists of all type.

[DriftingCrow]

I think the measure of what's "too loud" should depend on what you're responding to. For instance, I completely understand someone responding in a "very loud" way to acts by the very loudly hateful Westboro Baptist Church. On the other end, I have some religious friends myself who aren't hateful at all and my tone is obviously going to be very different with them. Without context, I think it's rather ridiculous to sweepingly call atheists "too loud" or "obnoxious". It is an attempt to silence them and de-legitimatize their anger which in some cases is actually very legitimate and valid. There are plenty of religious people who get up on soap boxes and spew hateful thoughts. That's their free speech and I won't deny them that. On the other hand, I won't criticize a comparative response by an atheist or agnostic who wants to get up on their soap box and respond in kind.

Yeah tone should always depend on context. Everyone of all beliefs (or non-beliefs) has the potential to be an a-hole.

Uninvited, unprovoked discussion can be "too loud" -- I was at Starbucks a few months ago sitting near two men talking about Christianity, where I just happened to look like  a Muslim woman to most people. We were all minding our own business when in the two men's discussion one man said "[. . . ] earth was created in seven days [. . .]" to which a person nearby putting cream in his coffee turned towards them and said loudly (most people looked up from what they were doing) "you actually believe that the earth was made in seven days!" the man replied "no, I said some people believe it was made in seven days". The man then looked directly at me and said "good, only idiots would believe such a thing. I can't understand how anyone could believe that," then he left.  Idk, I have no problem with discussions about things, but I wonder what the man would've done if the reply was "yes I do think it was made in seven days," got into an argument about how stupid he is to his face? I don't like how he made presumptions about me and looked directly in my eyes as he said "only idiots would believe such a thing". Anyways, Christians, Jews, etc. do the same thing, so it's impossible to says that all members of such a group is  "too loud". WBC I'd say is definitely "too loud" for my taste, but they're not all Christians.

I think the definition of "too loud" would be something like being unduly argumentative in a time and place and with people that its not suited for? I think the level of aggressiveness can be a big factor on if something is too loud --WBC uses horrible language and tactics which makes it very aggressive, the man saying "idiots" was aggressive. I think those interfaith debates are pretty interesting, and are not too loud even if they can get quite tense since it's in an invited manner where all participants knew what they were getting into.

I do think Atheists should speak up more, but just be nice about it. Everyone (theist or non-theist) should be nice unless there's a valid reason to not be.

I would certainly say at least those who were referred to as "strong" Atheists do indeed have a belief system, the belief is in a lack of a god, and usually the supremacy of science, which is most certainly a belief. There is even a certain dogma attached to the absolute resolute belief that there is no god, where there really isn't on the idea that god is unlikely, I daresay it even requires a certain amount of faith to absolutely refute the existence of god.

I think one would have to classify my thinking as some sort of belief because not only do I not believe in divinity, I also actively do not want to believe, I am not some impartial person upon which evidence would have any effect. I am not the sort that needs Dawkins like arguments to refute god, I don't want to believe, therefore I don't, it is a much more emotional choice, and one that requires a certain amount of blind faith since I am not really looking for or at any evidence that runs counter to what I want to believe.

I am also weary of the idea that lack of a belief does not constitute a belief in it's own right due to the fact this line of thinking could be used as a justification to discriminate against atheists of all type.

Well, I'd say Atheism is a belief, but some, from what I've gathered (maybe just the "strong Atheists"), seem to say it's more of a fact than a belief due to their being no scientific proof of a god.

[dalebert]

Good point. I would feel ridiculous starting an argument with a stranger in a coffee shop. On the other hand, I do a show where I pointedly discuss controversial issues and express my opinions. I often do so without much tact. I feel like that's a completely appropriate time and place for it. No one is being forced to listen and they can always just click it off if they're enjoying it.

[roseyfox]

I remember when 2 years ago i lied to my tech ed teacher that i wasn't atheist so i could be apart of a club for building machines and program designing.

[roseyfox]

Bad joke i found on FB.
Muslims terrorist kill people.
Christian terrorist kill people.
Atheist terrorist post science articles online.