A Friendly Place?

[Tanstaafl]

You didn't answer the question. How are you persecuted?

Persecution:

c.1340, "oppression for the holding of a belief or opinion," from O.Fr. persecution (12c.), from L. persecutionem (nom. persecutio), noun of action from persequi "pursue, start a legal action," from per- "through" + sequi "follow" (see sequel). The verb persecute is attested from 1482 in the sense of "to oppress for the holding of a belief or opinion," from M.Fr. persécuter "pursue, torment, open legal action" (14c.), from L. persecutus, pp. of persequi. Psychological persecution complex is recorded from 1961; earlier persecution mania (1892).

It seems to me that tsg has given you several excellent examples. Maybe you should consider them.

 

[Stone Island]

Persecution:

c.1340, "oppression for the holding of a belief or opinion," from O.Fr. persecution (12c.), from L. persecutionem (nom. persecutio), noun of action from persequi "pursue, start a legal action," from per- "through" + sequi "follow" (see sequel). The verb persecute is attested from 1482 in the sense of "to oppress for the holding of a belief or opinion," from M.Fr. persécuter "pursue, torment, open legal action" (14c.), from L. persecutus, pp. of persequi. Psychological persecution complex is recorded from 1961; earlier persecution mania (1892).

It seems to me that tsg has given you several excellent examples. Maybe you should consider them.

Hurt feelings do not persecution make.

How was he injured or oppressed in an unjust manner? I'm not saying that his examples have to rise to the level of a pogrom, but they have to be more hurtful than being confronted with the fact that he's out of step with most of the rest of the world.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Well, I think some parts, particularly the Boy Scout story, go beyond that.

But you could have actually said that earlier, directly, rather than being obtuse.

You are here to discuss these issues, aren't you?

 

[-Fran-]

Why don't you try friendly? Anger doesn't seem to be getting through.

As if friendliness will...

 

[Beth]

When the comment consists solely of "yet more militant atheism", how am I supposed to address it?

It depends on the context and what your goals are for the exchange. Since I don't know the context you encountered that remark in or what you wanted to acheive with your response, I can't comment on it further.

You brought it up. Did you consider why they are angry or did you just write them off as being angry?

I brought it up because you were claiming the stereotype wasn't accurate. My point was that the available research indicates that that stereotype has some foundation in reality. Do you want me to provide a cite for the research?

I am complaining that the stereotype doesn't address the issue. It is completely pointless to talk about "angry atheists" unless you also discuss why they are angry. Making flippant comments about angry atheists without discussing why they are angry is insinuating they have no reason to be.

I don't think so. People can observe behavior, such an angry outbursts, and comment about it without insinuating that the anger is unjustified.

Apparently it is given how distasteful "angry atheism" is.

You are free to express yourself however you like. You need only take into account other people's reaction to the extent that you care about their reactions.

I can when the stereotype implies they have no reason to be angry.

Why do you insist that the stereotype implies that? It doesn't to me. Does the stereotype exist in Europe, where atheism is much more accepted and they have less cause to be angry?

"Gays should be less obviously gay." Whatever.

Not what I'm trying to get across. Try it this way: There is a stereotype in the culture. When those who are not in the group only observe members of the group that fit the stereotype, the stereotype will appear accurate and societal attitudes are unlikely to change. Changing the cultural stereotype will require either changing the behavior of those in the group who fit the stereotype OR getting those in the group who don't fit the stereotype to come out of the closet so the rest of society can observe that the stereotype isn't accurate.

So, people dismissing the entire argument because I am angry about it is somehow my fault?

If lots of different people are reacting in a similar way to similar statements you are making, and you are not happy with their reaction, then it would behoove you to change your approach. You aren't going to change the way other people react to you without changing your own behavior. That's all I'm saying. Of course, if all you want to do is vent your anger and you are not interested in attempting to change other people's opinions of atheists, then by all means, continue with your current approach.

 

[slingblade]

Overall - Online I do fine non-religious folks to be less friendly.

It was largely the religious ones who made me this way.
I'm mean and hateful. The nice person I used to be died of neglect.

 

[Ladewig]

Why don't you try friendly?

Why don't you? You had a choice between friendly and antagonistic and you chose the latter.

 

[kmortis]

<sigh>
[nsfw]

[/nsfw]

 

[Stone Island]

Why don't you? You had a choice between friendly and antagonistic and you chose the latter.

What, are your feelings being persecuted?

 

[tsg]

It depends on the context and what your goals are for the exchange. Since I don't know the context you encountered that remark in or what you wanted to acheive with your response, I can't comment on it further.

Then I suggest you refrain from criticizing how I react to it.

I brought it up because you were claiming the stereotype wasn't accurate. My point was that the available research indicates that that stereotype has some foundation in reality. Do you want me to provide a cite for the research?

No, I want you to tell me if you considered why they were angry or if you just said, "well, they fit the stereotype."

I don't think so. People can observe behavior, such an angry outbursts, and comment about it without insinuating that the anger is unjustified.

It's possible. It's not what happens, though.

Why do you insist that the stereotype implies that? It doesn't to me. Does the stereotype exist in Europe, where atheism is much more accepted and they have less cause to be angry?

Why would they dismiss "angry atheists" if they thought their anger was justified?

Not what I'm trying to get across. Try it this way: There is a stereotype in the culture. When those who are not in the group only observe members of the group that fit the stereotype, the stereotype will appear accurate and societal attitudes are unlikely to change. Changing the cultural stereotype will require either changing the behavior of those in the group who fit the stereotype OR getting those in the group who don't fit the stereotype to come out of the closet so the rest of society can observe that the stereotype isn't accurate.

Whether you want to see it or not, people are dismissing arguments entirely because of the "angry atheist" stereotype. The stereotype is that atheists are angry and have no reason to be. Otherwise, why do people even use the term? If they are justified in their anger, why label them as "just angry atheists"?

 

[Beth]

Then I suggest you refrain from criticizing how I react to it.

I didn't mean to do so. My apologies if you felt I did.

No, I want you to tell me if you considered why they were angry or if you just said, "well, they fit the stereotype."

I don't think the research indicated that they were angry. It indicated they were not as happy as people who did not classify themselves as atheists. Since anger and unhappiness are often correlated, I think there may be some justification to the stereotype. It certainly fits plenty of people who post here, including yourself.

It's possible. It's not what happens, though.

And you are able to ascertain this based on what?

Why would they dismiss "angry atheists" if they thought their anger was justified?

Whether you want to see it or not, people are dismissing arguments entirely because of the "angry atheist" stereotype. The stereotype is that atheists are angry and have no reason to be. Otherwise, why do people even use the term? If they are justified in their anger, why label them as "just angry atheists"?

People use the term because the atheists frequently come across as angry. As far as dismissing arguments entirely because of the "angry atheist" stereotype - well, I'm not convinced that's true. No doubt some people do, which may be justification to try to change the stereotype.

But you are assuming that the arguments are dismissed because of the stereotype. I think it's possible the arguments are being dismissed because they aren't good arguments. For example, things like suing to get roadside memorial crosses for slain highway patrolmen removed does not improve the image of atheists. They didn't lose the case because they were angry atheists, but they sure managed to perpetuate that stereotype.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Research indicates that atheists are not as happy as Theists?

I agree that suing to get religious symbols removed from government institutions fuel the stereotype. But any challenge to religion does. Atheist are "angry" everything they fight to maintain the wall of separation.

 

[tsg]

I didn't mean to do so. My apologies if you felt I did.
I don't think the research indicated that they were angry. It indicated they were not as happy as people who did not classify themselves as atheists. Since anger and unhappiness are often correlated, I think there may be some justification to the stereotype. It certainly fits plenty of people who post here, including yourself.

And you are able to ascertain this based on what?



People use the term because the atheists frequently come across as angry. As far as dismissing arguments entirely because of the "angry atheist" stereotype - well, I'm not convinced that's true. No doubt some people do, which may be justification to try to change the stereotype.

But you are assuming that the arguments are dismissed because of the stereotype. I think it's possible the arguments are being dismissed because they aren't good arguments. For example, things like suing to get roadside memorial crosses for slain highway patrolmen removed does not improve the image of atheists. They didn't lose the case because they were angry atheists, but they sure managed to perpetuate that stereotype.

Explain to me how calling someone an "angry atheist" addresses their complaints at all.

There's already one instance in this very thread of someone who gave examples of what he considered to be "angry atheists" and couldn't tell me why they were angry. He's already written me off as an angry atheist without bothering to find out why. In fact, he only even asked the question because he assumed I wouldn't have an answer. Do you still want to argue that it isn't being done?

 

[Ladewig]

What, are your feelings being persecuted?

Not all at all. I was asking the question because you were suggesting something that you, yourself were not willing to do.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It was largely the religious ones who made me this way.
I'm mean and hateful. The nice person I used to be died of neglect.

I must respectfully disagree. The thread that you posted regarding the passing of your mother and what a wonderful and loving person she was genuinely touched me. She may be wounded and justifiably angry, but the nice person is quite strong and still very much alive.

 

[Furi]

Research indicates that atheists are not as happy as Theists?

I agree that suing to get religious symbols removed from government institutions fuel the stereotype. But any challenge to religion does. Atheist are "angry" everything they fight to maintain the wall of separation.

This could be that few of the mainsteam western religions are particularly tolerant of atheism in any way shape or form they reqire totalitarian comitment, and as such atheists grow up with labels of "misguided" "uneducated" "uninformed" or blame is laid at the feetof the parents or media, government, technology or anything else apart from the asshattery that the atheist has interpreted their religion as,

It seems that the fault is with the atheist and not with their religion. so at which point should we be happy? it wasn't long ago that it would have been impossible for me not to have a religious ceremony upon death. WHY? is it a case of playing the numbers a la Pascal, don't care, my instructions on death are simple, medically harvest what you can and if the family wishes a grave marker it is to state atheist (although I came up with a few dirty or sily jokes)

you also have to appreciate that atheists are not labouring under any misconception of life after death, so we probably take our mortality a little more seriously, we also get a little off when religion causes disputes ranging from individual spats to full blown wars. to me your religion and belief is as relevant as which series of star trek you prefer, ultimately pointless but we still have to live with the crap you create (personally I prefer blakes 7)

No secular countries government should make concessions based on religious faith apart from either outlawing practice due to public safety / morality (oh shut up the atheist can't be moral crowd)

Atheists are considered "Angry" the moment they question an article of religion, however attempts at imposing religion upon us or enforcing laws based on faith is ok?, seems we have an awful lot more angry fan boys than angry atheists.

and yes I am one of those mouth frothing peops that you hate, just offset my singularity to a portion of the frothing fundy hordes of any other religion.

bite me, not going to play nice any more

 

[articulett]

It was largely the religious ones who made me this way.
I'm mean and hateful. The nice person I used to be died of neglect.

When atheists are angry it's usually because some sappy theist is spouting vapid platitudes and they're being forced to hold their tongue. TAM is always a blast-- it's a very strongly atheist group, and I have never seen such a happy crowd.

I'm calling BS on the notion that atheists are angry anyhow. Theists want to believe it so they can feel like Jesus makes them happy. Yet, they are the ones most likely to provoke the anger with the nutty things they do and say while pretending to be holier than thou.

Think of the angriest people you know... even the angriest or most hypocritical posters on this forum... I don't think it's the atheists... except when the woo come to preach and play the "innocently trying to have a discussion" game. Disingenuous conversation makes me a bit peeved. So does hypocrisy. I find this a very friendly place. I wish some people like DOC and tokenconservative and fnord found it a little less friendly, frankly. I think this is a very friendly, funny, intelligent group overall. I think the theists feel peeved because we mock their belief... but it is mockable. If they didn't do their underhanded preaching, they might find this a much friendlier place. I think theists see us as angry because it's easier than thinking that we may have a point.

If they really thought their god was real, I don't think they'd need to worry about shoring up their own faith by preaching here. To me, religion is like any other woo. And every woo gets mad when you don't respect their woo as the true woo. Besides, we do have several long time forum members that believe to some extent or other... so I imagine they find this place perfectly friendly--probably moreso if they don't play the preaching game or rile atheists and then say, "gee whiz, why are you so angry?"

The theists who complain tend to be all for skepticism--except they want their god kept out of bounds. If they want that, they ought not to advertise their faith. They ought to be as "in the closet" as they expect atheists to be.

 

[Beth]

Explain to me how calling someone an "angry atheist" addresses their complaints at all.

It doesn't. That's my point. Coming across as an "angry atheist" isn't the best way to get your complaints addressed. It's great for venting and can give you an ego boost, but it isn't particularly effective at getting your complaints addressed. If you want your complaints addressed, I suggest you try another tactic.

 

[tsg]

It doesn't. That's my point.

As it is mine.

Coming across as an "angry atheist" isn't the best way to get your complaints addressed.

Labeling someone an "angry atheist" is an excuse to not have to listen to them. Assuming I have nothing to say because I'm angry is, frankly, stupid.

 

[articulett]

I think his tactic is working fine. I enjoy his posts here. I feel welcome here. And I have met slingblade and others on this forum and they are not angry people at all--they are among the coolest people around. Theists may see angry atheists, but they don't have a clue that they may be the ones provoking the anger. Theists have a way of being vapid, arrogant, and holier than thou while tsk tsking atheists for qualities they never examine in themselves... as though atheists would look to theists for advice...

It's not like theists are the socially charming people they seem to imagine themselves to be... on this forum they seem to think that everyone should be eager to hear their opinion on the topic, but they don't even seem to have a clue that others have opinions.

Beth, I think tsg comes across as a lot friendlier than you, frankly. I think he's doing fine at getting his complaints addressed. And I'm glad atheists can find camaraderie here without having to walk on eggshells for the self important feelings of theists who don't care about our feelings at all.