Comments on Naturalistic Atheism: Open Letter to Theists about Abusing Atheists

Hello I just entered before I have to leave to the...

2008-03-26T18:11:00.000-07:00

Hello I just entered before I have to leave to the airport, it's been very nice to meet you, if you want here is the site I told you about where I type some stuff and make good money (I work from home): here it is

What are your thoughts about the email sent to Sin...

2007-10-23T12:31:00.000-07:00

What are your thoughts about the email sent to Sinnott-Armstrong?

The person who sent it is a nincompoop.

Do you condone the email?

No.

Do you condemn it?

Yes. Armstrong is a stand up guy and not like some idiotic atheists I've encountered. So, I don't think he deserved that sort of treatment. I enjoyed his debate with Dr. Craig.

Do you agree with Sinnott-Armstrong that "Many theists feel perfectly justified in abusing atheists"? Why?

They may feel that way, but it doesn't make it okay. I'm glad you "recognize that there have been atheists who have been guilty of committing the same kind of abuse against theists" too.

People have accused me of being very unkind and mean towards my opponents. I have a simple tactic though. You act like a jerk, you'll be treated like one. If you're cool, you'll be treated with respect.

Christians and religious people have had such a po...

2007-09-21T05:06:00.000-07:00

Christians and religious people have had such a poor image of atheists that they haven't even bothered interacting with philosophical atheism.

As a Christian, I've noticed the church has spent tons of energy against non-Christian cults, the New Age, and Satanism. But atheists? "They're just fools - not worth the time! That's the Madalyn Murray O'Hair crowd!".

While it is unwarranted, there is certainly a remnant of that attitude. And there is no excuse to treat someone badly.

BTW, Psa. 14 says, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God". A person with genuine intellectual (rather than merely emotional) response to God is not the biblical definition of a fool.

Kevin H

Obviously fallacious ad hominem attacks do not co...

2007-08-17T16:08:00.000-07:00

Obviously fallacious ad hominem attacks do not constitute refutation of a disputed position. In fact such nastiness merely detracts from the attacker's message.

Historically,some Christians have directed vitriol such as this at members of other faiths (now politically incorrect) and other denominations (also politically incorrect). However, atheists are infidels, so attacking an atheist is not only not politically incorrect but it is applauded by fellow theists.

Atheists consider theistic beliefs to be unfounded from a rational perspective, whereas many theists feel attacked by rational arguments that dismiss the supernatural.

I think that the key word is *feel*. Religions are formulated so as to appeal to the emotions. Notwithstanding the nastiness displayed by some believers, this is mostly beneficial. I believe that the nasties would probably have acted the same way even if they had not been raised to be religious. That is, religious dogma is merely their justification of choice.

Science, and its often accompanying atheism appeals to the mind. I find science fascinating, but it does not pretend to offer comfort. I am an atheist partly because I do not need religious comfort. Besides, religious comfort does not *work* if one cannot get around the rational barriers to belief. I am too much a scientist not to have rational reasons to dismiss the supernatural.

I think that atheists understand theists, but that many theists simply cannot understand why everyone does not feel as they do. For example, I stumbled across a ridiculous theist theory that atheists are atheists because they suffer from Asperger's Syndrome. The idea was that those with AS lack empathy for others, so they cannot feel God's Blessing.

I know may atheists (and many believers) but I can think of only one atheist (a computer programmer) who could be considered mildly Aspy and I know that his atheism was based on logic and not on lack of empathy.

It is that sort of illogical, blaming nonsense, combined with ludicrous assaults on scientific knowledge that is exciting atheistic backlash.

Jeff, as far as answers to your questions go: I co...

2007-07-16T18:13:00.000-07:00

Jeff, as far as answers to your questions go: I condemn the behavior, and I think that to some extent Sinnott-Armstrong is right.

Some atheists imply that there is something in the intellectual or rational makeup of Christians that makes more of them engage in this sort of behavior. There is some truth in that, but that's simply because Christian beliefs are sacred beliefs, and it seems to me that in any group that holds sacred beliefs there will be a significant subgroup who takes said beliefs to be axiomatic. I think it's human nature to get reactionary when our sacred axioms about ultimate reality get challenged. I really can't see it being any different with thinking and feeling creatures. That's just part of who we are and how we act. Our cherished beliefs are insulted, and we want to insult back, especialy if we've simply accepted our axioms as axioms and never questioned our reasons for accepting them.

But of course all this proves nothing about the truth of those beliefs. At best it might just say something interesting about the people who hold the beliefs.

This topic got me thinking today, and I've posted much more at christianthinker.net on this subject.

- Brian Trapp

As Reppert points out, there's "lots of abuse to g...

2007-07-16T11:00:00.000-07:00

As Reppert points out, there's "lots of abuse to go around on all sides." In particular I should like to observe that there is a vocal subset of atheists who blame theism for many if not all of the world's evils, lose no opportunity to accuse theists of being mentally defective, etc. As a Christian attending science fiction conventions I have frequently been the target of such "banter."

This does not excuse the resonse by Christians, who (after all) are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard, regard persecution as a badge of honor, etc., ... but it does help to explain it more than somewhat.

My opinion as a theist differs none to my opinion ...

2007-07-16T08:36:00.000-07:00

My opinion as a theist differs none to my opinion as a human being. The email in question was nothing more than an ad hominem diatribe and should simply be dismissed as such.

My concern is that it exposes a deep problem among what in my opinion is the majority of Christians--the inability to rationally defend their beliefs or to expose the flaws in opposing beliefs without employing a plethora of logical fallacies. It is shameful.

Abusive, insulting or rude language violates so ma...

2007-07-16T07:04:00.000-07:00

Abusive, insulting or rude language violates so many Biblical injunctons and Christian principles that I would hardly know where to begin in listing them. It cannot be condemned too loudly or too often. If a Christian is commanded to love their enemies (as in, those who physically assault them) and bless those who persecute them, how could a Chrsitian justify abusive language employed in what should be a civil discussion with an atheist? As a Christian, that's my take on the subject.

There's lots of abuse to go around on all sides. B...

2007-07-15T15:13:00.000-07:00

There's lots of abuse to go around on all sides. But no, it's not acceptable. I'm surprised the theist didn't throw in a threat about the fires of hell.

I dislike Richard Dawkins, but I don't envy him his hate mail.

I hate to say it, but I think the level of courtesy in online religious discourse has gone down over the past 12 or so years that I have followed it. I'll never forget Jeff's willingness to include two papers of mine on Infidels in 1998--in fact they were made available at his request.

I have no idea as to why Christians send these things to atheists. Does anyone really think that this serves the Kingdom of God? A certain amount of "in your face" goes with the territory. The Bible teaches that we should give an answer for the hope that is in us with gentleness and respect. What part of that don't some theists understand? I suppose there is nothing in the writings of Bertrand Russell saying that atheists should given an answer for the atheism that is in them with gentleness and respect. But I think they can absorb that Scripture without signing on to anything like inerrancy.