Unfaith, love and hope

There is no shortage of angry, condescending and sarcastic atheists on the internet. This is, of course, not an argument that atheists in general are that way, only that the ones that are most vivid about it. Yet, when I see Christians in similar media, they have lots of argument from love and hope, whereas very few, if any, atheists have their main focus on the fluffier parts of atheism.

I read JediMiller's post lately about Icantrememberwhat and he had a few vids of a few atheists getting their behinds handed to them by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Not because they knew more, and frankly, a well read proponent of any side could point out some of the mistakes and dishonesties, but because they knew how to speak to people, they completely wiped the floor with the atheists.

There are many atheists out there who will speak to the intellectually minded, but there are very few that speak to anyone else. A large amount of people are not impressed by reason or logical fallacies, they just feel attacked by it.

One subobservation of this is the sarcasm. Youtube is so cluttered with sarcastic responses of atheists making fun of theists by making (usually poorly made) satirical clips, to the extent that it's becoming very hard to find the actual theistic arguments. Sarcasm rarely works, it usually only persuades the persuaded, while the others get offended. Would it be too much to ask for a single proponent of irreligion to have a focus on peace love and understanding, like Lennon, or perhaps the freedom of not having an omniscient being looking over your shoulder and caring about your sexual life? I know many atheists bring these things up, but none do so with any sort of force.

 

bolder dash and a bunch of boloney..
I think way to many religious factions take themselves way to serious..
I wish it were true that christians and other religions only preached love, peace and happiness but unfortunately that's not true..religious factions tend to be the most violent and use their beliefs as a reason to right what they think is wrong with non-believers..
in a perfect world you'd think people would practice love towards others but to much hate gets thrown in..
I don't need a god to tell me right from wrong..I just know what is right and showing kindness towards others doesn't require a belief in god..

 

Wait a minute...

This guy wiped the floor with atheists?

You're joking, right? I saw that debate... I'm pretty sure a 2-second-old baby with fully-intact umbilical chord could wipe the floor with Kirk "Crocoduck" Cameron.

 

As a response to the topic of the thread, I'll note that I often do see those elements in forms such as promoting equality for LGBT community, supporting secular charities, or supporting anti-war causes to name a few. Might I suggest you have a sample problem.

Now on to the actual opening post, which I can only charitably describe as a piece of "work." You take the time to critique internet atheists for sarcasm and the like in the same post in which you are a citing jedimiller, possibly the throne bearer of sarcasm on this forum trouncing any other theist or atheist (of which group I am not even sure which group he belongs)?

Just WOW. I haven't the words to go on...

 

Ahhhh you had to mention John Lennon. I am such a fan. Imagine....is a beautiful song with Godless words. It did well because it was beautifully presented. And I enjoy it (the tune ya know)

But I think its really hard for Atheists to be tolerant, respectful and...logical, because they seem to do a lot of emotional reacting. To me...in general...Atheists seem bitter and contemptuous. Not beautiful like "Imagine".

 

And... how many atheists have you talked to?

I will note that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (who arguably made Dawkins look like SE Cupp by comparison) do not speak for the entire atheist community.

I much prefer the atheist community be associated with the faces of Carl Sagan, and Richard Feynman, and Neil deGrasse Tyson (all three of whom are listed near the top of my heroes and inspirations, even though I am studying to be an Anthropologist), who's poetic turns of phrase for the wonder that is the natural world do a much better job of communicating atheism than the cantankerous (albeit epically hilarious and absolutely brilliant) comedic protestations of George Carlin.

 

Well...I talk to a lot of atheists. We have this forum. I've been really taken aback here...with pure venom from raging atheists. One of my first experiences here as a matter afact. I had some telling me to get off the forum. I thought that interesting. I thought I was just answering a question...but apparently I was "witnessing".

Plus...I have a side of family that is almost entirely atheistic. Its really warm and fuzzy when someone you love calls you over because they are excited about telling you offensive Jesus jokes. And when I'm offended...its because I'm "close-minded".

This is what I experience.

I think John Lennon's beautiful way is the selling way. But personally I don't think its possible for the atheistic community to sell that way.

 

Jesus showed everyone how to treat other people. All you have to do is mimic it like Ghandi or Dr. King did.

The crux of the matter is that respect is key. If there is no respect, there is no interaction other than a hostile one. How many people can interact effectively in a hostile setting?

What does give me hope is that someone if finally trying to attack religion without science. Perhaps it will dawn on atheists some day that love is greater than logic. No matter how illogical that may be, it is true.

 

What the OP is saying is that atheists should act more Christian.

That's not going to happen.

 

I'm sorry you've had such a poor experience with atheists. Pretty much every single atheist I've ever met has been wonderful. Sure we joke amongst ourselves, but we respect others faith as long as they don't try to force their faith on us.

To be fair, there is a huge difference between being cantankerous and fighting to have a fair and equal voice in the public debate.

It is not being cantankerous to take offense when believers insist on forcing Creationism into the science classroom.

It is not being cantankerous to take offense when believers insist on micromanaging the lives of women and homosexuals and teenagers and so on.

It is not being cantankerous to take offense when a former president of the US tells us that he doesn't think we should be considered citizens of the US because we are atheists.

It is not being cantankerous to take offense when someone attempts to call Hitler an atheist when he very obviously wasn't (what he was is a matter of debate, and although he claimed to be a Christian, I won't argue that... but he was not an atheist).

It is not being cantankerous to take offense when we find out that 40% of US-Americans do not believe atheists share the same vision of the US as them, or that 53% of US-Americans would not vote an atheist into a governmental office, regardless of his or her political positions.

It is not being cantankerous to take offense when a public school insists on a school prayer that excludes non-theists or, in some cases, non-Christians, and ask them (with the courts, if needed) to remove that prayer.

It is not being cantankerous to raise a ruckus when the parents of a child suffering from cancer ignores the doctor's recommendations and instead takes the child to their church to be prayed over, resulting in the child's death. It is not cantankerous to demand that these parents be thrown in jail for murder.

I could go on and on for days, but I'll stop here. I think any reader gets my point.

As to your atheist family... I would say that perhaps you should consider that when someone makes a joke about Jesus, they are making fun of Jesus...not you. If Jesus can't take it, then he isn't much of a messiah.

In all seriousness, though, even Stephen Colbert, a devout Catholic (and Sunday School teacher), makes fun of Jesus. I've seen numerous Christians of all stripes make fun of Jesus, sometimes in quite shocking ways. It's not because they don't believe he is their lord and savior, but because even the most reverential person ultimately knows that too much worship and not enough laughter is a very bad thing. Jesus had to have a sense of humor! You cannot tell me that Jesus didn't laugh. I refuse to believe it! I'll even bet, in those missing years, that Jesus had quite the rapier wit and could be quite self-deprecating (all assuming he existed, of course, something I personally question). One has to be, because taking one's self too seriously will lead to failure in the end.

I would say that not every joke about Jesus deserves offense. I suggest hearing the joke and evaluating it. Some Jesus jokes are just plain mean... even for me, and I'm somewhat of an anti-religionist! But others are just in good fun and no offense is meant.

 

It is asking that atheists here should act less like you do, then.

 

I suppose it depends where you are. In a society that is full of religion, such as the US, being an atheist is almost a revolutionary act and it takes some balls to stand up and say it and defend it. In more secular countries it's no big deal and atheists can be low key about a lack of belief because not much will happen to them.

 

yup, I was in Europe last year for a few weeks and the churches were empty except for tourists taking pictures..even on sundays..

 

Yes that guy. I'm as surprised as you are, but in the debate I'm referring to ( can by no means say that that's the only one or necessarily representative of his debates in general), he did wipe the floor with them.

In this case, he went off subject completely and started talking about his personal experience although he had promised to limit himself only to scientific evidence (mind you, I'm not proposing that atheists start being intellectually dishonest). I have a limited acting experience, but looking at that clip, they called a lot upon their acting capabilities, whereas their actual message was just regurgitating the same old stuff as before.

 

Hey Swensson. good thread. Yes, the Atheists are young and inexperienced and lost the debate. They usually are illogical and unscientific. They just use someone else's argument over and over again. Never real science. The atheists are sarcastic, mad, dilussional, ridiculous and mostly angry. And they are simply angry because they are LOST. Lost inside and out. They are out of their minds because they have no goal in life, no focus. God gives you peace and focus and calmness. I've never forced religion on anyone, and never speak of religion. I only speak of GOD and Jesus. And the teachings...

The poing being, the atheists will continue to be illogical and irrational by speaking their nonsense.


4 stars.

 

Did you see all the parts? it was about 8 or 9 parts.

 

Well, of course, atheists are by no means alone in using sarcasm, I was just referring to the fact that I'm occasionally having a problem finding religious/creationist arguments on youtube because they are swamped by sarcastic mock videos with equivalently sarcastic names, that make them indistinguishable from the actual arguments until you've watched half the clip. That might be a problem specific to youtube, but then again, I watch a lot of youtube on the subject.

Also on this forum, I'm occasionally getting the idea that the sarcasm isn't working, that without the actual tone of voice, it's harder to detect sarcasm than the writer might believe. I'm also occasionally finding that the sarcasm needs to be explained.

I know some bring up for instance the Crusades in order to paint religion evil, but most of the time, it's an argument to point out the irony in thinking that the acts of a philosophy's proponents in the past should have any bearing on their cause's validity, whereas most Christians I see debating it just think it's a poo-throwing contest.

 

That's the thing, it is possible, Lennon did it, and he wasn't that bad at it either. It's just that no one has taken that role after him.

I'm personally a fan of logic, especially above emotion, but I can't pretend as if that means that more logic will sway the minds of the people.

There is definitely the problem that any atheist activity is the rejection of something, rather than supplying something of its own, but there should be at least one person who's main argument is the very arguable point that removing religion is a relief.

 

Swensson did you see this part where Kirk pisses off the Atheists. He said the smartest people in the world believe in God.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WpXkoFNY08"]Rational Response Debate with Kirk Cameron pt.17 - YouTube[/ame]

 

Just have a look at my favourite example from your clips, where he replies to some point made by the atheists, Ray Comfort tells the atheist firmly to look him in the eyes while he's talking. There is no way of getting out of that without looking either like a surly teenager by looking the other way, or like an obedient dog, by actually looking at him. It has nothing to do about the discussion, they just know all the little tricks that could sell ice cubes on Greenland.

The atheists are merely frustrated. They know their arguments are more correct than Ray's (this is not the thread to discuss the actual argument, whatever it is), but they can't convey it, because Ray's lovable moustache is more convincing than honest debates.

 

I did. Again, I must point out that he promised to provide scientific evidence. The stuff he does in that clip is like a textbook in logical fallacies, and even more, by, for instance, naming all those intelligent people, he's scoring major points with the audience without actually stating that there was a connection, which would have been easily refuted. Again, it's a theatrical trick, not an intellectual one.

 

Atheists not using science and rationale to garner support for their arguments? Religious people not doing the same? Absolutely, it's called being human. Not every Atheist is alike, just like not every religious person is alike. I've met some very fundamentalist Christians, heck, I use to work relatively close with one of the Phelps clan here in Kansas, but that doesn't mean every Christian behaves like them. The same thing goes for Atheists.

I find, in general, that people are people. What I mean is that cantankerous and mean spirited people are that way regardless of their belief system. I've seen Christians on here make the most ludicrous and un-scientific comments on a subject and then proclaim that their science is flawless...all the while insulting anyone who does not believe. Same goes for Atheists; I've seen posts that make no rationale sense, scientifically speaking or otherwise, and then they claim to be superior because they are not hindered by the sagacity of belief.

It's just two sides of the same coin, and very little of it has to do with believing or not believing. People will be who they are regardless of faith, and taking a sample from an internet forum is never a good way to get the truth. Let's face it, there are a lot of extreme views on internet forums, and many posts don't make logical sense. In real life, most Atheists and believers I've met are good, hardworking people, just trying to make something of themselves with the limited amount of time we're on this planet.

 

Are we talking about Ray Comfort's and Kirk Cameron's debates with the Rational Responders?

Because if so, then I have to question if that's what you both were actually watching. I've seen that debate 4 times... in fact, I know somebody who was in the audience and recorded it. Ray and Kirk get more of a reaction for their stupidity (Crocoduck... I mean come on!) than their actual debating skills. My friend is a Christian (to this day) and was, at time, a follower of "Way of the Master". He went to see Ray and Kirk kick the crap out of a couple atheists. Not only did he feel that Ray and Kirk got their butts handed to them, but he stopped following "Way of the Master" immediately after that debate because of how bad he felt their performance was. He told me that he alone could have done a heck of a lot better than Ray and Kirk did, and he never would have used Crocoduck (which he feels is a disgrace to the Creationist community). Though, to be fair, while at the time he was a (Old-Earth) Creationist, he does now accept Theistic Evolution (a form of Intelligent Design that accepts evolution, but says that the mechanism is God himself directly selecting for specific genes so that us human beings would result, not Natural Selection).

Now, I'm not defending the Rational Responders... although I do like them, they are not the best to go to for a debate. But I don't agree that Ray and Kirk beat them. I also feel that Ray and Kirk got their butts handed to them at that debate.

 

That's very possible, I didn't watch all of them (at least not actively), and the ones I watched were not in the correct order which might have confused things, so I can't say for sure. I also think it has a lot to do with exactly who is watching, many don't respond well to technical arguments and the usual atheist arguments. To a person who actually comes to watch a debate and really listen to the arguments, it's quite possible that Kirk and Ray lost (after all, that's sort of what I think myself), but a lot of people (maybe not the people in this particular audience, I can't see them and very rarely hear them) I think would respond better to a message that is not centred around an aggressive response.

 

You know what's really dishonest about that statement?

Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Stephen Hawking are (were, in the case of Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman) four of the smartest people in the world... all four of them were and are atheists.

Albert Einstein was a Pandeist. Though he did believe in a higher power, it is not one Ray or Kirk (or, indeed, any person who believes in a personal god) would recognize.

Antony Flew did not convert to Christianity. He converted to a vague deism that resembled the Pandeism of Albert Einstein.

If Ray and Kirk were intellectually honest people, they would consider both Einstein and Flew atheists as neither one ever believed in the god that Ray and Kirk believe in... they didn't come anywhere near close to believing in Ray's and Kirk's god, in fact.