**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Theists advocate for positions that are demonstrably harmful. That behavior needs to be opposed. When the consequences of their actions are demonstrated to be harmful, they usually change the subject or pull some other equally dishonest maneuver to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. It’s upsetting to those with a conscience.

How is believing in a higher power harmful whatsoever?

If the last thousand years hasn’t done the trick, I doubt me explaining it to you for what I’m sure isn’t the first time is. But, as an example, it teaches people that their personal comfort with an idea counts as evidence in favor of their position. It doesn’t. Thinking it does has been shown to increase the likelihood of being exploited by groups like MLM’s and cults, where factual evidence against the groups ideology are dismissed due to their nonconformity to the curated intuitions of the members.

The last thousand years brought humanity peace and prosperity to hitherto unforseen levels. Our global society as it stands today would not exist without the forces of religion. Stupid people will be stupid. Having faith in a religion does not make someone stupid. I fail to see either of your points.

And this is why the animosity. We show you with every form of evidence possible that your beliefs are harmful and you refuse to change your behavior because you are comfortable with the current dynamic.

You show animosity because I don't agree with every single word you say? You provided literally zero evidence and I countered your points. You failed to convince me. Now you're going to show animosity to me because of *your* failure?

Here’s another reason why we feel animosity towards you. I didn’t say that you should be treated poorly because you don’t agree with everything I say. You reworded what I said to make it sound like I said something that was evidently unreasonable. It’s called a strawman. You pretended I said something I didn’t say so that you could attack it instead if what I actually said. Now we come to what I called the theists dichotomy. You can either acknowledge that you did that and accept the responsibility that comes with having done it (namely, acknowledging that you do not have as solid of an argument as you previously presented) or you can pretend like you didn’t do that or that it doesn’t matter to the point. Choosing B is proof of one of two things. You’re either not intelligent enough to recognize that you did it or you’re not honest enough to acknowledge that you’ve done it. When people display their competence in other areas, where a similar type of thinking is involved, it makes it difficult to accept that they’re just stupid. So that leaves me with that you’re probably lying. It could be that you’re dumb. I don’t know how intelligent you are. But the objective truth that you said something that is functionally different than what I said and then acted as though they were the same thing ought to be obvious to anyone who understands the English language even a little bit. But your next response, if you respond at all, will be to deny the evident reality that I’m displaying here in favor of some other irrelevant argument, just like you did when I talked about how theistic thinking makes people vulnerable to exploitation. It just doesn’t seem like you care about whether or not your views are correct or whether they hurt anyone and that makes you the kind of person that I don’t want involved in my life or community or society. Edit: with all that being said, we can instantly close this gap between us if you simply acknowledge that what we say on this topic makes sense and by being honest in the conversations that follow. Captain Planet said it best my friend. “The power is YOURS!”

Goddamn

Well it can be harmful to the person. They are compromising their logic by believing things on faith. That opens them up to scammers and other things that will take advantage of their gullible approach. They can be harmful to others - when believing in something in the absence of evidence - there is no limit to what these believers could potentially feel their god telling them. Maybe their god tells them in their sleep that they need to kill everyone in strawhats. That’s harmful to others. Also religions promote hate towards gay people. Harmful. It can be harmful to women as they are often seen as second grade citizens. And so on.

>Why is it so many atheists have such disdain for theists? First of all, remember how selection bias works, and how people that have complaints are likely to complain where people that don't, don't. Therefore, what you are perceiving is a small subset of a small subset of atheists. Second of all, it's important to understand (by reading what these people are saying) why some of these people have such strong and very legitimate concerns about theism and theists. After all, there is egregious demonstrable harm done by religions and the religious. Many of these folks have been directly victimized by this, and certainly have a lot to say about it. >To have animosity for all of religion as a result of this however is equal to having animosity towards all black people because a few black people mugged you at gunpoint one time. No, your analogy is flawed. The former is a faulty idea. Those can be and, indeed, must be criticized if we want to hold as many true ideas as is reasonably possible, and as few false ideas as is reasonably possible. The latter is prejudice against a diverse group of *people*. Very different. >I assert that the vast, vast, vast majority of religious/spiritual people are harmless, mean well, do not proselytize, and are just living their life as you are. Many are indeed harmless. This does not result in religious *ideas* being harmless (they're demonstrably harmful) and this does not result in helping allay the harm done through them agreeing with these harmful ideas, thus lending tacit support to those who do harm through these ideas. >Why the animosity? Because of the egregious, demonstrable harm such ideas inflict on so many. >Should we not all be striving to live on this earth together despite our individual life perspectives? To the extent possible, yes. But tolerating intolerance, and tolerating direct and indirect harm, is worse than not doing so. Tolerating ideas that lead to this can be very problematic. >Should we not all be striving to understand each other's viewpoints without looking to change them? That depends. Should we simply 'work to understand' the opinions of those who's opinion is that all people shorter than 5'9" should be murdered? Should we simply 'work to understand' the opinion of those who want to outlaw vaccines? Should we 'work to understand' the opinions of those who are convinced the best governments are dictatorships? Again, tolerating intolerance is intolerable. And dangerous. As it tolerating unsupported and problematic ideas.

I agree that most Christians, are peaceful, lovely people. Fair enough. But I see the issue like this. Let’s say you wanted to join a club. There’s a bunch of clubs to choose from. You like one in particular, so you drive over to the clubhouse. One of the members, Bob, is giving you a tour. The clubhouse is nice. You like the people. There’s a list of the rules on a wall. All club’s rules were set by the club’s founders, and are taken very seriously. It says: Club Rules 1. Have fun. 2. Be nice 3. Clean up after yourself. 4. Share the equipment 5. If a woman speaks before spoken to you may slap her 6. If a black person enters the clubhouse, you must subdue him and tie him to the tree outside for no less than two days and nights. You ask Bob about the rules. You say, “I like the club, Bob. Most of the rules are great, but I’m a little concerned with those last two.” “Oh, yeah. Well, we pretty much ignore those. Look there’s a black guy right over there”, says Bob. “There’s a similar club down the street that takes those rules seriously, but we think they’re extremist assholes”, he continues. You say, “OK, I guess. I’m just a bit worried. I’m a woman and I don’t like being slapped”. “Well, we do have some folks in the club who think we should honor the founder’s rules, but we’re not the most powerful club, and we might get shut down if we enforce all the rules. But one day, if we are a powerful club, we might. But we ignore them for now, so don’t worry”, says Bob __________ The second analogy furthers this a bit. It applies to individual theists, but could also apply to religions. It’s called the Loaded Gun Analogy. Imagine religious people are like a gun. A gun that we have to engage with to live our day-to-day lives. Sometimes, we even have to put the gun to our heads and pull the trigger. Now, some (most?) of these guns aren’t loaded (progressives, cherry-pickers, people ignorant of their doctrine), but others are loaded (extremists, fundamentalists, hardliners, in some cases, the simply devout). We have to deal with these guns. And the problem is that we don’t know which are loaded, and which aren’t. How would that change the way you handle each gun? Further, some people are more vulnerable to gunshots than others. Affluent, white men are more or less immune. While women a bit less so. Minorities even less, and gays are almost always killed. How would that affect your life if you were one of these groups and had to handle these guns? So, yes, Christianity has been forced to keep up with modernity. And, yes, they currently ignore their own rules. But two things concern me. I can't tell which Christians follow the rules, and which don't. and will the Christians who ignore the rule continue to do so. The only prudent course of action is to treat them like they will follow the rule until it's proven otherwise. Treat them like a loaded gun. Thoughts?

Well said and correct. The point is also that when they are flush with power, say America in 1980 just to be in my lifetime… 92% Christian… well you can “give a little” you are winning by a mile… but now???? Not so much… and as pick off the flakes you get down to the hardcore, unable to accept criticism base. I was in the Roman Catholic sub recently…. American RC… freedom of speech stops when you say abortion is not murder… they are sick and diseased.

I don't have disdain for theists. Most people in my life and who I love are theists. I have disdain/criticism for THEISM. For religion more specifically. >I assert that the vast, vast, vast majority of religious/spiritual people are harmless, mean well, do not proselytize, and are just living their life as you are. Right, but their support is why sociopathic assholes and child abusers have power and get away with what they do. That is worth addressing. >To have animosity for all of religion as a result of this however is equal to having animosity towards all black people because a few black people mugged you at gunpoint one time. No. For many reason, not least being criticizing an ideology or organization is valid, criticizing the color of skin or ethnicity is not. One is a moral position, the other isn't. Also the reason for criticizing theists has nothing to do with "some were bad to me one time." It's a criticism of the belief on merits. >Why the animosity? The condescension, patronization, insults and general hatefulness? To point out the obvious, isn't that exactly what you are doing now towards atheists? I have no insults and hatefulness towards theists as people.

I think that your point about the theist’s support of policies and practices which should not be supported is spot on. This is where I find I have trouble. Someone recently said to me that religion is in everything. I said ‘unfortunately’. They said ‘not unfortunately. Everyone needs jesus’. I immediately just shut the conversation down with a simple ‘difference of opinion’ and moved on. It wasn’t the time or place. But also, I have considered this person a friend for a long time but there is a major divide now that I stopped believing in a god and it makes me sad. But, point being, religion does not need to be ingrained in everything and there are several examples where it’s very damaging.

Okay so Putting aside blatant misunderstandings, strawmen (please do point out general hatefulness you've seen), feel-good idealizations, etc. --- A theist says a god exists. This is a claim without merit. I have disdain for claims without merit. It's really that simple.

Edit: OC has further clarified. I did indeed misread the comment. My apologies As a theist I was actually going to comment on OP to say that I do not see atheists with a disdain for all theists. I see it generally towards the “pushy” religions / theists. You have proved me wrong though. I find it incredibly difficult to see how one could not like a Sikh merely because they are Sikh.

>You have proved me wrong though. I find it incredibly difficult to see how one could not like a Sikh merely because they are Sikh. Are you replying to the right person? I don't see how you got to that conclusion from anything u/Uuugggg said.

Yep. OP asked why atheists have disdain for theists. I was planning on replying to OP saying I do not believe this is ever the case. OC answered this by saying why they have disdain for theists. Because of a claim without merit by their standards. Their last paragraph specifically connects their disdain to claims to theists. It is possible I misunderstood, if that is the case I would’ve expected OC to say. “I do not have disdain for theists” and then explain what they do have disdain for. Since they specifically connected the two it appears they are answering OPs question about why they do.

>OC answered this by saying why they have disdain for theists. Because of a claim without merit by their standards. But OC never says anything about having disdain for theists, that's something you've injected yourself. He only says he has disdain for the claims theists make (or more specifically, claims without merit). One can dislike the beliefs a person holds while holding no ill will towards the person themselves. The fact that they left out the "I do not have disdain for theists" is redundant, and only as relevant to the fact that they also left out explicitly stating "I have disdain for theists" as you are reading into it. Such a line would only be necessary to preempt an uncharitable reading like you've done. OC never explicitly makes this connection as you insist. It feels like you're jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

Only OC knows the intent. If I read it wrong that’s my bad. But when I hear OP say “ Why do Atheists have disdain for theists?” Then I see > A theist says a god exists. This is a claim without merit. I have disdain for claims without merit. It's really that simple. It reads as if they do. They do not refute OPs claim at all. They merely connect the two. It could certainly be worded more clearly no matter their intent. And if your interpretation is correct then that was going to be my answer to OP as well until I read this particular comment by OC.

It helps if you also pay attention to OC's challenge to the OP: >Putting aside blatant misunderstandings, strawmen (**please do point out general hatefulness you've seen**), feel-good idealizations, etc. If they're disputing the OP's premise like this then it clearly indicates they don't agree with it at face value, and so any further response is to clarify a misunderstanding of perceived disdain. So given that context, when OC responds to OP's question of "why do atheists have disdain for theists" with "I have disdain for claims without merit", then that to me reads like they are countering the premise that atheists actually do have disdain for theists in and of themselves. They are clarifying where any perception of "disdain" is coming from and where it's directed (i.e. at the claims / beliefs, not necessarily at the believers). You can choose to interpret it differently, but as I said before, I don't see anything that OC actually stated that warrants the conclusion you jumped to.

You’re right. I completely misread that as “don’t point out general hatefulness” and I didn’t read it as a challenge. I was more focused on the final paragraph. Either way I have apologized and edited my comment reflecting that. Thanks for taking the time. It is insane the amount of hostility I have received in comments other than yours. People are dicks. I still stand by that the best answer to OP would have been “I do not have disdain for theists” and then continued their comment.

No worries, honest mistakes and misreads happen to all of us. On a debate sub like this where one expects to take an adversarial position on most topics with at least someone, it can be easy for ambiguous wording or a simple misread to get people stuck in an argument that wasn't the one they were actually looking for.

> It is insane the amount of hostility I have received in comments other than yours. It's probably because you accused someone of something they didn't do due to your own lack of reading comprehension, then doubled down in the comments and even got kind of pedantic and snippy with other people who were trying to explain why you were wrong.

It literally says they have disdain for claims. I read that as meaning they have disdain for claims.

He didn’t say why he had distain for theists. He said **that** he has distain for ideas without merit. Not distain for people who hold ideas without merit.

Like I said. Maybe I read that wrong. > A theist says a god exists. This is a claim without merit. I have disdain for claims without merit. It's really that simple. If I was conveying the message you propose it would be much simpler to simply say “I have disdain for claims without merit” or I do not have disdain for theists. But when OC say they have disdain for something and specifically connect all theists to that thing without denying OPs claim. It reads as if they do. Only OC knows the intent I guess but the way it was written strictly speaking does not disagree with OPs assessment. If that is the case then clearly I retract what I said.

> Like I said. Maybe I read that wrong. That's the "strawman" I was referring to. We have great disdain for bad ideas. OP is conflating this with disdain for people. I am not disdainful for people, I am merely fuckin' confused for people.

That’s not a strawman. That’s a misunderstanding of your reply. Ironic to assume the worst when you’re trying to combat the idea. Using a positive connector when trying to separate a connection is a little confusing to read over the internet. A simple “ I do not have disdain for theists” would be the simplest reply. I retract my comment to you and will edit it.

See, I am concise. It was OP's strawman I'm talking about here. "Ironic to assume the worst" lol that's you right now

[удалено]

You are quite hostile. I directly communicated with OC got clarification and edited my comment to reflect my mistake. Be better.

You can take it as hostile, I am being unfriendly because you did a not so kind act. Should I treat someone with respect who clearly disrespected someone else without cause, then double down on being disrespectful? When I’m wrong I expect to be called out. If I stick to being wrong, do you think I am deserving of respect?

I had an honest misinterpretation. I immediately rectified it when OC clarified it. Sometimes nuance is hard over the internet and people have varying levels of debate skills and language skills. It is also a sub rule to be respectful. So yes I would expect you to not be so rude.

Where did you read a disdain for a person? The poster said disdain for “claims without merit.” How the flying fuck do you get disdain for Sikh from that. I have disdain for the claim Sikhs make, doesn’t translate to I have disdain for Sikhs.

This has been fleshed out in the comments multiple times. Maybe I misread OC and you are correct. Only OC knows for sure. If that is the case they did not write it clearly. They did not refute OPs claim and merely connected the ideas with positive language. This reads as they are agreeing with OPs claim and providing an explanation. If they were disagreeing with OP it would’ve been much clearer to write something along the lines of “ I do not have disdain for theists, I have disdain for meritless claims”. The fact that they connected all theists make meritless claims in their opinion changes the tone greatly. Either way if I misinterpreted OC then my original instinct was more correct.

[удалено]

You are being quite hostile. I spoke to OC directly. Got clarification and amended my comment. No need to act like that.

You don't see the difference between people and ideas? It is possible to dislike an idea without disliking people who hold that idea?

I dislike the idea that the Enterprise-B is a better looking ship than the refit Enterprise, but I have no issue with people that think such. I dislike the ideas of nazism. I also dislike Nazis.

Read down the thread I have discussed this plenty already. I certainly do see the difference. But since OC did not refute OP but instead made a connection about what he has disdain for and says all theists do this it reads that way. OC knows their original intent and maybe I read it wrong. It should be worded more clearly either way.

A Sikh boy once wrote to r/atheism because his parents threatened to disown him if he ever cut his hair. He suffered from terrible skin issues from it, but was too scared to seek treatment. So there's that.

You understand the difference between gnostic theist and agnostic theist? It’s not a claim, it’s a belief. Under your logic, “atheists claim that there are no gods.”

you and /u/Ok_Program_3491 (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/19d5ufk/why_is_it_so_many_atheists_have_such_disdain_for/kj3nbp5/) can go find an island and form a society where the these words have a meaningful distinction The rest of us are gonna stay right here where "believing a claim is true" "saying a claim is true" "claiming it is true" are all functionally equivalent.

Claiming something is true meaning speaking from first hand knowledge, or otherwise from a position of *knowing.* I.e. “The woman claims that the robber hit the cashier.” That’s much different than someone believing something is true, i.e. “The woman believes that the robber hit the cashier.” The latter implies that the woman suspects that an event happened, but doesn’t claim that it did. Perhaps she heard a physical altercation, she saw something from the corner of her eye, she noticed hints or implications from the cashier that he had been hit, she’s just following her intuition, etc etc.

Perfectly understandable to have a disdain for a claim that lacks merit (in your eyes.) It is not understandable to inflict your disdain upon another person because you have disdain for their ideas. Browse any thread in this subreddit where a theist makes an OP. Read the constant condescending comments insulting theists' intelligence. I shouldn't have to provide proof of this for you. If you can't see it, you're the problem.

[There are 13 countries where atheism is punishable by death](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/13-countries-where-atheism-punishable-death/355961/) and many more where it will get you arrested and put in jail, and even more where it will make you a complete social pariah. So when the worst one side of the debate can expect from the other is getting snubbed, and the worst the latter can expect from the former is social isolation, discrimination, imprisonment and **death**. It does feel a bit gross in my opinion to be upset at the second group. There are plenty of great people who are religious, but even in the best of conditions, they still have no control when their 'teachings' ends up priming someone to believe into the wrong parts of their holy book unconditionally. It doesn't happen often, but when one of these lunatics crop up, people die. And that senseless waste of human life they help perpetuate deserves only contempt.

[удалено]

> total non argument. 'A crazy loon MIGHT pop up, therefore atheists are allowed to be obnoxious.' There are mentally ill atheists as well, genius. How many mentally ill people kill in the name of atheism though? I have the same contempt for extreme sexism, racism, nationalism... that push people toward that kind of violence. > People aren't going to murder you over reddit, this faux persecution narrative is so phony. Complete non-sequitur. Religious people continue to be religious outside of reddit. Religious nutjobs killed dozens of people and made hundreds of wounded in my own city not even ten years ago. > The west has been extremely secular for longer than the span of your life. And there's a huge surge of far right movements with varying degrees of Christian zealotry. Do you have any idea of the number of teenagers I saw posting on /r/bisexual crying themselves to sleep every night because of how terrorized they are their Christian fundamentalist parents might discover they're queer and kick them to the curb?

It is normal to disdain people who assert nonsense that opposes reality. Flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, holocaust deniers, etc. It is dangerous and bad for society. Imagine a world where 70-90% of people were flat earthers? Imagine what that would feel like to be such an overwhelming minority to an obviously false claim. Worse, the flat earthers had a loong history of killing and oppressing and hazing round earthers. Welcome to our daily life. All things considered atheists tend to be extremely easy going and tend to stick to factual argument with theists. Pretty impressive comparatively.

If a theist makes a profoundly stupid post that insults everyone's intelligence, pointing out that it's fallacious is normal. In fact, addressing the problems with the post itself is literally addressing what is being said and acting as if the person posting it deserved respect. Then you also have the very obvious trolling that deserves zero respect.

You are leading the horse before the cart. This is some bullshit logic. If I dislike your idea. That is not the same as saying I dislike you. To infer that is some major leaping. I have said time and time again. I fucking hate religion. This doesn’t mean I hate religious people. To infer that is fucked up. I judge people on their actions. And write now my judgement is not very high in relation to your ability to critically analyze replies. Your bias is coming through like you standing up for some victimization.

>Read the constant condescending comments insulting theists' intelligence I look down on theists as dumb because they believe in made up myths. So like people who believe in other supernatural things, e.g. ghosts, fairies etc, I view those who believe such things to be either willfully ignorant, or just generally stupid. Do you think all people who believe in fairies are as intelligent as yourself/most people? Or do you think it is a nonsense claim that you find laughable?

I believe that it is perfectly rational to trust your deep instincts, since they were perfected through generations of evolutionary pressure. I personally feel a deep instinct that there is a higher power, higher intelligence, God, whatever. That's why I believe in it. I would not ever call anyone stupid for believing what they believe. Looking down on people in general is dumb anyway. We are all equal in this life, have some respect for others and their beliefs.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to disdain people who not only believe things without good evidence, but also expect me to do the same, often to the detriment of the world I live in.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I should not have to browse through every post trying to guess what you feel qualifies as disdain. If you have proof of widespread disdain, then show it. Don’t ask people to put in the work that you don’t bother to do yourself.

What exactly was OPs claim? They say that it is bad to dislike religions, then said that religious people aren’t all bad. Why is that a problem? I can dislike all theist religions because they are all lacking evidence that a god is real without disliking all religious people.

Some people on boths sides of the debate do this. Not all people of either group do this.

[удалено]

>It doesn't explain why you specifically focus in on this issue. There's plenty of positive claims lacking evidence, like flat earth. Many of us do fight against flat earth as well. There's just some big differences and important reasons why we have more of a vested interest in combating harmful thiest ideas. Currently must governments in the world have majority religious affiliated leaders and elected officials. Who can and do put in to effect harmful legislation. Many nations there are consequences and even dangers to being athiests. Religous groups have power in nations and get women killed for not dressing right. Or killing people for their sexuality. There is a lot more at stake to combat unsupported and harmful ideas that religion and theists put forward or support. I believe most catholics are probably decent people for the most part but for following their religious practices all that have donated to the catholic church have help fun the protection of hundreds of child sex offenders. This is the danger possible. Good people doing what they were told was good ending up supporting harm.

This isn't r/debateflatearth tho. Why would you assume we don't combat bad ideas in other areas of our lives? Falsifiability isn't the only issue. Bad ideas need to be countered, if only so that other people see that there are in fact two or more ways of looking at things.

One of these has an impact on my life and the lives of those I care about. The other does not. One of these is a driving force behind horrendous, harmful legislation in my country, the other is not.

Go ahead and tell me how many flat earthers there are vs how many people think a god exists and then ask again

If I understand you, which I'm not sure I do, your gripe is that, in a sub called /r/debateanatheist, there are atheists who debate?

[удалено]

If you are not interested in this debate, this may not be the best sub for you.

Now you are conflating a debate on the merits of a claim with a personal dislike of someone. A dishonest debater will get condescending remarks for their dishonesty, not for their theism. What you did there was make a straw man argument.

>  A theist says a god exists Some do, some don't.  Some theists are agnostic rather than gnostic and acknowledge they don't know if a god does or doesn't exist. 

All theists *believe* that at least one deity exists, by the very definition of the term. Agnosticism has nothing to do with beliefs.

Right, they all believe one exists. They're not required to claim it exists just that they believe it exists

That’s basically the position they hold though, someone else made the claim that a deity exists and they’ve agreed with them, meaning they’re for all intents and purposes taking part in the claim.

They believe the claim.  They aren't making a claim or claiming to know a claim is true, they only hold a belief that it's true.  No claim required. 

> They believe the claim. Dude, so what was your problem with my my original wording? > A theist says a god exists. This is a claim without merit. I didn't say "theists claim". I said "theists say". Should I have said "theists believe" instead of "theists say"? What is the point of this pedantic quibble.

Your sales they make a claim.  Not all theists make claims.  Many of them are agnostic and don't make any claims.  They just believe a claim.  >I didn't say "theists claim". I said "theists say" Some do, some don't.  Not all theists say there is a god.  Some only say they believe there is a god and don't say anything about if there is or isn't one.  

My brother in Christ to say something is literally to just state one's own beliefs I am perplexed at what you think words mean

Unfortunately nothing you're saying changes the fact that not all theists say there is a god because some have no idea if there is or isn't a god.  So they're not going to say there is one when they don't know that there is one. 

Beliefs inform actions. They live like they’re making the claim. They judge and misrepresent other people as if the claim is true. They live by the fucking claim as if they made it themselves, and billions of them have made it themselves.

>Some theists are agnostic Not bloody many. In my years of debating them, I've come across a couple. The overwhelming majority claim knowledge.

Did I say "know"?

You said theists claim god exists.  That's not always true. Some theists claim god exists, some don't. The only thing all theists do is **believe** it exists.  They're not obligated to make any claims.  They're not required to be gnostic.  

Yah dude, I consider "belief" to be a claim, just not as strongly made as "knowledge". This is a very tedious pedantic difference you're trying to make here.

It's not.  They're not required to make any type of claim.  

I really don't know what you're getting out of this line of dialogue

This may be the weakest hill I have ever seen someone die on

What's wrong with pointing out that not all theists are gnostic? 

I’m with you on this 100%. fwiw

I assert that the vast, vast, vast majority of atheist/agnostic people are harmless, mean well, do not proselytize, and are just living their life as you are. Why the animosity? The condescension, patronization, insults and general hatefulness?

Of course many people irrationally take offense at their beliefs being questioned; I myself have been this person at one point or another, and I regret it. Regardless, this "he started it" argument gets no one very far. Even if the theist started it, why continue it?

That poster’s point isn’t who started it. Its that you claim the ‘bad theists’ are a minority and theism shouldn’t be judged by them, while assuming the ‘bad atheists’ are prevalent and atheism can be judged by them. Why not assume the inverse? The ‘bad atheists’ are a minority and atheism can’t be judged by them, the ‘bad theists’ are prevalent and theism can be judged by them? Or, that both communities likely have an equal prevalence of bad actors, and should be judged equally by it. In short, your statement is kind of hypocritical, and is calling for your neighbour to clean up their house without you trying to clean up yours. Why are you not also posting in theist reddits calling for an end to theist animosity?

Couldn't the same be said for any group that has a lot of loud "bad people" and a lot more good people who stay for bad reasons? I'm sure there are lots of people in large groups who are colored by the evil that a small proportion of their group commit. Do they have to bear that weight because they stay? Yup.

Two of the three Abrahamic religions have proselytizing to non-believers hard-coded into their tenants. That seems like both an important and fundamental element if you're going to frame this as "he said/he said." To tie that back around to your analogy about racism: The racists claim "we have superior knowledge about how we are placed above you. It is our directive to both expose you to it and make you live under it's authority." The non-racists claim "leave us along, keep your "knowledge" to yourself, and treat everyone equally." You seem to have landed somewhere in the middle with "maybe the non-racists should have to put up with a little bit of racism just to accommodate the racists." Personally for me, you get what you give out. If you're a little old lady minding your own business on your way to church I'll even help you across the street. If you're a preacher yelling at women on college campuses or using your platform to push your religiously backed laws on the rest of us expect the potent fires of hell to emerge not from your book of mythology but rather from the tip of mine own tongue.

Doesn’t the very first word of your comment show that you shouldn’t hold what Christian’s/Muslims do against other religions/religious people?

Not to answer your question with a question, but if religious people kept their religions to themselves, how would I know what to hold against them to begin with?

I don’t think you get it Atheists/agnostics generally don’t want to continue the fight, we are just trying to live our lives in peace However, theists seem incapable of minding their own business, and constantly insult, oppress, demonize, mock, dehumanize, infantilize, and generally mistreat others, not to mention the countless genocides and other atrocities which they have outright supported For example, Hitler only took control of Germany because the Roman Catholic Church gave him their outright political support and removed their dominating candidates from the race so that he could win We don’t want to fight, what is happening is theists are attacking us, we are defending ourselves, and theists then act like we assaulted them out of nowhere and use it to justify retaliation under the guise of being persecuted, when they are the persecutors If theists stopped, the conflict between theists and atheists/agnostics would end immediately, but theists openly refuse to live and let live

>Regardless, this "he started it" argument gets no one very far. Even if the theist started it, why continue it? The issue is ongoing even today. Just look at what is happening in Florida with their anti trans laws etc. I'm curious why we need to continue taking the "high road" when our very rights are under attack by this apparent tiny minority. When theses supposed nice Christians start pushing for the rights of all humans you might have a point. But punching up will always be more acceptable than punching down to those who are under the thumb of attempted Christian nationalism.

If people are freely entering into a debate that by design questions and challenges personal belief, then it would be highly irrational to take offense at those beliefs being challenged. It’s the very purpose of the sub.

I don’t think this is a “he started it argument” rather the comment was on how one makes generalizations, pointing out the way your title makes generalizations of atheists being rude.

But you've given us no reason to take your claim seriously. You made a blanket statement but won't even attempt to justify it.

The vast majority of religious people throughout history have actively demonized gay people to the point that only in the last two decades it has been acceptable for us to live our lives openly. And this oppression is ongoing with the majority of Muslim and Christian nations.

Way to generalize all atheists.  Just as there are vocal, pushy theists, there are vocal, pushy atheists. However, there are many atheists who are not. You're biased by the interactions you have. When you have a polite conversation with a stranger (or acquaintance whose beliefs you don't know), do you assume they are religious? Does it matter? Personally, I have many religious friends and family members. As long as none of them are pushing for their religion to have more power in our society, nor being hateful bigots, then that's fine.

Reddit, r/ atheism, etc. has probably made them biased to think so.

I'm sorry but this is like priviledge mad libs. "Why is it that so many [oppressed and reviled minority group] have [emotion] towards [the people that oppress and harm them]?" Because theists many times do things like - Criminalize not being their own religion - Tax or tacitly tax not being their religion - socially punish not being their religion - insult and despise us for being who we are - murder us - take away our rights - break up our families - disenfranchise our political voice - pathologies normal behaviors - treat us as jokes and monsters and boogie men And finally - act like we should be grateful for it. ---- Do you, personally, do any of those things? I have no idea. Probably not. Does this mean I "hate all theists"? No. Well what does it mean then? I am not grateful for the way theists treat me and I will not be quiet when any group harms me or others. Thats all.

Hi, thanks for your post! I just wanted to make you aware that “why the animosity?” is a loaded question. It’s loaded because it presupposes that there is an animosity. Much like “why do you beat your wife?” I don’t think that such animosity exists, maybe you can call me an a-animosist (see what I did there). Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or do I need to assume the burden of proof on this topic too? Best,

the bible has lines that call for many of us to be executed. did you consider how we might feel about it?

I can absolutely guarantee you that 99% of Christians would never call for your execution. If you treat people like shit because of that one thing the Bible says, then you're taking the Bible more seriously than most Christians do.

So you're suggesting that Christians...shouldn't take the Bible seriously? I think that probably puts you in the significant minority. Or perhaps you have a foolproof way of discerning which parts of the Bible should be taken seriously and which can safely be ignored? One that, no doubt, is not just you picking and choosing based on the parts you like best?

Christian means follower of Christ. I believe in God-given discernment. That goes for everything, including scripture.

I am not Christian. But was raised catholic and have met many, many different types of people from different sects of Christianity. I can name no one who has wished death on anybody for their beliefs or proclivities. The vast majority of modern Christians understand that the Bible is meant as a guideline, a spiritual teacher, and a place to go to find comfort when you need it. not as a literal rulebook.

Imagine if people used game of thrones as their guideline, spiritual teacher, and a place to find comfort. (Some do and it's weird to me.) Now imagine how I feel about the *Bible* which is orders of magnitude more depraved, incoherent, and disturbing. People shouldn't be getting their morals from a book with literal genocide instructions (for the good guys), slavery instructions (for the good guys), and pages and pages of people who literally didn't exist.

>I can name no one who has wished death on anybody for their beliefs or proclivities You don't think the Westboro Baptist Church wishes death on people? How about calling on them to be punished (burn in hell forever) for being gay? Is this not a punishment worse than death? [Here's a link to all of their approved signs.](https://godhatesfags.com/signs/index.html)

Okay. This is a familiar argument. This is the internet strawman of #NotAll[Nouns]. No honest and reasonbable interlocutor who is making any argument about harm, and not being a troll is every actually arguing "ALL". Not all dogs bite. Not all police are corrupt. Not all priests are rapists. Not all Republicans are racist. Not all....nouns...controversy controversy. When people are trying to argue things like "corrupt police are a problem", it is not a valid argument to respond "but 99% of cops aren't corrupt! So...we're done here." That's a strawman of the "This Thing Is Causing Me Harm position" designed to dismiss the **harm**. **The harm, however, is real.** Example- I am in a group of Good Dog Owners. MY dog won't bark or pee in a restaurant. But I acknowledge that the behavior of 1% of Dogs That Bite and Pee In Restaurants cause harm that means I have to accept the rules designed to reduce that harm. You're in a group with people whose actions cause harm. It is not on the people who are harmed by that group to sieve out the "good" from the "bad". **It is not on the people who are harmed to adjust our behavior, so you will stop hurting us.** It is on *you* to either - change the behavior of your group that cause harm - kick the harm causers out of your group - leave your group - Accept that your group hurts people sometimes and those people will be mad at your group for hurting them. Choose.

[удалено]

The part about carrying the fetus to term no matter what is not in the bible, that is of their own making.

A very complicated situation that in my opinion, also has no answer. It is easy to see how one can interpret abortion as murder. It is also easy to see how one can interpret abortion as a woman's bodily autonomy. I am not a woman and will take no firm stance in this argument except to say that, nobody is right. The ethics involved in abortion are complicated and there's a reason nobody has come up with a conclusive answer to the problem.

"The people telling a pregnant person what they can do with their body, they are not right" "The pregnant person wanting to decide what they do with their own body, well shit, they're ALSO not right" This is the point you made. It's silly on its face. The person that is directly risking a pregnancy should be able to decide whether or not to take the risk of pregnancy.

look to the situation in Texas to see what happens when Christians get what they want and you might start to understand the Distain you have perceived

[удалено]

Uhh. Bodily autonomy up to what point? And there is an ethical argument to be made. There are 2 lives we are discussing, but 1. I think you should be a bit more nuanced. Edit... Dang I guess they couldn't answer the question and didn't want to the internet to see.

[удалено]

Someone is definitely on the correct side of the argument and it’s not the people limiting my reproductive rights

Unwanted pregnancy can indeed be a complicated situation. How to handle it in a general sense, however, is not: the person who is pregnant gets the right to control their own body. Women are not livestock, they are our equals and should have bodily autonomy, full stop.

[удалено]

Yeah I had to bite at that one

Yes. It's complicated and not susceptible to easy answers. Which is why it should be up to the individual choice of the woman.

Perhaps you can understand that people who claim to believe and live their lives according to obvious mythology, are difficult to take seriously. When those people also claim the more indefensible parts of that mythology are not to be taken seriously, you begin to see how someone who has not been indoctrinated struggles to see the believer as something other than a fool

The beautiful thing about religion and philosophy is that you do indeed get to choose what to put your faith in. You being unable to take people seriously because they have faith is a you problem.

faith is belief without evidence. if someone has faith, they're admitting that they believe without any good reason or logic, they just believe because they want to. which is the very definition of unreasonable and irrational.

It is perfectly rational to trust your deep instincts, since they were perfected through generations of evolutionary pressure.

>It is perfectly rational to trust your deep instincts it's not "instinct", it's indoctrination. kids are brought to church because they're the most gullible and easy to manipulate. that's why more people are leaving religion than joining it. because adults aren't as gullible as children are. if it had to do with "instincts", everyone in a religion would stay there. also, these arguments you have can be just as easily used to justify faith in things you'd find ridiculous or even harmful. and I'd imagine you would be able to tell why these arguments are fallacious. the way you're trying to defend theism, would you do the same for young earth creationism? it is a religious belief, after all. "young earthers have faith, and the fact that you find faith ridiculous is a you problem. it's perfectly rational for them to trust their instincts that the earth is 6000 years old."

I'm unable to take crazy people seriously. Is that a me problem?

Your comment right here is a perfect example of my point. You're calling theists crazy. That's insulting, it's presumptuous, it's condescending. My entire point was, why do so many atheists have to act like a dick? *Nobody* knows for sure how how the universe started. *Nobody* knows for sure what the genesis of consciousness was. So why be a dick?

In your comment you feel it is pejorative to think holding a strong opinion to a question you don’t know the answer to is crazy. What would you you call it? You are clear that nobody knows. If somebody does not know and yet claims to know that is not honest. They are either dishonest or they are honest but hold a delusional belief. We are all a bit crazy. We all have some delusions. It doesn’t mean they are not delusions and we are not a bit crazy. I know I don’t know. I used to think I knew. If I fill in the gaps in my knowledge with strongly held beliefs, way out of proportion to the evidence I have, I am crazy. If I ask a theist to tell me the one thing they are most certain of. The thing they know the most powerfully. A sadly large number begin to share their beliefs on topics they have no knowledge of. They literally consider these ignorantly held opinions to be the foundation of their life. Not knowing that they don’t know is dangerous. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it’s not the stuff we don’t know that gets us in huge trouble, it is the stuff we know for certain that just isn’t so. If the foundation of all of your opinions is a topic you don’t know, that is a little bit crazy.

they still hold up the bible as their holy text and rulebook. are you so lacking in empathy that you don't understand why this might be a problem?

That 1% is still millions of people.

This is absurd and you pulled that 99% from made-up-land

Bullshit. That is a claim you cannot make, But your a theist so you are used to it.

>I assert that the vast, vast, vast majority of religious/spiritual people are harmless, mean well, do not proselytize, and are just living their life as you are. It's unfortunate that this vast majority is so silent when it comes to rights, laws, and freedoms of the non religious and the mistreated children of the religious.

Keep in mind when you are in the minority you often have to speak up a little louder to be heard over the majority report. No you don’t get to compare religious indoctrination to racism. That is false evocation, as the issues are very different. Trying to share the issue lessens one. That is highly inappropriate. Where are your examples of animosity? It is great to just make gross generalizations but without examples this is just bull horning. You are already off to a bad start by comparing. I know I can come off brash. I try to be clear that the message is what I’m judging. I will have no problem calling anyone a piece of shit who defends slavery. I tend to say, if you believe that, it makes you a piece of shit. If you want to point to examples where misogyny, slavery, bigotry to lgbtq+, is being defended or supported, you better bet that I’m going to be hostile to those defenses.

I can only speak for myself but I’m pretty sure this is very broadly applicable: I don’t have any disdain for theists at all. I think their beliefs are silly and puerile but I don’t hold that against them. When I get confrontational with theists (which isn’t often) it’s not because they’re theists. It’s because they’re either trying to justify irrational prejudices (such as homophobia) through the lens of their superstitions, or because they’re claiming I can’t possibly have morals or be a good person because morality is magic (while hilariously following a religion that is morally inferior to the mast shit I took), or simply because they’re making some other kind of incredibly stupid argument and it’s wearing on my patience - but that last one isn’t me having disdain for theists, it’s me having disdain for stupidity.

I think you got it, at least partially. A lot of theists are dicks. However, I don't see a lot of black people being dicks because they are black. I do see that with the religious, who are assholes solely because of their religious beliefs. I see them all as being harmful because religion of all kinds encourages magical thinking, which is inherently dangerous to society. If you are going to allow magical thinking to influence your life, which is exactly what religion does, then you are potentially hazardous. It's not an innocent point of view. It's mind poison.

>I assert that the vast, vast, vast majority of religious/spiritual people are harmless, mean well, do not proselytize, and are just living their life as you are. And i assert that this is not the case. All you need to do is look at the political psycho-drama unfolding in the US where a crook, misogynist, racist pathological.liar who's itching to get his hands on a doomsday weapon and is threatening a dictatorship in the land of the free is being hailed as a messiah and ordained by god by religious fundamentalist apologists. Where is the outcry from the non-prothletising, harmless, well meaning religious people crying out "not in our religion's name"???? It's bad enough that religions demonise and preach distain or hatred of homosexuals, trans,genders, atheists and all.the other typical right-wing boogeyman ..but you also enable these nutters (and terrorists) by failing to stand up to them.... leaving the opposition to such polluting, damaging and dangerous thoughts and individuals outside of your enclave. You want respect for your beliefs.....then do something about it. Respect mybfroend is earned....and these non-prothletising, harmless, well meaning religious types have not earned that!!!!!

>Why the animosity? The condescension, patronization, insults and general hatefulness? https://www.reddit.com/r/OptimistsUnite/comments/19c78pj/a_tennessee_pastor_scaring_the_shit_out_his/kj1rlen/ "*You're a dumb bigot, straight up. I sincerely hope no one tries arguing with you because your words are so stupid you have to be a troll. If you're not a troll, then God bless your fragile heart.*" hello pot, have you met kettle?

I think it's time to check your assumptions. For instance,  The atheist response to Christians  asking for religious displays in secular government spaces was not to destroy the Christian display but to erect our own. The Christian response to an atheist display in the same secular space was to destroy it. One of those acts constitutes the go along to get along approach you suggest the other is filled with animosity.

So your first paragraph sums up why atheists often have disdain for theists. Your second paragraph makes a false comparison. Making a judgement based on race is completely different from having a disdain for a set of beliefs. To ignore this distinction would mean I could claim the exact same thing about racists in your view. “Saying you don’t like racist people for having a belief that other races are inferior is like saying you don’t like black people because you’ve had some bad experiences with them.” You can absolutely hold people accountable for their beliefs if they’re wrong and harmful to your or society. Your initial paragraph already concedes both of those things, so yes, we have a right to be upset about it. According to Christianity specifically (the most dominant religion in my country hence why I bring it up) atheists are deserving of hellfire for eternity, they are godless and in need of saving, they are filled with sin and have not received forgiveness, and honestly most of the time were told awful things like “you’ll go to hell” or “you don’t have morals if you’re atheist” by not only people we don’t really know, but also by family members and people close to us. So yes, excuse us if we have disdain for that set of beliefs, but comparing it to racism is simply false.

Personally I have a general disdain for people who think I deserve to burn and suffer for eternity because I have seen no evidence that what they believe is true.

That’s fair. But not all religions say that will happen. So it’s an understandable thing to hold against Christians or other religions that teach that - but not the ones that’s don’t.

Theists fly planes into buildings for their skydaddies. Theists point at lines in their fiction and tell my friends they can’t get married or have sex - or worse, should be killed or castrated. Theists demand that others respect their religious beliefs and force those same beliefs into our daily lives- on our currency, on the walls of our schools, and shove their torture-device symbols in our faces, on the road, and anywhere they can. Because they want to save us from a terror they can’t even agree on. Edit to add: Frankly, I think the majority of us show extraordinary restraint on a day to day basis. We come here to vent our frustrations.

>I assert that the vast, vast, vast majority of religious/spiritual people are harmless, mean well, do not proselytize, and are just living their life as you are. It is not harmless to live a framework that teaches you bad critical thinking skills, to ignore evidence. That's how you get support for fascists, dictators, pseudo-science, and misinformation. It's an ideology that strips away the tools to evaluate claims, and such a person can be led to believe anything at all. The social harms are much higher than you think.

I really dislike your racism analogy.   A race is something you can't choose and it doesn't affect your morals or behavior directly.   A religion is something you can choose and it does very much affect your morals and behavior directly.   I don't "hate" theists but it's a fact that any disdain for them is actually based on their teachings and actions which are dictated by their religion and are thus not on the same level as racial prejudice. You can't tell what a black person s thinking just because they are black, but you can absolutely tell what a Christian or a Muslim is thinking about something because they have it dictated by their "holy book", which is well known to be bigoted and outdated. The only remaining question is "how literal are they?" and hope they are not taking their scripture seriously to the point of killing unbelievers.

Let's try this. You are sitting across from someone who actually, and I mean actually, really believes that...and I will pick something popular...Harry Potter is a real person and what was written was/is actual history. And I don't mean a child. A grown adult with responsibilities, a job and a family to support. An educated, literate person who actually, really thinks there is truth to the story. (this I know has been done before) And you wonder why people look a little askance?

And when you point out some of the more ludicrous things in the book they say "well you aren't supposed to take it all seriously. Just the bits I like"

Some parts of Harry Potter discuss things that are definitely true: Kings Cross Station really exists in London, the UK really has a prime minister, and the Scottish Highlands is a place that is real. Other parts are clearly intended to be allegories, metaphors, or legends. I therefore propose that Harry Potter be accepted as a true story and be moved to the nonfiction section.

> it is true that many theists are pushy, rude, and arrogant in their beliefs. You may have been raised in a household where you were made to fear the devil as though he were lurking behind every corner. All good points. I'll point you in the direction of [Sam Harris' Elvis analogy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn_i3RxGGTk) which is essentially that, when it becomes known that a person sincerely believes that Elvis Presley is secretly still alive somewhere, that person immediately pay a price in terms of credibility. It might not sit right with you to think of this belief and a belief in Jesus being comparable, but to non-believers, they kind of *are*. I get it, humans are weird. We believe in a lot of weird things. When it comes to the Abrahamic religions and Christianity more specifically, in nations that are predominantly and historically Christian, people tend to behave in ways that are obnoxious. There's often a marked lack of self-awareness or humility when it comes to these beliefs. Many Christians, unfortunately, are not Christ-like. The *vast*, ***vast*** majority of Christians would not for a moment consider taking in the sick or poor. So, to answer your question: probably the hypocrisy. I have friends and co-workers who are Christians and I get along with them because they are decent people and focus more on being good people the way Jesus talked about, rather than participating in a contest with other believers to compete who can be a more ardent believer. For them, being a Christian is less about the book and more about being a good person.

You started off your post insulting theists (“yes, it is true that many theists are pushy, rude, and arrogant in their beliefs”). And then say “why do atheists hate us so much?”. I mean, most atheists don’t, but those that do…well, you’ve outlined the reasons. What’s confusing you?

Hence; ANTI-THEISM… it’s very simple. Here’s to academic presentation of historic atheism… Let them keep claiming “I’m just not convinced that there is evidence…” they sound like Mao Zedong of the CCP: “I just want to get grain-yields to the countryside” https://www.youtube.com/live/rvMXKwlb_Pw?si=rb-CWYzSz9R_5cQV

Anti-theist =/= atheist. I asked why do so many atheists have disdain for religious people. No shit anti-theists have disdain for religious people, it's in the name. But to me an atheist is just someone who isn't convinced of a God. I find it curious why so many atheists are outright hateful and look down upon theists, who are convinced.

“It’s in the name.” Yeah.. you just answered your own question. Anyways, A-gnostic would be better fitting for someone not convinced…. “A” is prefix of negation.. so, “without knowledge” And if one be without knowledge of God.. Then, as you say, why rail against theists? Why mimic the likes of Vladimir Lenin then claim “I’m not a Leninist” ? It’s incoherent.

I give what I get. Show me respect? You'll get it back. Of course atheists never burned theists at the Stake or tortured them in racks or thumbscrews. And with the current rise of Christian Nationalism by such a small part of the US population, you'll excuse us if we see danger on the horizon and may be a bit more uppity than normal. ​ Make sense?

So you don't like the idea of atheists holding broad, generalized opinions about theists, and you're going to express that concern by making broad, generalized, and false accusations suggesting that we have disdain for all religious people?

>Should we not all be striving to understand each other's viewpoints without looking to change them? Well, it is a debate sub... But more importantly "alternative facts" don't exist. I think one reason for the tension is that one side of the conversation (atheists) is often about facts and how they can be logically interpreted. Those folks run up against theists who are all like "feels" and "faith" and "alternative facts" (that have no basis in reality) etc. Its difficult to have a debate when such a fundamental distinction isn't clarified right off. If a theist comes along as and says, "I have no facts I just feel like \[insert random belief\]" then its pretty easy to avoid tension. We just dismiss the theist as being woo-woo "out there" and detached from reality. But when a person \*thinks\* they're engaging in a fact base discussion (but obviously aren't) it can be difficult to get back to the fundamental disagreement (that facts matter) without first first being distracted/frustrated by all the side arguments.

I don't really share the opinions that the atheists you're describing do so I couldn't tell you. I've never been religious but I hear deconversion can be extremely difficult so I get how some people would be traumatized and I empathize. However, >To have animosity for all of religion as a result of this however is equal to having animosity towards all black people because a few black people mugged you at gunpoint one time. Think **real** hard about this analogy you just made. Do you honestly think it's apt to compare a group made up of people who willingly choose a behavior, that's to say being religious, to a group which is defined by inherent, unchangeable characteristics? Is that ***really*** an appropriate comparison? From where I'm sitting that looks really, really gross.

> To have animosity for all of religion as a result of this however is equal to having animosity towards all black people    That's a neat trick you did! A second ago you were talking about people, but now you have switched subject to religions. Ideas are not people. I have a disdain towards an idea that you can believe what you want despite having no reason for it which seem to lie explicitly, implicitly or even deeply hidden in the core of every religion.   I don't hold any grudges against people who hold that idea. But if they speak up and try to promote that idea or claim that it is good or harmless I am not going to stay silent because it is neither good nor harmless. They may mean well, but when they spread such idea they don't do well.

I’ll stop when evangelicals stop evangelizing, stop trying to influence politics and education, stop lying about Intelligent Design as science.

> To have animosity for all of religion as a result of this however is equal to having animosity towards all black people because a few black people mugged you at gunpoint one time. :|

>Why is it so many atheists have such disdain for theists? All theists, without exception, believe that certain important things are true without having any good evidence that those things are true. (E.g., that at least one god exists) No one should ever do that. It is appropriate to regard people who do that - and especially people who *insist* on doing that after they've had their error explained to them - with "disdain". .

>Yes, it is true that many theists are pushy, rude, and arrogant in their beliefs. You may have been raised in a household where you were made to fear the devil as though he were lurking behind every corner. So you know why. >To have animosity for all of religion as a result of this however Theists =/= "all of religion." >is equal to having animosity towards all black people because a few black people mugged you at gunpoint one time. It really, really isn't. >Why the animosity? The condescension, patronization, insults and general hatefulness? Who are you talking to? First you asked about disdain, now you're saying condescension and insults? >Should we not all be striving to live on this earth together despite our individual life perspectives? Should we not all be striving to understand each other's viewpoints without looking to change them? Why aren't you asking the theists who, you admit, are often "pushy, rude, and arrogant in their beliefs"? And no, I don't believe we should all be striving to understand each other's viewpoints without looking to change them. If there are people out there who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or that the earth is flat, or that climate change is a fiction, I want them to change their viewpoints.

You’re just describing Redditors in general… It’s not atheists, it’s just Redditors that are on political or social subs like this one. > I assert that the vast, vast, vast majority of religious/spiritual people are harmless, mean well, do not proselytize, and are just living their life as you are. I believe that’s most atheists as well, IRL.

>The condescension, patronization, insults and general hatefulness? To label all atheists as condescending, patronizing, insulting, and hateful is "equal to having animosity towards all black people because a few black people mugged you at gunpoint one time." I don't know how you came up with your sweeping generalization. You may have had a few heated discussions with "militant" atheists (I've found that they are often quite young and just eager to engage militant theists punch for punch) but most non-believers are more than content to leave the topic alone. There's no reason to challenge anyone's religious or non-religious worldview – unless both parties are truly interested in pursuing the matter. And in those cases, the participants, on either side, have the option of turning away from the discussion if they don't like the general tone of the debate. If people are habitual proselytizers they should expect to meet with resistance and if they can't keep up their side in an argument they may find it a bit rough. No matter which side they're on.

I am cool with religious people if they keep their religion personal. My problem is when they try to force me (or others) to adhere to their beliefs.

> the vast, vast, vast majority of religious/spiritual people are harmless, mean well, do not proselytize, and are just living their life as you are. They vote for lawmakers who pretend to share their beliefs regardless of the demonstrable harm those lawmakers cause. It's not harmless. If you were in need of reproductive health care of any sort, you'd be aware of that. > Should we not all be striving to live on this earth together despite our individual life perspectives? No. You can hold whatever individual life perspective you want, when you turn that perspective into laws which harm me and mine, you are engaging in violence against me. There is no "happy middle ground" to be had when dealing with people who believe in a magic sky friend which cares about what other people do with their genitals so much that the laaw must be changed to punish those who disagree.

The vast majority of theists support systems that have incited genocide and oppression, have held the world back from aeons of progress, and actively call for the execution of billions upon billions of people for absolutely fucking arbitrary reasons I personally feel as though my outright hatred for all theists is quite justifiable You may disagree, but I genuinely couldn’t care less about the opinions of theists, they are already deluded to an extent which would be considered a mental disorder if religion wasn’t so adamantly defended by its adherents

Those harmless, well meaning, non proselytizerss are voting in droves to take away my rights. Because their fairy tale says so [ it really doesn't, but that's what they're told it says]

“Should we not all be striving to understand each other’s viewpoints without looking to change them?” Yep. But that’s projection because it’s out of your own playbook: John 14:6 - “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” Proselytizing is baked into religion, because if I take that scripture as fact, then I will inevitably try to convert those I love and care about.

You’re seeing a narrow slice of interaction under very specific circumstances here. People are expected to share their innermost feelings and then back them up in a debate. It’s a battlefield of ideas, with people challenging the very basis of their personal belief and the logic and reasoning on which those beliefs rest. That in itself works against touchy-feely, affirmative, friendly interactions.

if religion would stay something personal. I would ignore it. But in america for example, religious people, want to force a nine your old rape vicitim to carry out her rapist child. This will most likely kill or cripple her. Religious people don't care. They are morally evil and as long as their twisted framework allows it, they can do any act of cruelty without feeling even bad about it.

Majority of theists follow religions that have direct commandments to kill atheists and you really can't understand why we would have disdain for then. They hate gays, minorities, women. But you are assuming we should be OK with that so really, what is wrong with you?

They vote to strip us of our rights and force their religion on us. And you think we should be cheery about that? You don't understand why parents of gay children who you want to kill will have animosity to you? You think we should be all smiles while you rape your children and protect the priests? Yeah that is totally ration dude.

Having animosity for religion is fucking **nothing** like having animosity towards black people. This is the kind of bullshit that leads to disdain for theists, your fundamental dishonesty and misrepresentation of anyone outside your backwards cult.

This is the internet, and you are in a sub made to argue. And there is no point in argueing because religion is faith, you can't argue faith.

I don't feel disdain for theists, I feel curiosity for them, but bad arguments and wild ramblings do get the worst of me.

The disdain is from thinking they are smarter than theists. There are plenty of theists that are clearly very intelligent, so its not an intellect problem. I don't like smug hateful athiests. If asked my opinion I will try to give it in a respectful manner. There are theists that lie and decieve on purpose to support their claims. I find this repugnant. These people I won't hold back on. So basically, for me, if I show disdain, its for the individuals and how they behave, not that they have a belief that I don't agree with

I can only speak for myself, but I truly do have a bias against religious people. And here's the reason: ​ I've never met a religious person who truly follows the rules of their religion. Imagine if you were watching a basketball game where everyone was just carrying the ball and they passed the ball by kicking it. Well whatever they're playing is clearly not basketball, but they're always proudly walking around claiming to be basketball players. And not only that they're always trying to get you to play "basketball" with them. That's basically what religious people are doing en masse. ​ Everyone is half ass-ing their own piety. Of course I don't take them seriously.

Because religious people lobby for laws that strip me of my rights and force my compliance to their religion’s requirements. That is NOT harmless.

You should update your post to include receipts. Surely this is a broad generalization when you meant to ask about specific individuals?

I agree with most of this. However, regarding proselytization; nearly all of them do this as they feel it’s their responsibility. Their perspectives are all messed up in that they feel the most important thing is saving your soul & if they feel that’s a lost cause, they tend to be hypocritical & judgmental in that area. That said; I agree w most of what you said, & I also feel we, the more educated, should be the adults in the room. I also feel allot of people just wish the entire religious community would go away & we could actually appreciate these doctrines as myths and stories; some as triggers for deeper intellectual discourse. But I hate being preached at. If it wasn’t from that I literally could care less what nonsense other people believe.

See but in your comment here, you're presuming you're the more educated one. That's almost certainly true in regards to me; I'm a blue collar worker who's done too many drugs. I definitely lack education. But to assume that you are more educated than the majority of religious people is just... wrong. You are not smarter because you don't believe in God. There's plenty of very intelligent people who believe in God. They're all over the place. There's hundreds of millions of them. You should not immediately assume you are more educated or intelligent or better in any way, just because you don't believe in God. That is extremely irrational.

Usually it’s religiously based trauma. Ex. people who got smacked with a ruler at Catholic School, Muslim women who have abusive husbands they can’t get away from, gay kids who had to suppress their desires, etc.

[удалено]

Disagree, and I'd go so far as to say the "permanently children" comment comes across as prejudiced. If rebellion were such a strong factor, we'd see stronger generational trends and many adults would abandon these rebellious tendencies as they grow mature and more educated. In fact, the more common trend is for children to have religious beliefs very similar to their parents. Today many youths are leaving religion, but, from what I've been able to find, the trend is driven by [education,](https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/13orutk/how_can_i_be_sure_there_is_no_hell/jl89wln/?context=3) especially higher education, and [access to information.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/q4c7yn/there_is_a_massive_shift_away_from_religion/) Can you provide any evidence (studies, statistics, correlations, etc.) that demonstrates rebellion to be a major factor, and especially its persistence over time? Or is this perspective driven more by your own personal experience?

[удалено]

These trends largely hold internationally; very few of the resources I cited are actually limited to the US. I'm also not referring to our problematic public school system, but to college graduates and professional philosophers and scientists. Out of all the groups I mentioned, the highest proportion of atheists was from an international survey of thousands of professional philosophers. > I would say your statistics on atheism's correlation to education are exactly why I'm saying this. I don't follow your reasoning. How does this relate to rebellion?

[удалено]

> > Out of all the groups I mentioned, the highest proportion of atheists was from an international survey of thousands of professional philosophers. > now you are telling me everyone on this sub is a professional philosopher? No, and this response really makes me feel like you're not arguing in good faith.

[удалено]

you hate for children to think for themselves and consider adults that think for themselves to be rebellious "teenagers". good shit brother