I know it’s kind of hip and all to be a cynical atheist, but do you find their dogmatic rebuttal of all things religious, tedious?

The atheistic point of view makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever to start with. So by virtue of that statement.. I suppose.. yeah.. tedious. How is it not close-minded to think this or that doesn’t exist just because they don’t know about it?

I find dogmatic narrow-mindedness tedious in all situations.

Having said that, I also find the characterisation of a diverse group as a result of a noisy minority rather tedious too.

I’m not saying you are necessary guilty the above, and I acknowledge your labelling of an “extreme” example, but I think the remark is still somewhat relevant.

I have never met an atheist or agnostic who was so outspoken about their beliefs that they felt the need to conflict with someone who believed in a god. In fact I’ve really only ever seen the reverse (excluding only the monumental d-bag examples like Richard Dawkins).

Sometimes, yes, I wonder which came first, the cynicism or the atheism. Keep in mind though that cynical Christians do the exact same thing.

Okay, this is an explicit critique of atheism. I’m not going to hold back to keep this thread on topic.

@NaturalMineralWater: That’s a gross oversimplification of the atheist point of view. Many of us have whole arsenals of excellent reasons not to believe in god. The lack of a reason to do so in the first place is but one such excellent reason.
As another example, I’d like to point out that you too reject the existence of thousands of gods, and just make an exception for your own. Why would you do such a thing? What’s so special about yours?

I’d also like to point out to the OP that if your present definition of “cynical” includes “jaded and bitter”, then Richard Dawkins is anything but a cynical man. I’m reading a book of his called Unweaving the Rainbow, in which he shows how science opens our eyes to so many wonderful things about the world that are so staggeringly beautiful that awe and wonder and a sense of privilege seem the only sensible reactions to being alive.
The last chapter of his more well-known The God Delusion makes a similar point.

@NaturalMineralWater Doesn’t that make you equally “close minded”? I mean, where do you get off saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist, just because you don’t know about it?

Non-belief in any particular “god” is exactly the same.

There could be:
one god; the god of the bible
one god that we know nothing about
a finite number of gods
an infinite number of gods
no god at all

All religions can be equally true. IMO all religions are either true or none at all, since they all rest on the same foundation.

I doesn’t really matter much in the end. Me having an opinion of people believing in these ”Maybe‘s” is kind of like people having an opinion about homosexuals. It’s really nobodies business to go out and tell people what to do and believe as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. That goes for christians as well as atheists. Speaking out against condoms is one example where you have say that faith can hurt people. Though I am sure most christians feel the same sometimes, that faith can be misguiding.

I had been unaware that it is hip to be a cynical atheist.

After reading Dawkins’ ‘God’ book, I found him to be angry, and correct about most of what he presented in the book. I didn’t, so much, find him tedious.

I’m confused. It’s hip to be a cynical atheist? Since when? And what part of the world/country are you talking about?

Anytime you are trying to understand the essence of what someone is saying, it can be tedious.

Many people have not actually thought through their ideas and don’t see how anyone can not believe the same as them, when they don’t even realize what it is they believe.

Yes, Unless I am in a discussion with THEM on the topic or trying to force my beliefs on them.

@oratio: “All religions can be equally true.”
What.
The five scenarios you summed up are all mutually exclusive. Every religious view subscribes to one of them. In any coherent universe, only one of them can be true.

(By the way, if you include “the god of the bible” as a possibility, you should also include all the other gods as separate possibilities, leading to a huge list of thousands of possible states of affairs.)
(By the way, if you would like to really be consistent, you should also include every conceivable god one could dream up that nobody thought of yet, making the list infinite.)

“All religions can be equally true.”

I would agree with this. All religions contain spiritual lessons and cultural lessons.

The spiritual lessons are almost universal despite the different terminology, but people get caught up in the cultural messages and don’t see the underlying unity.

@Fyrius Yup. That wasn’t the point though. They all have the same faith base, and are all equally credible. The point was that what you believe in is an inner conviction. It didn’t really come out.

I see. Kind of.
So you’re saying their credibility is equal, even if only one view is necessarily actually true. All right. Glad to have that cleared up.

Moving on with the discussion, I would object to that and take the position that as a null hypothesis, atheism is far more credible than all the inherently unverifiable religions put together.

@Fyrius I think that depends. Atheism itself is a faith based on disbelief. You believe there is no god. That is an inner conviction that is unverifiable of the same reason religion is. Some, maybe you, need proof of a god before believing. Others need proof of no god before not believing. As an atheist myself, I share your opinion that there is little point in believing in maybe’s.

Consider this:
America is a nation where atheists are THE least trusted minority. LESS trusted than muslims, EVEN after 9/11.
America is a nation where atheists are continuously confronted with Christian dogma.
America is a nation where atheists are actively discriminated against once they show their atheism, especially in the southern parts.
America is a nation where there are laws in certains states that barr them to hold public office or even testify in court.
In countries like this (USA, middle east),being an atheist is just as “hip” as being a Christian in the middle east, or a communist in Nazi Germany.
Considering this, it is actually worrying that there are not MORE atheist speaking out against religion.

did you find Martin Luther King’s rebuttal of all things racist and segregation tedious as well?

While I understand where they come from most of the time, I think it’s somewhat arrogant for someone to say that they know for a fact that there is/ are no god(s). How can anyone possibly know anything of the sort? Though, I consider myself more atheist than agnostic, I do have an openness to there being a divine entity, be it very dim. To more specifically answer your question, yes. Atheists tend to lash out at the slightest religious word. It’s really annoying to me that they do that. It’s like they see a family praying at a restaurant and they’re just itching to turn into Joe Pesci… “You’re praying? Praying in front of me? What, do I look religious to you? Religious how… do I look like a priest to you? Is this a church to you?”

Disclaimer: I don’t think all atheists are this way- just a high percentage.

It’s only cynical to reject God if you see the existence of God as a good thing. So some atheists may not have recognized that it is futile and abrasive to bring up their beliefs at every turn, in similar proportion to believers, but casting that particular failing as ‘cynical’ is a judgment founded in your own beliefs and is therefore guilty of the same arrogance.

I do think hardcore atheists sometimes show the same “twisted” reasoning hardcore Christians display, thus being the same type of blind believers.

The only truly logical approach is agnosticism in whatever flavor. The amount of empirical proof that there is no god is exactly the same as the amount of empirical proof that there is a god….zilch.

So yes, overzealous atheist reasoning can be just as “tiring” as overzealous Christian reasoning.

GQ by the way…

@westy81585 I have never met an atheist or agnostic who was so outspoken about their beliefs that they felt the need to conflict with someone who believed in a god.

Oh boy, I have. In fact, this woman has single handedly made me cringe when anyone so much as says the word atheist. She has impacted me much like the fanatical views of some religious people have turned others off from religion completely. If anyone so much as mentions God (any god), religion, the afterlife, you name it, she goes into a page long diatribe to educate the masses on science v faith. Repeatedly. She is the one person I wish I could strike from the internet for.ev.er. Her cousin always pops in to back her up with his own scientific sermon. Tedious is putting it mildly.

@ubersiren Totally agree that it is arrogant to think you know. There is so much we don’t understand. Even infallible (right) science has yet to figure it all out. I believe it is best to keep an open mind as the possibilies of “the truth” are endless.

who knew that was hip? I sure as hell didn’t – with everyone showing their ‘god will find a way’ down my throat and jehova’s witnesses literally knocking my door down and people screaming about jesus in EVERY subway station here in NYC…oh and at grand central there is a group that puts posters all over the station that list all the sins I shouldn’t be committing and all the lovely descriptions of hell – you know at 8 in the morning, they make me want to committ all those sins right there in front of them and their brochures being stuck into my hands…look, you and I have discussed this before – if there’s a god, it sure as hell isn’t the god people have created when they created religion…at least I hope not

^^ Exactly. But no one replied to my earlier comment along the same lines. I don’t know any circles where it’s hip to be an atheist. Even in the most liberal parts of California, you will find spiritual people.. they may practice non-traditional things, they may be agnostic, but I’ve never experienced a movement toward atheism.

Yes, it can be perceived at tedious, but I’m a very patient human being. No doubt, dogmatic religions aiming at social control are a huge problem. Examples are holy inquisitions, but also present-day theocracies in Saudi-Arabia or Iran or a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. We have to deal with the challenge.

Yet dogmatic atheists (I wouldn’t call them cynical atheists) are also a problem, because they confuse fact with belief. They think they know for a fact that something doesn’t exist, while this is in fact only a belief, namely the belief that a deity doesn’t exist. Why is dogmatic atheism a problem? It polarizes and radicalizes society. We can see this happening in parts of the United States. Using terms like ‘silly rituals’ and ‘time-wasting’ can hurt the feelings of religious people and drive them deeper into magic thinking and dogmatism and fundamentalism. This isn’t a good trend and won’t help us deal with the enormous challenges of the 21st century. We need tolerance and open mindedness on all sides. Moderation and humility are key.

So here’s my plea to all hot-blooded vocal atheists: Please think twice before you unload your anger and please choose your terms more carefully. Not all religious people are stupid and backward and part of an oppressive horrible organized religion. Atheists who engage in this kind of thinking follow George W. Bush’s black and white, good and evil perception of the world.

Spirituality (e.g. in the form of religion) can help us deal with the ultimate why questions like ‘Why am I me?’ or ‘Why isn’t there just nothingness?’ or ‘What is the meaning of our lives?’

I think they contradict themselves, which makes them seem silly to me. Atheism is the belief in something, in science. If they cannot prove something, they assume they know all there is to know in the world and won’t believe in it.

@mattbrowne

beautiful lurve

I think there are 5 categories

1) Dogmatic religion
2) Non-dogmatic religion
3) Agnosticism
4) Non-dogmatic atheism
5) Dogmatic atheism

based on the following views respectively

1) “It is a fact that God exists”
2) “I believe that God exists”
3) “I don’t know if God exists or not”
4) “I believe that God doesn’t exist”
5) “It is a fact that God doesn’t exist”

I’m a non-dogmatic Christian who believes in God and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I also believe in enlightenment and scientific method. It’s my opinion that while reading the bible requires reading skills, understanding the bible requires intellect. The bible was written more than 1900 years ago. It

1) offers social guidance
2) addresses ethical questions and offers advice
3) records historical events
4) documents myths inspired by oral traditions
5) contains poetry revolving around the marvels of the world
6) uses many metaphors and symbols
7) tries to answer fundamental ‘why questions’, explaining the world based on the knowledge available at the time
8) contains some outdated views and also some statements we must reject today
9) describes rituals which help humans to strengthen the bonds between social groups

My interpretation of scripture like ‘Deuteronomy Chapter 20’ is the following:

At the time of the writing more than 2500 years ago war and battle was a prevalent means of dealing with conflicts. Killing people in battle contradicts the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ and people were hoping ‘God would allow them to go to war’. Since the time humanity has evolved further. Jesus taught us to love our enemies. In the 20th century war is seen as a last resort only if all other means do fail, for example when trying to stop genocide (like in Rwanda or Kosovo). Today we know about the power of diplomacy when dealing with conflicts. Most modern Christians would never interpret ‘Deuteronomy Chapter 20’ as God’s order to commit genocide. Even the terrible second world war was not fought in the name of God. It was in the name of a perverse ideology called Nazism.

@mattbrowne you will find that there are almost no atheists of category 5. Even the hated Richard Dawkins is only level 4.
On the other side, you will find a lot of category 1 theists.

@ragingloli – I wish that were true. Some of my observations are a little different, but I hope you’re right. Maybe some of the category 5 are more outspoken, like category 1.

@mattbrowne so far i have encountered a lot of atheists that are very outspoken and adamant of their atheism, but i have encountered not a single one that claimed to absolutely know that there is no god. On the other side, the vast majority of theists i have encountered on the net claim to know that god exists.

How about if you change 1 and 5 to read:

1) I must convince others that their belief is wrong if it doesn’t match with mine
5) I must convince others that their belief is wrong if it doesn’t match with mine

@fireside – Yes, there’s some correlation here.

@fireside

LoL, so true…

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

”– you know at 8 in the morning, they make me want to committ all those sins right there in front of them ”

Can we buy tickets?

@crisw

LOL

Can I be the sin????

@Simone_De_Beauvoir give us a kiss ;)

I say the most logical position would be agnostic atheism, actually. Of course, it’s impossible to know for sure that anything unfalsifiable is not true, but I have reasons to believe the odds are quite astronomically in favour of atheism.

@oratio: I would like to clarify that being an atheist does not in principle require faith or immovable conviction. I for one would change my mind overnight if a truly good reason to become religious would present itself.

@Fyrius As would I.

Wow. Let’s go one by one, shall we?

@mammal

I would hesitate to call anything as maligned as atheism “hip.” Atheists are the least trusted minority in America, most people say they would never vote for an atheist for public office, and the majority of atheists hide their atheism from public. This isn’t what I would call “hip.” Your attempt to discredit atheism as a whole by labeling it as some teenager trend is ridiculous and transparent. Any time you start refering to a large number of atheists at once, you have already committed a fallacy. No two atheists are alike. No two atheists believe the same things. Atheism is not a group of people, it is merely a label that we happen to give to people who lack a belief in God. So calling any significant number of atheists “cynical” is unfounded. That’s like calling everyone who owns a Dodge Dakota “cynical,” it just doesn’t make any sense. Finally, I would find it hard pressed for anyone who has ever read anything from Richard Dawkins to classify him as “cynical.” I, personally, often get tired of his books because of the constant talk about how science brings wonder to his life and how it causes rainbows to poor puppies and bunnies onto the earth. “Cynical” is the very last word I would use to describe him.

@NaturalMineralWater

“How is it not close-minded to think this or that doesn’t exist just because they don’t know about it?”

I highly doubt anyone thinks God doesn’t exist simply because they don’t know about him. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I disbelieve in God because he is not necessary to explain the universe and there is a lack of positive evidence for his existence.

@ubersiren

“I think it’s somewhat arrogant for someone to say that they know for a fact that there is/ are no god(s).”

Yes, that would be arrogant. Fortunately, you would be very hard pressed to find an atheist who claims to know that God does not exist. I’ve personally never heard of one and have certainly never met one.

“Atheists tend to lash out at the slightest religious word.”

I have never witnessed this. What I have witnessed is that many people put religion on such a pedestal that any discussion of it whatsoever is seen as “lashing out” or an “attack.”

@Jayne

“It’s only cynical to reject God if you see the existence of God as a good thing.”

Hmm, perhaps, but I think I disagree. I see the existence of God as a good thing. I want God to exist, I just can’t accept something that I see no reason to be true. Does that make me a cynic? Maybe. I just see it as an unfortunate conclusion. I also think the existence of flying unicorns that gave everyone ice cream would be a good thing. Does that make me a cynic because I don’t believe in those?

@TaoSan

“The only truly logical approach is agnosticism in whatever flavor.”

Sure, but I’m not sure you understand what agnosticism is. Most people are agnostics. Agnosticism just means that you don’t claim to know the existence of God as a fact. I’m an agnostic, I would venture to say that all atheists are agnostics, most theists are agnostic. The term means little.

“The amount of empirical proof that there is no god is exactly the same as the amount of empirical proof that there is a god….zilch.”

Right, the amount of empirical proof that the earth isn’t flat is also zilch. There isn’t empirical proof of anything. Besides, atheists don’t claim to have evidence that God doesn’t exist, they claim that there is no evidence that God does exist. It’s an important distinction.

@Supacase

“Even infallible (right) science has yet to figure it all out. I believe it is best to keep an open mind as the possibilies of “the truth” are endless.”

I will go out on a limb and say that every atheist in existence agrees with this statement.

@mattbrowne

“they confuse fact with belief. They think they know for a fact that something doesn’t exist, while this is in fact only a belief, namely the belief that a deity doesn’t exist.”

What? Atheists don’t claim to know anything about the existence of God as a fact. Atheism, in its most general form, is not a belief. It is a lack of a belief; a lack of a particular belief: the belief in a god. Yes, some atheists believe that no gods exist, but they recognize that this is a belief.

@BBSTDfamily

“Atheism is the belief in something, in science.”

Oh, come on… Science is just a process that we use to understand the universe. It isn’t a religion or something that needs to be believed in. Are you claiming that theists don’t accept scientific conclusions?

@mattbrowne

“1) “It is a fact that God exists”
2) “I believe that God exists”
3) “I don’t know if God exists or not”
4) “I believe that God doesn’t exist”
5) “It is a fact that God doesn’t exist””

Nearly every human in existence, theist and atheist, fits into number 3, and I would guess that absolutely no one fits into number 5. Number 3 is not mutually exclusive with numbers 2 and 4.

I find dogmatic rebuttals of just about anything tedious.

Now, I agree there are Atheists who are dogmatic and forceful, and push their beliefs on others. These exist in every set of beliefs out there, and so cannot be used to judge atheists. And personally, a significantly larger percentage of the religious people I have met are dogmatic and “know” there is a God than the percentage of Atheists who “know” there isn’t.

The difference I see is that Atheists look at what science has uncovered, see that we don’t need a God to explain how most things work, that it seems like an overly complicated explanation that raises just as many questions, none of which are verifiable using the scientific process.

Atheists take what they observe, read, demonstrate themselves, and which is repeatable/recreatable and believe the clearest explanation of that until new data is presented. Most don’t assume to be right, and are able to change their beliefs with data.

When tested and peer-reviewed studies from reputable names showing the existence of a God is likely appears, most Atheists would gladly adjust their opinions. But as more science is shown disproving religious assumptions, most religions just get more extreme and deny it.

@Selcouth

Terrific answer. Welcome to Fluther.

@haters This is exactly the tedious I’m talking about.

@NaturalMineralWater

Your first post implied that you find atheism itself “tedious,” which to that I respond with “too bad.”

@Ivan Look, I’m not about to start a random argument in this thread over the same crap everyone has heard a hundred zillion times. What’s tedious to me is the always-have-to-find-a-way-to-win-the-argument mentality that I’ve seen in so many atheists… the i-am-so-intelligent-i-can-explain-everything-in-this-little-box mentality.. it just doesn’t jive with me. So… sue me?

I don’t know who Richard Dawkins is but I do know several people IRL who say they are atheist and none of them yet has ever gone on a tirade about anti religion or pro atheism. Yay friends! Other then that, I don’t pay it much attention.

@BBSDTfamily To me atheism does not connect to science, necessarily so it sounds strange, just to me, to see it written as a ‘belief in science’..there is also, in my opinion, as belief in science..because you can believe it or not, but salt will dissolve in water, it’ll still be hard to get out of earth’s orbit and your genes will mutate no matter how much you pray they don’t…it’s sort of silly, really, to doubt science in favor of god or vice versa when I don’t think the two are each other’s complements or opponents

@Ivan – I know atheists capable of making strong claims, but most don’t see the non-existence of God as a fact. My interpretation of agnosticism is different from yours. Agnostics decided not to voice a belief or a lack of belief, which is fine with me.

@Selcouth – You said, atheists look at what science has uncovered, see that we don’t need a God to explain how most things work. Yes, many of them, but not all. There are plenty of poorly educated atheists. Same for religious people.

But educated religious people also look at what science has uncovered, see that we don’t need a God to explain how most things work. This is what enlightenment is about. A thunderstorm is not the result of an angry God. A tsunami is not a consequence of sinful people. God is not about gaps in scientific explanations. I reject this notion of religious versus atheists being a debate about science. The real debate is about Dark Ages belief systems versus enlightenment. There are plenty of superstitious atheists, by the way.

It seems to me that Science is How? and religion is Why? The two are not opposites. Science don’t bother much with religion as it is not interesting, since religion is not provable pertaining to How? Religion doesn’t have any scientific value.

@oratio exactly

@oratio – Totally agree. Science can’t answer the ultimate why questions. But attempts at answering them must not necessarily come from religions. Religions do not have the exclusive right to provide meaningful answers.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir can i have a larger picture of your current avatar?

@mammal; right-click, view image, delete _thumb from the end of the url (leave .jpg), press enter :)

@jayne ha, ha i’ll do that,don’t say anything

@OP: yes, I do find it tedious. I’ve “quit” Fluther a few times because of it. Now I just try to avoid the threads that are bound for such a quagmire. I find that it’s simply impossible to discuss religious matters online, since someone will inevitably come into the thread to say that the thread is stupid because there isn’t a god to begin with.

(And, no, I’m not saying that there aren’t any annoying religious people out there. That’s beside the point.)

@oratio: I think many religious people agree with you, if only because it’s an excuse to believe religion is good for something, but it should be said here that while science delivers answer after concrete answer to the “how?”, religion, while having had a headstart of several milennia, has never brought anyone a step closer to answering the “why?”. It may be true that science is fundamentally unable to answer some of the big questions, but religion does not do any better a job.
Furthermore, while science answers the “how?” with “well, if you look at this, you can tell it’s like so and so”, religion can only answer the “why?” with “uh, let’s just say it’s like this and that.”

If I’d trust anyone with the “why?”, it’s the philosophers. At least they advance.

The more we learn, the more “why” starts to look like “how.” In science, “why” and “how” are the same questions. For example, “how does the apple fall to the ground?” and “why does the apple fall to the ground?” are the same question. The only thing that makes them look different when analyzing more complicated situations is our own ignorance.

@ragingloli Well, I agree with you, atheists are a minority. This is something that is very different between my country and the US. If a politician went up on a podium here and mentioned the word god in relation to his/her visions and politics, he/she would lose all credibility and be gone very soon. They would loose support during the remaining term, and would not be voted back.

We have a christian party, they are in parlament and co-governs with three other parties at the moment. Not once – in my whole life – have I heard the word god from their mouths publicly, and for good reasons. Sweden is a country considered to be atheist for 80 % of the population. God has no place in public affairs here, and is considered a personal matter.

Now, I am not saying that this makes sweden better or worse than the US, and I am not speaking out against religion here. It is just a remarkable difference of culture.

There has been both good things reading the answers given by other’s who say they’re atheists. I’ve learned to be more patient and to not try to force my Christanity on other’s. I’ve learned to try and think about what the atheist may write, and try to show respect by just stating my testamony. But not pointing fingers at someone who thinks different then me even though I am concerned about them. And then there are just a minority who are a little hard to take.
Its one thing to have an exchange of ideas even when its a matter of disagreement. That happens and it doesn’t have to be a negative thing. I enjoyed asking a question about a possible national ID recently; following the answers by other’s; and being involved in the discussion by commenting on sone of them. Discussing different opinions was both interesting and exciting.
However, there are only a couple of atheists on Fluther; and I’ll say they are only a few; who just seem to want confrontation with Christians and it comes across as anger and aggresion with little understanding.
A person does have the right to believe or think certain ideas are better then other’s. I have No problem there. But when just confrontation mixed with an aggresive agenda, and a lack of understanding is part of the answer every single time by the same individuals its not much fun to read.
If a person decides to be involved in a discussion this opens up the chance to learn about something that either side of the opinion may not know about. No one know every thing about a subject, and its been interesting to read what atheism is like and means to real people. Instead of just knowing the definition. Its helped open my eyes, really.
But if any subject is approached with out curiosity, with out respect of one another, and with out understanding; then that kind of dialogue is almost worthless at that point. It turns into one upmanship with someone wanting to win or to make the opposite view point looke foolish.
For all the very few atheists who use agression and are cynical all I can write is that it becomes a loss to the person who does this. Its a lack of strength to be unable to try and understand; not having to agree at all; but to show some understanding.

Why do good christians who despite their bible telling them, “Judge not lest ye be judged” go about gayly judging anyone with a different point of view!???

@rooeytoo: Well, for that matter, why do good Christians, whom their bible tells not to shave their sideburns (Leviticus 19:27), go about gaily shaving their sideburns? Why do they eat hares and pork and shellfish, and dare they touch pig leather (Leviticus 11:6–12)? Why do they not feel troubled about wearing anything made of linen and wool (Leviticus 19:19)?

I’d say it’s either because most Christians do not know about everything that’s in the bible, or they (rightfully) don’t care about large portions of it.

In before someone points out Leviticus is obsolete. That would mean the latter situation.

@rooeytoo Christians are humans too. We don’t magically become all that is good and holy overnight just by becoming a Christian.

Afa the old testament.. it’s clear it’s an entirely different animal than the new.

Here is the way I see it, I don’t much care what christians believe or don’t believe, I just get sick and tired of them telling me all of my faults and failings because i don’t believe jesus is somebody’s immaculately conceived son or that there is some creature in the heavens having a huge impact on the direction of my life. I know right from wrong, I practice the golden rule and I personally think that makes me a much better person than a lot of the bible thumping christians I have met in my life.

The original question asked if I find the dogmatic rebuttal by cyncial atheists of all things religious, tedious and I do indeed but I also find the dogmatic preaching of all things religious by christians to be extemely tedious as well

I would like to add that, if we all lived in isolated bubbles, then it would be rather obnoxious to reach out and try to convert one another. But we live in a political system that leaves people free to vote their beliefs; not just their social opinions as informed by their religious beliefs, but their beliefs alone. This system of government depends on a free exchange of ideas that constantly forces people to question their beliefs and asks them to do the same to others. It may be said that if people want their minds to be changed, they will seek out information on the internet; but that is at odds with both the idea of democracy and human nature. The ideal democracy is one in which people have constructed a worldview that is most perfectly in tune with their fundamental values, not just the ones that they grew up with, and yet it is the latter that the laissez-faire spirit selects for. Of course, it is impossible to reach that ideal, but the effort must be there. And secondly, people do not seek out new ideas unless given an impulse. Back in the day when human contact was spontaneous and unpredictable, this was not a problem; but in the Silicon Age of infinitely customizable media and discourse, people can and do surround themselves with an impenetrable insulation of homogeneity, and become more polarized and immovable because of it. This situation is the arch nemesis of democracy, and must be broken by any means possible; if that means is a nosy atheist or theist knocking at your virtual door, accept it as something useful, not an invasion of a sacred little sphere of privacy and mental sloth.

@Ivan : Yes, most religions lash out as well. It doesn’t make it right. Same with my statement about knowing God doesn’t exist… I think it’s just as arrogant to know for a fact God does exist. I know 2 people specifically who have claimed to know that God absolutely doesn’t exist. I know a lot more who claim to know absolutely that He does. You’ve never heard anyone say, “I just know it?” I find that hard to believe.

@ubersiren

No, I’ve never heard anyone say they know that God doesn’t exist. At least they didn’t mean it literally.

Sure do.

yes. i find all dogmatism tiresome, including my own when i get a bit overenthusiastic about whatever.

Personally, I find dogma tedious, regardless of how it’s used. I’m also a little confounded by the idea of an uneducated atheist. Not that it isn’t possible, it’s just incredibly rare.

In my opinion/ experience, although it sometimes seems as if atheists are pushing their beliefs, it is generally more of a burning desire to clarify, what is incomprehensible to them. Despite being raised a Christian, I am entirely baffled as to how people can believe anything w/o some set of facts to back up the belief. Belief in god, requires faith not fact, making it impossible for some people. It’s not that I want to take away ‘faith’ from people, but that I want to understand how intelligent people have such blind faith.

To those above in this chain, who logically explained their position, I thank you. To those who continued to repeat the same rhetoric, we hear regularly, I would highly encourage you to read “On why I am not a Christian” by Bertrand Russell, which is in my opinion the best written refute, I have come across, laying out the most obvious reasons for the atheists lack of belief.