Who is more obnoxious: antitheists or Bible-thumpers?

[tyranitar90]

erienne is right people who try to preach their religions or beliefs are most obnoxious. Why can't they leave people alone. (like my mom)

Im atheist and I'm free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[AlanL]

Did you just ignore each and everybody atheist definition you posted?

"DISBELIEF" also means 'lack of a belief' which is pretty much what most atheists here feel.

To the first part, if you meant 'each and every', the answer is no.

To the second part, disbelief in something is a prerequisite for believing in an exclusive opposite. Thus, disbelief in a god is a characteristic of atheism.

You're not even reading my posts, are you? Or do you not have a response other than "No you're wrong you're agnostic?"

Since you're asking me to fill in the blanks, I will.

Respond to your own definitions then. Tell me why the terms 'agnostic atheist' or 'weak atheism' are officially coined words, or tell me why you refuse to say anything about the SECOND part of atheism, which is disbelief.

Despite being 'officially coined words', I haven't found any solidly credible definition for these phrases, in fact I've found multiple ways to define them after looking into it.

One definition of 'weak atheism', the lack of belief in a deity's existence while at the same time not solidly believing in the nonexistence of any deity, is simply a relabeling of agnosticism.

Another, which matches one definition of 'agnostic atheist', includes any non-theistic view. It would include the entire group that doesn't believe in a deity, of which 'atheist' and 'agnostic' would be sub-groups. In this case, atheists and agnostics would still be two separate sub-groups, both of which would be 'agnostic atheists' or 'weak atheists'.

Another definition of 'agnostic atheist' is a view that assumes a deity doesn't exist because there's no evidence to prove one does. We've already gone over this fallacy.

With regards to definition no.2 for atheism, it's a logical requisite of the first definition. Someone who follows a doctrine or belief that there is no god also disbelieves in the existence of supreme beings as a logical requisite, allowing both definitions to be true.

Remember, agnosticism focuses on KNOWLEDGE, atheism is more about either a complete refusal or a lack thereof.

Agnosticism was stated to have a root along the lines of lacking knowledge. This leaves 'complete refusal' as the point of atheism.

It IS possible for a label to include two types of mindsets but essentially have the same line of thought but not exactly. Like, for example, Muslims, Christians, Baptists, people who believe in personal gods, etc are all under "Theists", but they all don't have the same mindset. It goes for this as well, except there are only two possible ones.

So you're assuming the definition of 'atheist agnostic' that includes atheists and agnostics as two distinct sub-groups? That's fine, in that case I'm one too, but this is about atheism and agnosticism, not any over-arching groups that include both.

Saying you're 'agnostic atheist' when asked whether you're an atheist or agnostic would in this case be like giving 'mammal' as your pet's species. We know your pet's not a lizard, but for all we know it could be a monkey or a mouse.

===============

While athiests are contented to let their peers believe however they wish, antitheists will try to tear down your belief. Get your facts straight people, please. Athiests and antitheists are not the same thing

Exactly. As written earlier, antitheists, in the context of this thread, are the extremist subgroup of atheists that wish to force their beliefs on others.

 

[GhostAnime]

To the second part, disbelief in something is a prerequisite for believing in an exclusive opposite. Thus, disbelief in a god is a characteristic of atheism.

And if it is a characteristic then you must give in to the fact that one could simply lack a belief.

One definition of 'weak atheism', the lack of belief in a deity's existence while at the same time not solidly believing in the nonexistence of any deity, is simply a relabeling of agnosticism.

First, what do you mean by there are no credible sources? you can find the contrast of weak and strong atheism pretty much anywhere.

Second, it may sound like relabeling but technically speaking, it's just semantics. Agnosticism is purely on knowledge, while weak atheism or agnostic atheism is just a simple lack of a belief. There is a distinctive difference (albeit a pointless one lol)

Another definition of 'agnostic atheist' is a view that assumes a deity doesn't exist because there's no evidence to prove one does. We've already gone over this fallacy.

How is it a fallacy? Do you believe in things that can't/hasn't be proven? You just said you didn't believe in invisible unicorns?

With regards to definition no.2 for atheism, it's a logical requisite of the first definition. Someone who follows a doctrine or belief that there is no god also disbelieves in the existence of supreme beings as a logical requisite, allowing both definitions to be true.

So this is just your assumption? "Disbelief" and "refusal" aren't even hand in hand. Some definitions even say disbelief or denial, implying that there's a distinction.

 

[AlanL]

And if it is a characteristic then you must give in to the fact that one could simply lack a belief.

No. I said it was -a- characteristic not -the- characteristic. A characteristic of a metal spoon is being metallic. A jet aircraft is also metallic. This doesn't mean a spoon is the same as a jet aircraft.

Both atheists and agnostics share the characteristic of not believing in a god. Saying someone's an atheist because they disbelieve in a god is like saying a spoon is a jet airplane just because it's metallic like one.

First, what do you mean by there are no credible sources? you can find the contrast of weak and strong atheism pretty much anywhere.

I meant that all of the sources I found were either wikipedia or other dubious places, nowhere truly official or solidly credible. If there were official sources, either they weren't labeled as such or they were buried.

Second, it may sound like relabeling but technically speaking, it's just semantics. Agnosticism is purely on knowledge, while weak atheism or agnostic atheism is just a simple lack of a belief. There is a distinctive difference (albeit a pointless one lol)

Agnosticism also includes a lack of belief either way. As pointed out earlier, weak atheism and agnostic atheism could be seen as including both agnostics and atheists, which share a disbelief in the existence of a deity. Neither definition makes a hard-line distinction about having faith in the non-existence of a deity, but if one was considered, such as the case of weak atheism, it ends up identifying the same people that make up agnostics, and as such becomes synonymous.

How is it a fallacy? Do you believe in things that can't/hasn't be proven? You just said you didn't believe in invisible unicorns?

I don't believe in them but I'm willing to say they could exist. I don't rule them out. In fact, I specifically said that if I wasn't able to disprove the existence of a nearby invisible unicorn, I'd allow for the possible existence of one. Not believing in them doesn't include having faith that they don't exist.

It's a fallacy because it relies on an assumption. Just because we can't see it yet doesn't necessarily mean it's not there.

So this is just your assumption? "Disbelief" and "refusal" aren't even hand in hand. Some definitions even say disbelief or denial, implying that there's a distinction.

Let me illustrate what I mean using another definition, such as the second definition of 'book':

2. a number of sheets of blank or ruled paper bound together for writing, recording business transactions, etc.

The same could be said for a pad of sticky notes that's never pulled apart but still written on. Yet, there's a clear difference between a small pad of sticky notes, and a large cover-bound text with at least dozens of pages.

Even in that sense...

1. a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers.

... a magazine would be considered a book, even though magazines are commonly considered a different thing.

Isolating the second definition of atheism alone isn't sufficient. As the first definition of atheism includes the second and is less ambiguous, it would be the more exact and true of the two. This is why I use the first, and leave the second out as the first already includes it.

 

[GhostAnime]

Both atheists and agnostics share the characteristic of not believing in a god. Saying someone's an atheist because they disbelieve in a god is like saying a spoon is a jet airplane just because it's metallic like one.

This analogy would work if atheism's definition WASN'T disbelief which you've had to prove.

I meant that all of the sources I found were either wikipedia or other dubious places, nowhere truly official or solidly credible. If there were official sources, either they weren't labeled as such or they were buried.

So what made yours anymore official?

Neither definition makes a hard-line distinction about having faith in the non-existence of a deity, but if one was considered, such as the case of weak atheism, it ends up identifying the same people that make up agnostics, and as such becomes synonymous.

But they aren't, because there IS a distinction. I've mentioned it already. Agnosticism is more about knowledge: it's just a different reason of disbelief.

It's a fallacy because it relies on an assumption. Just because we can't see it yet doesn't necessarily mean it's not there.

Who said it wasn't there? Hence the word "assumption". Nobody guarantees anything when it's an assumption. You made it into a fallacy.

Isolating the second definition of atheism alone isn't sufficient. As the first definition of atheism includes the second and is less ambiguous, it would be the more exact and true of the two. This is why I use the first, and leave the second out as the first already includes it.

But the difference is that disbelief is listed as "2"; not "1a" or "2a".

These analogies won't cut it. You can't compare how we label human thinking to clearly descriptive materialized things. Physical things are black and white; people are clearly not. There are different types of theists and atheists alike, but you'll never find a metallic spoon that isn't metallic.

 

[AlanL]

This analogy would work if atheism's definition WASN'T disbelief which you've had to prove.

And what I already said doesn't suffice how?

So what made yours anymore official?

Nothing, except how I looked at several sources, cross referenced them, then put up multiple possible results, rather than assuming one. It's not more official, but certainly more likely to be correct than just one source.

But they aren't, because there IS a distinction. I've mentioned it already. Agnosticism is more about knowledge: it's just a different reason of disbelief.

If these 'weak atheists' don't disbelieve in a god because of lack of evidence, then why do they? Because they don't want a god to be there? Besides, as I pointed out earlier, this isn't even about over-arching groups that would include both atheists and agnostics, but those two groups specifically.

Yes, disbelief in the existence of a god is a trait of both atheist and agnostic groups, but of the two, atheists stand out for believing in the non-existence of a god.

Who said it wasn't there? Hence the word "assumption". Nobody guarantees anything when it's an assumption. You made it into a fallacy.

The fallacy I pointed out is as follows: assuming that something doesn't exist because its existence can't be proven. Making that assumption would be analogous to saying that anything we don't see doesn't exist. Most people should see the gaping hole in this logic.

But the difference is that disbelief is listed as "2"; not "1a" or "2a".

The dictionary listed those as '1' and '2', with 'a' as the first letter of the definition. It's not listed as '1a' or '2a'.

These analogies won't cut it. You can't compare how we label human thinking to clearly descriptive materialized things. Physical things are black and white; people are clearly not. There are different types of theists and atheists alike, but you'll never find a metallic spoon that isn't metallic.

Yes we can. People and objects both have traits by which they can be categorized. You seem to be trying to define atheism in such a way that it includes agnostics. Are you trying to say that true agnosticism doesn't exist? Atheists and agnostics, as they currently stand, are two different groups of non-theist.

 

[scarecrow_stitches]

I have nothing against Christians, but bible thumpers really piss me off. Especially when they try to shove their beliefs down my throat.

 

[mangaeyes]

Both as bad as eachother. I can see antitheists views a little more and I certainly agree with them but I think they shouldn't be forceful towards religous people. Heavily religious people irritate me because they just seem so narrow-minded and ignorant with their views like everything they say is a fact and nobody can disagree.

But yeah both as bad as eachother in my opinion. Live and let live.

 

[GhostAnime]

Nothing, except how I looked at several sources, cross referenced them, then put up multiple possible results, rather than assuming one. It's not more official, but certainly more likely to be correct than just one source.

google "weak atheism" and "agnostic atheism" and you'll see multiple sources all the same.

If these 'weak atheists' don't disbelieve in a god because of lack of evidence, then why do they?

They do disbelieve usually because of evidence, but what reason does it matter? you can disbelieve for any reason you want.

The fallacy I pointed out is as follows: assuming that something doesn't exist because its existence can't be proven. Making that assumption would be analogous to saying that anything we don't see doesn't exist. Most people should see the gaping hole in this logic.

It would be a gaping hole if it wasn't an assumption. We do this in everyday life. If we've never seen the evidence for a guy murdering somebody, we assume he's innocent. It would only be a fallacy if we guaranteed it. There's nothing illogical about assuming something doesn't exist if there's no trace of it.. because it's an assumption. When you assume, you already admit that there's a possibility.

The dictionary listed those as '1' and '2', with 'a' as the first letter of the definition. It's not listed as '1a' or '2a'.

Regardless regular dictionaries won't cut it when it comes to philosophy. It is much, much better to read encyclopedias or something that has mass information and not just definitions and simplification.

Yes we can. People and objects both have traits by which they can be categorized. You seem to be trying to define atheism in such a way that it includes agnostics. Are you trying to say that true agnosticism doesn't exist? Atheists and agnostics, as they currently stand, are two different groups of non-theist.

I'm not TRYING to include them. If you actually research these terms you will understand that not all atheists have the same 'antitheist' mentality. Yes they are two different groups and I KEEP making that distinction to you: Agnosticism is more about KNOWLEDGE (and you've yet to even reply to this point). "gnosticism" is literally a root word for knowledge, and that is what agnostics are about. Those are its origins. It is simply disbelief through knowledge. Atheism is either antitheist or just general disbelief. Disbelief has two tenses and this isn't immediately pointed out in simple dictionaries: passive and active.

Until you actually go out there, you're just going to keep assuming all atheists have the same mentality.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Atheism#_note-0

Try these footnotes.

 

[AlanL]

google "weak atheism" and "agnostic atheism" and you'll see multiple sources all the same.

I saw multiple sources, many of which were wikis, and there were more than one definition among them. Other sources either sourced themselves on dubious foundations, or based themselves in other fields.

They do disbelieve usually because of evidence, but what reason does it matter? you can disbelieve for any reason you want.

Then what was your point? You said agnosticism is different based on a different reason of disbelief before... and here you say the reason doesn't matter. Which is it?

It would be a gaping hole if it wasn't an assumption. We do this in everyday life. If we've never seen the evidence for a guy murdering somebody, we assume he's innocent. It would only be a fallacy if we guaranteed it. There's nothing illogical about assuming something doesn't exist if there's no trace of it.. because it's an assumption. When you assume, you already admit that there's a possibility.

Assumptions are fallacies in themselves. What you seem to be trying to say is that if someone presented proof in a god's existence, you would become a theist. I'm glad to hear you're open minded. There are many theists who would become non-theist if the non-existence of deities was proven.

These are nice possibilities, but that doesn't mean that these theists don't currently say that god exists without a doubt. Similarly, it doesn't mean an atheist doesn't say that a god doesn't exist, without a doubt.

Regardless regular dictionaries won't cut it when it comes to philosophy. It is much, much better to read encyclopedias or something that has mass information and not just definitions and simplification.

'Atheists' and 'agnostics' are both words that identify a group. It's the traits that identify the group that we're interested in, and those traits, what the words indicate, is what a dictionary lists.

I'm not TRYING to include them. If you actually research these terms you will understand that not all atheists have the same 'antitheist' mentality. Yes they are two different groups and I KEEP making that distinction to you: Agnosticism is more about KNOWLEDGE (and you've yet to even reply to this point). "gnosticism" is literally a root word for knowledge, and that is what agnostics are about. Those are its origins. It is simply disbelief through knowledge. Atheism is either antitheist or just general disbelief. Disbelief has two tenses and this isn't immediately pointed out in simple dictionaries: passive and active.

Actually I did address the 'knowledge' point right under where I quoted it, you contradicted yourself replying to my reply, as already noted, and seem to contradict yourself again here.

Let's make this simple. We're classifying groups based on their traits, so let's identify the two key traits:

1- Do they have faith there is a god?
2- Do they have faith there isn't a god?

As these two are mutually exclusive, the answer can't be yes to both at the same time. This leaves 3 possibilities:

A: Yes to the first, no to the second.
B: No to both.
C: No to the first, yes to the second.

This gives us 3 distinct groups. The first we label theists, the second we label agnostics, the third we label atheists.

What you're trying to say seems to be that groups B and C are both part of the atheist group... if that's the case, then what are agnostics left with?

Until you actually go out there, you're just going to keep assuming all atheists have the same mentality.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Atheism#_note-0

Try these footnotes.

I looked through them. Seems this type of debate is widespread. One thing I would like to point out about the citizendium article though, is that despite its appearance, it's still a wiki page. Just click the history button and you'll see how it's been edited many times.

 

[GhostAnime]

Then what was your point? You said agnosticism is different based on a different reason of disbelief before... and here you say the reason doesn't matter. Which is it?

I am talking strictly about Atheism in that sentence.

Assumptions are fallacies in themselves.

Not if the possibility is actually large. We assume in everyday life. We can hardly 100% know for sure if somebody else is in our room hiding under the bed, or if a dog is randomly in our bathtub sleeping.

It's the traits that identify the group that we're interested in, and those traits, what the words indicate, is what a dictionary lists.

This doesn't change my comment. The dictionary still simplifies things that are complex far too much. You aren't going to do a report by only using a dictionary like, ever.

What you're trying to say seems to be that groups B and C are both part of the atheist group...

Your first mistake and calling 2 an "Atheist group". Of course if you call it an 'Atheist group' you're going to be confused on how to classify things.

Second, you are still assuming all atheists have faith that god doesn't exist. I can't answer this question right now because neither you or I are convinced how to classify an Atheist. You think there's a 'third way'; I think there isn't.

Seems this type of debate is widespread. One thing I would like to point out about the citizendium article though, is that despite its appearance, it's still a wiki page. Just click the history button and you'll see how it's been edited many times.

There is no debate but only misconception. That really IS the origin of Atheism if you were to look at the origins. It's not like somebody sat around thinking about checks and balances making sure that there was a side who didn't know, and a side who did know. Atheism came thousands of years before agnosticim, and it was THE "I don't know/care" label. Until agnosticism came, Atheism forever changed.

Oh, and why do you think I linked you to footnotes? They have sources behind them.

 

[Slash4life]

I'd like to comment on the wonderful discussion you two are having, and direct you to the title of this thread: "Who is more obnoxious: antitheists or Bible-thumpers?

The debate presented is rather compelling. yes, but extremely off-topic. The two separate groups you two are debating about are not the two groups this debate is about. I suggest starting a new thread about this, but let's not give any mods a reason to close this debate

 

[Erienne]

I'd like to comment on the wonderful discussion you two are having, and direct you to the title of this thread: "Who is more obnoxious: antitheists or Bible-thumpers?

The debate presented is rather compelling. yes, but extremely off-topic. The two separate groups you two are debating about are not the two groups this debate is about. I suggest starting a new thread about this, but let's not give any mods a reason to close this debate

I was going to say that, but I wanted to see if they would figure it out. xD

I think bible-thumping antitheists are the most annoying, in my humble opinion.

 

[AlanL]

I'd like to comment on the wonderful discussion you two are having, and direct you to the title of this thread: "Who is more obnoxious: antitheists or Bible-thumpers?

The debate presented is rather compelling. yes, but extremely off-topic. The two separate groups you two are debating about are not the two groups this debate is about. I suggest starting a new thread about this, but let's not give any mods a reason to close this debate

Alright. I'm not sure if this forum has a thread splitting function, but, do you want to make a new thread, GhostAnime?

 

[Darkrai0203]

Bible Thumpers.

 

[GhostAnime]

Alright. I'm not sure if this forum has a thread splitting function, but, do you want to make a new thread, GhostAnime?

That's okay. I don't think a debate of semantics is really worth another thread. We'll just have to stop here or continue in PM.

 

[1-Up Mushroom]

I've found that Bible-thumpers and anti-theists can be equally obnoxious, when they choose to be. I suppose replies can very on this subject, based on each person's experiences and the kind of people they encounter. I tend to ignore obnoxious Bible-thumpers and anti-theists, because they're both very stubborn. I don't let either of them bother me.

 

[AlanL]

That's okay. I don't think a debate of semantics is really worth another thread. We'll just have to stop here or continue in PM.

I guess either we can agree to disagree or if you PM me I'll continue by PM then.

 

[The_Panda]

This debate, being totally subjective, is somewhat silly. There's also the whole "where you live" factor; if you were surrounded my preachers knocking on your door every day, then you'd probably find them more annoying, and vice versa (I've never heard of door knocking atheists though).

Anyway I personally find bible-thumpers more annoying, basically because while all "antitheists" (who coined that anyway) do is write books that are loads of crap only ever to be read on a 12 hour flight over the kangaroo route, and occasionally make television programmes that get shown during the middle of the day on cable, bible thumpers actually hold a huge amount of political influence and can make real changes that affect others in ways that aren't just feelings of "gee, that guy's a prick" and the like. For instance, the christian right is the main group trying to ban abortion, they campaign for intelligent design to be taught in schools, et cetera.

On a scale of pure obnoxiousness though, fundamentalist christians usually just tell you how good it is to be in a relationship with god, preach to people about being "saved", and the like (with notable exceptions). All rather positive messages; by contrast antitheists seem to derive an extraordinary amount of pleasure out of telling others that they're gullible fools. No surprise, I find bible thumpers, on the whole, more pleasant than Richard Dawkins types.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

My thoughts exactly on Christianity and religion:

The first God I remember was a Santa Claus God,
who you only turn to around
Christmas time, who you tried to butter up,
and you got mad at if you didn't get what you wanted.

That didn't make sense.

I knew if there was a God, he could see through us,
like we were made out of cellophane, like he could stare directly into our hearts,
the way we look into an aquarium,
like he'd know what was floating around in there,
like he were the one feeding it.

Then there were those people who used god to threaten you,
saying "you'd better be careful- God's watching,"
like God was some badass hillbilly sitting on some cloud,
with some binoculars, a cotton candy beard and a shotgun.

Then there were those people who had God's name on a bumper sticker,
like he was running for president.
And sometimes those people would cut you off on the freeway and give you the finger,
which is very different than lending a hand.

Then there were people on television,
dressed in weird clothes and scary make-up,
SWEARING that they had the secret to God,
like god was a keyhole their eye was pressed to it,
and if I gave him some money they'd let me look,
and I could see God just hangin' around in his boxers,
and though I liked the idea of spying on God,
I began to wonder if the world would be a better place if the Romans had just put up
with Jesus and let him die of old age...

And then there were the football players,
kneeling down in front of everybody, thanking God,
like he was their best friend,
but then they'd jump up and spike the ball yelling, "I'm number ONE!!",
and that confused me,
for if you're number one,
then what number is God??

Then I saw politicians trotting God out on a leash,
like a racehorse they wanted to hop on and ride to the finish-line.
But if they lost, it would be GOD's fault,
and God would be the donkey they'd pin their problems on,
and that was very nice of God,
to be both a racehorse
and a donkey.

And then there were those who said,
"You'd better be good on earth, if you wanna get into heaven,"
Like heaven was the United States, and the Earth was Mexico,
and angels were the Border Patrol.
Like when you die,
you sit in a parked car on the outskirts of Heaven, the engine idling,
your soul in the back-seat in one of those kennels used to carry small dogs on an airplane,
as you listen to the radio,
hearing the voices of all the people you ever wronged testify against you.

And then there's the church which was like this cafeteria,
where they serve God to you on these very un-Godlike plates,
but I wanted my God PURE, not watered down by humans.
So I had one of those catastrophe gods- you know, the one you called in an emergency,
like God was the National Guard you call on to clean up the earthquake of your life.

So I got drunk one night,
drove home, passed out behind the wheel,
and woke up, going 60mph straight at a brick wall.
I slammed on the brakes, my heart banging like a wrecking-ball in my chest,
staring at death's face,
close enough to see that we had the same cheek-bones.

Now I have a God who's like a mechanic who can fix anything.
So, when I wanna chew somebody's head off like a salt-water taffy,
or amputate my DNA, or open my wrists like windows that have been painted shut,
I just put my soul into a box, like a busted computer, and haul it in.
And He never asks to see my paperwork,
or says that my warrenty has expired.
And I walk out feeling better.

And I don't care if He doesn't exist.

-Jeffrey McDaniel