Atheists... Why not just promote moderation and integration.

[Baz]

I think a lot of fundamentalist atheists are trying to go a step too far.

Fundamentalist Christians thought that the world needed to be taught that their religion was the only way, and imposed it by force on those that would not believe.
Muslims and undoubtedly other religions still do this in some places where they can get away with it.

In my opinion and hopefully somebody agrees with me, this attitude is no way to act in modern times.
(I note that there could have been some positives with regard to forming strong societies in the past but that’s not my point.)

My question is, why do sensible well educated atheists continue to attempt convert people away from their religion altogether?
Rather than promoting integration and moderation.
This would have the effect so often wished for by many atheists of reducing the amount of religious interference in their lives.

Even to the simplest of minds (i.e. mine) this has to be a more realistic approach.
Heads brick walls and all that.


Ps. I interpret fundamentalist, as the belief that one holds the sole source of objective truth.

[ndf8th]

Jax I should have stressed that I don't talk about
all theist or all atheists. I talk about atheist activists
that are active on blogs and forum and only those
that openly assert that they have this right to ridicule.

the majority of atheists would never even set up a blog
or join a forum and would only lash out to believers
if the believers force religion on them personally and
they had no way to politely bow out of the situation.

What I wanted to know was this "integrate" was about.

Baz wrote:
My question is, why do sensible well educated atheists continue
to attempt convert people away from their religion altogether?
Rather than promoting integration and moderation.

How does one integrate religion with atheism?

I ask because I need to do it myself in my own body.

My body feels very religious but my intellectual understanding is
that the feelings that I have has nothing to do with anything supernatural
and both believers and atheist activists insist that God is/has to be supernatural
or else it is only a make believe God and no more worthy than an imaginary friend.

[Dantalion]

Are you talking about smth like that Sam Harris joke about God and Elvis ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG9pDNSAXA ?

Is that an example of what you mean by some atheists acting the way they do ?

[Baz]

I think a lot of fundamentalist atheists are trying to go a step too far.

What exactly is a "fundamentalist atheist"? I find the phrase as meaningless as "fundamentalist theist". I understand what a "fundamentalist christian" is; are you attempting to ascribe some religiosity to the term "atheist"?

The term fundamental atheist or atheistic fundamentalism has been used a lot of times by many people. I except it isn’t particularly descriptive and can bring to mind negative undertones, a bit like anything ending with ….ist.
I suppose I was in some way ascribing some sort of religiosity to people trying religiously to convert others to their way of thinking.
I was trying to use the term as a description on someone who follows a strict adherence to a particular line of thought, policy or belief. (and it sort of insinuates that they are not open to contradictory views)

Anyway it was probably used incorrectly and I apologise for any misunderstanding, I will try to avoid the term in future.

[Baz]

Fundamentalist Christians [strike]thought[/strike] think that the world [strike]needed[/strike] needs to be taught that their religion [strike]was[/strike] is the only way, and [strike]imposed[/strike] impose it by force on those that [strike]would[/strike] do not believe. ....

There, fixed it for you. I find the use of the past tense in your paragraph disingenuous.

No I am sorry I have to disagree with you over your criticism on my using the past tense in my OP
I was referring to past regimes where things where undoubtedly far worse than today.
Generalising is not particularly a good thing but it is an easy way to put over a point of view as is referring to past events or experiences.

At the present I do not know anybody behaving as I described so it was an honest post.
Also I would prefer comments on my posts rather than having them re-written.

[Baz]

Going back to my original post, what I was trying to get my head around was why when dealing with religion do some none religious people react in the way they do.
I think there has been some misunderstanding over my opening question.
In an effort to clear this up I will try and explain in more detail what I am trying to understand.
As I see it there are some exceptionally well educated people that must have a better than average understanding of psychology who if faced with the challenge of treating somebody with a mental disorder would not even dream of attacking the problem in the same way as they do with what they say they believe to be religiously deluded people.
I presume that there is something in the background colouring this response more than just the belief that they are dealing with delusional people.
I also presume that the likely problem is the continuous bombardment of irrational religious fundamentalism.
Is any of this so?

Oh sorry this thread is rather old but I am rather new here
and got aware of it today.

I have also tried to understand why some atheists act as they do.
I find it likely they feel the right to set things straight.

Several of them have told me recently. "If I read a stupid text
from a believer or another atheist then I have the right to ridicule
that persons ideas."

And maybe what you see and what they tell me is a very common
human phenomena. Altruistic punishment. Nature had an abstract about it

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 5137a.html

... we show experimentally that the altruistic punishment
of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation.

Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish,
although the punishment is costly for them and
yields no material gain.

We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible,
and breaks down if it is ruled out.

The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors
are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment.

These results suggest that future study of the evolution of
human cooperation should include a strong focus on
explaining altruistic punishment.

Yo me this sounds very likely. Bullying is an exploitation of
this natural human trait where the Bullying person abuse the
tendency to tolerate altruistic punishment as if it is needed
and the Bully try to set their bullying in a way that enough
people play along with it.

So the good side is that cheaters of groups and individuals
get punished but the bad effect is that some abuse it for their
own power play on the victims that are bad at defending themselves.

Atheist love to ridicule both believers and disbelievers when they
feel righteous about their act being justified by the logic of the text.

Being as logical as they are they go after irrational sentiments and feelings.

I have found that some of them say that God is like an imaginary friend
and that their children gave up on such as childish at 5 or 6 years old.

ButI would want to ask you. Integrate? what does that mean when you use it?

I was thinking of integration along the same terms as in society, (i.e. bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association). But in terms of religion.
Probably extremely idealistic, no defiantly extremely idealistic.

[ndf8th]

Every atheist an individual and as such highly diverse
some do integrate well and other totally fail?

are not many atheist famous for saying
the only thing that an atheist has common
with another atheist is the lack of belief in gods
so atheism has never promised anything else.

I may be atheist by definition but I don't see me as one anymore.