Does atheism make an atheist become vehement?

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:04 am

One of my experiences over the years of debating atheists as well as personal experiences in knowing people who became atheists is that they tend toward vehemence. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than Madayln Murray O'Hair. So, my question is, does atheism make an otherwise enjoyable person into a grouchy ole' vehement type? If so, then what accounts for this transition? That's not to say everyone is affected by such ideology; I'm speaking in more general terms. Please give your opinion.

QED · Post by **QED** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:13 pm

You do like to bring up the example of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, something I find a little odd. I hope you separate the tragic events leading to the discovery of her murdered body along with two of her sons from the project she embarked upon. As for vehemency, this is obviously a generalization that can be applied to philosophers of every persuasion.

Perhaps there is something to debate though, as you yourself appreciate that it becomes frustrating when someones gaze is fixed on some object that you know is a figment of their imagination. A good example might be a Christian fundamentalist who holds to a literal interpretation of the bible in preference to the findings of geology and zoology. Here they can see a very clear 'picture' of the truth to which all other evidence must fit. This requires a mighty amount of rationalization which places too great a demand on logic -- which inevitably gives gives way under the strain. Yet this does not deter their world-view because too much emotional attachment is involved.

Now you would no doubt wish to map this scenario onto the consistent atheist that you speak of. But upon what object is the CA's gaze affixed? Is it reasonable for you to be frustrated with someone because they can't see something which is supposed to be invisible and unmeasurable? Inference is the only way that the invisible can be 'seen' and this must be very strong indeed in order to yield a reliable result in the absence of all other tests. The concept of "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proofs" seems very reasonable to me and the only claim being made by CA's is that they cannot see something that is evidently invisible.

Not only is it invisible but 99.9% of the traditional inferences have already been blown away by science. This is bound to lead to a great degree of frustration which is always a good catalyst for grumpiness.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:23 pm

QED wrote:Perhaps there is something to debate though, as you yourself appreciate that it becomes frustrating when someones gaze is fixed on some object that you know is a figment of their imagination. A good example might be a Christian fundamentalist who holds to a literal interpretation of the bible in preference to the findings of geology and zoology. Here they can see a very clear 'picture' of the truth to which all other evidence must fit. This requires a mighty amount of rationalization which places too great a demand on logic -- which inevitably gives gives way under the strain. Yet this does not deter their world-view because too much emotional attachment is involved... Not only is it invisible but 99.9% of the traditional inferences have already been blown away by science. This is bound to lead to a great degree of frustration which is always a good catalyst for grumpiness.

I would say the same kind of vehemence is possible for any side of the argument. Afterall, most Christian fundamentalists really believe in their beliefs, and they would be just as susceptible to their feelings of frustration.

My contention, though, is that many atheists are atheist because they have this bone of contention. Had they not stumbled upon their atheism because of personal distractions of some type, these (generally) would be the same kind of people who would be up to some other kind of polemical activity. Perhaps they are the type of people who have to buck the trend. They're not happy with status quo. And, after moving away from the status quo, they are not happy that others are still in status quo. This makes them vehement when challenged with their beliefs because they don't like it that others are not like them.

I'm not saying all atheists are like this. You are not in this category, but surely you must have seen plenty examples of how testy atheists are. As a lot, they don't seem like happy campers. They have difficulty being nice and having fun in their discussions about controversial topics. They demand to be right, and darn it, if you don't succumb to their view, they are quick to become rude and snippy. At least, that's my experience.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:52 am

harvey1 wrote:My contention, though, is that many atheists are atheist because they have this bone of contention. Had they not stumbled upon their atheism because of personal distractions of some type, these (generally) would be the same kind of people who would be up to some other kind of polemical activity. Perhaps they are the type of people who have to buck the trend. They're not happy with status quo. And, after moving away from the status quo, they are not happy that others are still in status quo. This makes them vehement when challenged with their beliefs because they don't like it that others are not like them.

I have seen the same thing you have, harv. It's a bit like being around someone who has quit smoking and berates everyone around them for their smoking. I don't think it's an exclusive property of people who like to be out of the mainstream -- there are plenty of those who are theists & just form their own church or synod, for example -- but I do find that most atheists don't have a need to follow the masses (pardon the pun). Whether this is a cause or a symptom, I can't be sure. But I think it takes a certain amount of personal fortitude to be an atheist in a society that demonizes atheism, and those who favor the status quo tend not to have that kind of fortitude.

QED · Post by **QED** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:24 am

harvey1 wrote:Perhaps they are the type of people who have to buck the trend. They're not happy with status quo. And, after moving away from the status quo, they are not happy that others are still in status quo. This makes them vehement when challenged with their beliefs because they don't like it that others are not like them.

Well this doesn't hold together too well, you start by suggesting that they deliberately choose to be different then you say they don't like others not being like them. OK, this might be a description of looney behavior, but it doesn't work as an explanation for that behavior.

The timing of this topic and you're falling out with spetey hasn't gone unnoticed. Do you really think anything of value can be gained from this debate?

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:15 pm

Well, I don't know what happened between Harvey and Spetey, so my comments don't go to that issue. But.....yeah, he's right. I've seen it. We tend to be a testy bunch, I think a lot of it has to do with frustration, we consider ourselves just a little smarter than the rest, but for some reason we ain't smart enough to get our point across, and that irks some of us.

As to Madalyn, kindly do us the favor of not holding her against us. I grudgingly acknowledge her place in atheist history, but Je-HO-sophat! What a nasty broad! I had the distinct displeasure of meeting with her briefly at a memorial service in Phoenix about a month before she disappeared. I introduced myself as the head of the local Humanist group, and she proceeded to insult Humanists as "wimps", because they were afraid to call themselves "Atheists." (Have I shown any such fear here?) I replied that Humanism was merely a step beyond Atheism, to taking personal responsibility for one's life and actions, and perhaps it was she who was afraid to take that step. She waved me off and said no more.

Good riddance, bitch.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:39 am

The Happy Humanist wrote:As to Madalyn, kindly do us the favor of not holding her against us. I grudgingly acknowledge her place in atheist history, but Je-HO-sophat! What a nasty broad!

Sounds like the person whom I saw on television. But, you and her had one thing in common beyond atheism. On one interview she told the interviewer that he would be an atheist in 5 years because he was interested in issues from a logical perspective. I take it that the 5 years she gave him versus the 10 years you gave me is a difference in your personalities. Of course, she might have said that you were just being a wimp in your predictions?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:41 pm

people who became atheists is that they tend toward vehemence.

I think it is a consequence of the fact that the "default" in our current society is theism. The country is awashh with "weak theists". People with little feel for their religion, being brought up with only vague notions of Santa Claus and Jesus. If you ask them they will say "I'm christian". But otherwise they don't show it, even if they regularly attend church.

OTOH, very few people are raised as atheists, and so the mealy-mouthed, because-I-was-raised-that-way atheist is almost nonexistant. Atheists parents also tend toward the "I want my child to make up his or her own mind about religion" attitude, so the child will have not simply absorb the parents default belief. The result is that most atheists have made a posative decision to become an atheist, and that for them it lacks ambiguity.

It is the lack of ambiguity among religious fundementalists that gives them the similar appearance to many atheists.

OTOH, because atheism is obviosuly correct there is little reason to prevaricate about the bush....

DanZ

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:03 pm

juliod wrote:OTOH, because atheism is obviosuly correct there is little reason to prevaricate about the bush....

What are your arguments for atheism being obviously correct? I look at the natural world of wonder, and I can't imagine a programmer being able to create a program that self-replicates itself into what we see before us (even with an infinite number of iterations). Therefore, atheism seems obviously false.

QED · Post by **QED** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:33 pm

harvey1 wrote:
juliod wrote:OTOH, because atheism is obviosuly correct there is little reason to prevaricate about the bush....
What are your arguments for atheism being obviously correct? I look at the natural world of wonder, and I can't imagine a programmer being able to create a program that self-replicates itself into what we see before us (even with an infinite number of iterations). Therefore, atheism seems obviously false.

I shouldn't go off topic here bit I simply can't resist. Harvey; PM me your email address and I'll send you a computer program that will reproduce our entire universe in every detail. It's a good bit less than 100 lines of code, possibly much less. Seriously.