Opinion of internet atheists

[Torie]

Absolutely horrible people. I just can't stand being around them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm thinking of "internet atheists" as people who they think they are "LOLZ SO CLEVER!" by pointing out things like this as if no one is already aware of them:

-Some religious leaders are anti-gay.
-Some religious leaders aren't fond of women.
-There is some messed up laws and things in the Old Testament.
-Christians have done things like the Crusades and Muslims have done things like 9/11.
-There are some people that believe the world is only 6000 years old.

Like I said, they are BORING. Boring boring BORING. Be more like opebo instead of just reciting the obvious over and over. Like I said before, it's pretty much the same thing as jmfcst's Bible verse quote fests.

[John Dibble]

I'm thinking of "internet atheists" as people who they think they are "LOLZ SO CLEVER!" by pointing out things like this as if no one is already aware of them:

-Some religious leaders are anti-gay.
-Some religious leaders aren't fond of women.
-There is some messed up laws and things in the Old Testament.
-Christians have done things like the Crusades and Muslims have done things like 9/11.
-There are some people that believe the world is only 6000 years old.

Like I said, they are BORING. Boring boring BORING. Be more like opebo instead of just reciting the obvious over and over.

So you would like us to be nihilists who don't give a damn about other people, then? You know, like opebo?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

opebo clearly does care about poors and union members if you read his posts...but no I'm referring to being witty and clever and not thinking you are making some earth-shattering points by pointing out things that everyone already knows repeatedly.

[John Dibble]

opebo clearly does care about poors and union members if you read his posts...

You mean like how he cares about Thailand staying poor so he can continue to get Thai hookers for cheap? Yeah, shining example of empathy right there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Opebo's routine has not changed in years. It's boring. I really don't understand your obsession with him. He's practically a Straw Nihilist. Oh look, he has a trope! SOOOO ORIGINAL!

Also, you have a caricature of the atheist in your mind that you are arguing against. We don't think you don't know about the things we're pointing out. We know you know.

- We aren't pointing out that some religious leaders are anti-gay or anti-women, we're criticizing them for being so and pointing out how their religion is making them act unethically. Or do you think we shouldn't work against such people?
- We point out old testament laws not because we think you don't know them, but because people like you outright ignore the implications they have on the moral character of the being you worship. If you think that a god who orders the murder of infants is a good one, I question your moral compass.
- We point out atrocities caused by religious thinking as a means to criticize it and try to get others to be against them so that they will help with stopping them from occurring again, again not because we think you don't know about them. Or do you think it's not worth your time to help stop bad things from happening?
- We argue against the people that think the world is only 6000 years old and try to stop them from getting that taught in public schools, not simply point out their existence. Or do you think that creationism is true and deserves equal time in public schools?

In other words, your entire argument here is one big straw man. I'm sorry that our discussions about morality and improving the human condition bore you, but I think that speaks more about your character than it does ours.

[afleitch]

BRTD, you treat religion worse than even the most annoying atheist of Christian fundie does. Because you treat religion as an accessory. To you it’s about what people wear, what people listen to and what they do with their hands a church and how hot the sermon leader is. That’s a twisted sense of religion buddy because you’re a vapid self absorbed sh-t. There’s nothing outside of you. Nothing outside of what you do, what you wear, what you smoke, what you listen to, where you shop or where you live. Everything can only be viewed through a Minneapolis based BRTD shaped prism. You can’t even understand why other Christians believe different things or worship different things or why people who aren’t Christian think your ‘Jesus is cool’ mantra is nothing more than t-shirt slogan psychology with no substance. You don’t care what people believe (or even what you believe) or ever take the time to think things through. If someone talks about a mass, or prayer or way of worship that means something to them because it’s not what you like you dismiss it; ‘Oh he’s wearing a suit, oh he’s playing an organ, I don’t have the attention span to deal with that because life for me is one big f-cking party.’

You’re the one who takes a two storey high dump on people’s beliefs BRTD and you have the cheek to call us boring? You’ve been posting the same topics, polling the same issues and generally shoehorning in things you like into conversations even if it has nothing to do with the subject on here for ten years. Grow up and move on. You think Opebo is cool, because you’re too unoriginal to come up with anything like his posting style and demeanour, or anything original at all. You know what? I’m pretty sure Opebo thinks you’re a dick.

[© tweed]

I've turned anti-atheist over the past several months.  at least anti-"New Atheism".  case in point is a Dawkins quote, saying that theology shouldn't be taught in universities because science has put a man on the moon and theology has accomplished nothing.

[afleitch]

I've turned anti-atheist over the past several months.  at least anti-"New Atheism".  case in point is a Dawkins quote, saying that theology shouldn't be taught in universities because science has put a man on the moon and theology has accomplished nothing.

Dawkins is not the atheist pope, Tweed.

[DC Al Fine]

I've turned anti-atheist over the past several months.  at least anti-"New Atheism".  case in point is a Dawkins quote, saying that theology shouldn't be taught in universities because science has put a man on the moon and theology has accomplished nothing.

Dawkins is not the atheist pope, Tweed.

So? I'm sure you've criticized prominent Christians before. Dawkins is no different.

[fezzyfestoon]

I don't tend to like the types of atheists that tend to express themselves along the same lines as antagonistic libertarians, but lumping them all together is dangerous and ignorant. There's a lot of valuable discussion to be had between the religious and those lacking religion, but when atheists are immediately reduced to internet troll-hacks it's difficult to get anywhere. Treating a diverse, unorganized group of people as a monolithic bazooka mercilessly aimed directly at religion is ridiculous and counterproductive. In particular contrast to Afleitch's journey to atheism, I was never involved in a church. So when I make statements that project doubt or confusion, I am almost exclusively jumped on as a troll trying to create a stir by asking questions I know the answer to. There's a growing fanaticism that goes along with atheism and their relationships with religious online personas that bother me. I hate generalizing and categorizing in general, but especially about things like not having a religion.

It really goes hand in hand with the disconnect I've noticed regarding the general philosophical concept of not having a god or gods. Most people have such a hard time understanding what the lack of a religion is, because that would create a void for them. They assume that there must be something else an atheist is deeply faithful towards or a philosophy they are adherent to. There's almost a sense of being distrusted by religious people for claiming not to have a religion. Then comes in the idea of atheism being a religion, based on the fair observation of 'internet atheists' that make their decision more of an indictment of others' religions than a personal rejection of their teachings. Being anti-religion is not the same thing as being an atheist, in fact I'd argue alongside religious posters in claiming that to be a religion in itself.

I don't really know, because much like how people of religion feel confused or skeptical about atheism, I've always felt that way about religion. It makes absolutely no sense to me, so to be actively grouped with fanatics who devote their life to religion just as much as a Catholic would makes equally as little sense. Atheism is simply the lack of a religion, where people take that concept is a personal decision unrelated to their lack of religion.

[afleitch]

I've turned anti-atheist over the past several months.  at least anti-"New Atheism".  case in point is a Dawkins quote, saying that theology shouldn't be taught in universities because science has put a man on the moon and theology has accomplished nothing.

Dawkins is not the atheist pope, Tweed.

So? I'm sure you've criticized prominent Christians before. Dawkins is no different.

That's not what i'm getting at nor he for that matter. Disliking people who are atheist because of Dawkins is a bit like disliking Christians in general because of the Pope or Fred Phelps. It's a silly argument. I happen to dislike the Pope both new and old and wouldn't mourn Fred Phelps passing at the hands of a truck driver but I don't tar other Christians with that brush.

[anvi]

Well, I've said this before, but FWIW; I'm an atheist, but I do think religious traditions are incredibly crucial to understand and engage with because they often reveal what are the most profound and important concerns of human beings.  It's for that reason that religious belief and practice can so frequently yield both the most ideal and the most diabolical kinds of human possibilities.  But I tend to appreciate people's respective faiths on an individual basis; if their faith leads them to be better persons, I admire their faith, and if their faith, and not other factors, prompts them to be destructive to others in various ways, then I'm not a fan of it.  The ultimate "truth" or "falsity" of any given set of religious beliefs doesn't concern me (since none of us has a handle on "ultimate truth") as much as what religious belief and practice can enable people to do for themselves for for people around them.  I know it's a humanist sort of perspective I am adopting, but it's not one, at least it's not one I hope or think under-esitmates the importance of religion or motivates me to denigrate its practitioners who are committed, so to speak, in good faith.  JMHO.

[afleitch]

I think Fezzy hit the nail on the head. Most atheists aren’t really anti-religion for the same reason that Christians aren’t ‘pro-religion.’ It’s just we don’t believe in any god and Christians believe in theirs. Our lack of belief in a god doesn’t define us, nor organise us into a common community because there’s no really commonality amongst atheists as people. I can see why some atheists do start grouping together socially, for the same reason that people who are religious even if they all have different beliefs and gods, can coalesce against atheists in debate. It’s almost as if it’s better to believe in something than to believe in nothing and as fezzy says, because atheists by default don’t believe in god then that ‘hole’ has to be filled by something that’s ‘not god’; atheism. Therefore that's our 'religion' or belief system.

But there isn’t really a hole. Atheism doesn’t provide me with emotional and spiritual succour. My friends and family do that. My pet cat does that. I’m not out there to belittle people who believe they obtain support from their deity or from their belief or from meditation or prayer, it’s just that I don’t. I don’t consciously think that each day of my life involves me not believing in god and I’m getting something from that non belief. I hardly think about it at all unless someone asks me.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I liked BRTD better when he was an internet atheist.  This schtick is getting old.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

What is meant by "internet atheists"?  Is it anybody who posts anything on the internet and lets it be known in some way that they are an atheist?  If this is the case, then they cover a very, very wide range.  Atheism is defined by the rejection of a certain thing; we have not one composite ideology.  So I would have to say this.

The "GOD IS NOT REAL" facebook page?  Horrible people.  What a stupid thing to name your group and probably just as bad and fanatical as the worst fundamental religiouses.  

The atheists here?  Pretty awesome for the most part.  opebo is delightful and I'd like to think I've helped give us a good name.  Dibble really give some good arguments, as well.  I'm glad we step up considering atheism is treated pretty nastily around these parts, in my experience. 

[© tweed]

I've turned anti-atheist over the past several months.  at least anti-"New Atheism".  case in point is a Dawkins quote, saying that theology shouldn't be taught in universities because science has put a man on the moon and theology has accomplished nothing.

Dawkins is not the atheist pope, Tweed.

So? I'm sure you've criticized prominent Christians before. Dawkins is no different.

That's not what i'm getting at nor he for that matter. Disliking people who are atheist because of Dawkins is a bit like disliking Christians in general because of the Pope or Fred Phelps.

if you read my post I said I was anti-"New Atheism", which is an idea rather than institution or collection of people.   Dawkins and his The God Delusion form an indelible part of the New Atheist canon.  as Chris Hedges said: "we have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God."  it's what they do with it.  and tossing theology out of universities because it has never put a man on the moon is not a cool thing to do with your atheism, in my opinion.  and, to be sure, Dawkins is not the lone atheist to hold such an opinion.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I've turned anti-atheist over the past several months.  at least anti-"New Atheism".  case in point is a Dawkins quote, saying that theology shouldn't be taught in universities because science has put a man on the moon and theology has accomplished nothing.

Dawkins is not the atheist pope, Tweed.

So? I'm sure you've criticized prominent Christians before. Dawkins is no different.

That's not what i'm getting at nor he for that matter. Disliking people who are atheist because of Dawkins is a bit like disliking Christians in general because of the Pope or Fred Phelps.

if you read my post I said I was anti-"New Atheism", which is an idea rather than institution or collection of people.   Dawkins and his The God Delusion form an indelible part of the New Atheist canon.  as Chris Hedges said: "we have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God."  it's what they do with it.  and tossing theology out of universities because it has never put a man on the moon is not a cool thing to do with your atheism, in my opinion.  and, to be sure, Dawkins is not the lone atheist to hold such an opinion.

This post spells out my thoughts exactly.  Religion, in my opinion, is suppose to be a serious arm of philosophical thought.  If someone rejects religion entirely simply because it's religion and only considers a scientific understanding of the universe, then that, in my opinion, demonstrates a very closed mind - at least, if you won't even respect different points of view that can at times be very compatible with scientific fact.  New Atheists haven't added anything new to the discussion; they've merely made religion more of an identity than an oasis of intellectual thought, which isn't very different from what the fundies have been doing.

[fezzyfestoon]

I reject the concept that philosophy is at odds with an atheist's view of the world and humanity. There's plenty of theoretical thought about people, society, nations, the world, and the universe that is both tangible and abstract while remaining completely devoid of religion. There's nothing narrow about how an atheist views the world. There's a decision that one avenue of philosophy, the belief in deities, that we find to lack a level of truth worth believing. Sure, religious figures have contributed greatly to philosophy and society, but you don't have to have been religious to have had an impact beyond just science.

[angus]

What is meant by "internet atheists"?

I'd never heard the term before either.

according to UrbanDictionary.com it would be an

"Angry atheist who trolls internet sites denouncing God, Christians and religion; Atheist internet troll who demonstrates a basic ignorance of reason; Atheist internet troll who is ignorant of science and logic while claiming strong adherence to the same; Atheist who contradicts themselves through poor reasoning, especially one who exhibits hypocrisy."

another source claims that internet atheism "concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. Hundreds of websites and blogs on the Internet seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation."

yet another source calls them "a socially inadept hack that copies and pastes hate-filled, profanity-ridden blasphemous rants over and over again and congratulates himself for being a Thinking Man."

Google it and you'll get a googol of hits.  The label seems rather like the term "fast fashion" in the sense that no one who uses it seems particularly complimentary to those they label thusly. 

I learn all sorts of stuff here. 

[DemPGH]

I took "internet atheists" to be a slightly derogatory term aimed at defining the known and unknown quantities who "evangelize" atheism in pop culture. I think there are good ones and bad ones. Dawkins is a run-of-the-mill academic who has just greedily found a way to make hay, and he knows that isolated, lonely folks will flock to what he says as the words of a rock star. I read The God Delusion and was thoroughly unimpressed. In fact I don't remember much that he said. There were a few good things in there, but it was a large majority of straw men and ad hominem stuff.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is very good, a lesser known academic at FSU named Michael Ruse is very good, and in entertainment, I surely think Penn and Teller would give BRTD the entertainment that he so much desires. if you desire "original" atheism and can't get off on P&T, then you don't desire anything original. Those guys are good.

I've mentioned before that I was never really what you would call religious - church when I attended as a young fellow was more social for me as I think it is for most folks, but as my knowledge of ancient history, ancient humans, and the Bible's many, many multitude of contradictions and errors mounted, I realized that it no way was the Bible the word of God and that God had never advised any human beings on anything.

[RI]

Go to Reddit if you want to see internet atheists. It's awful.

[memphis]

Only those blindly adhere to hurtful and often absurd myths are allowed to attempt to convince others they are right? That's a strange double standard. I'll pass on the talking snakes and the rapture. If you want to judge me for thinking critically, that's your problem. Just don't for my tax dollars to spread your foolishness.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Only those blindly adhere to hurtful and often absurd myths are allowed to attempt to convince others they are right? That's a strange double standard. I'll pass on the talking snakes and the rapture. If you want to judge me for thinking critically, that's your problem. Just don't for my tax dollars to spread your foolishness.

Yes because all religious people think like that.

And it's worth pointing out that atheists don't have a monopoly on "thinking critically", nor do they always do so.

[angus]

I took "internet atheists" to be a slightly derogatory term aimed at defining the known and unknown quantities who "evangelize" atheism in pop culture.

I think your intuition is in sync with most of what I looked up. 

I also think I might be tempted to quibble with some of the rest of your post--Dawkins is a typical academic??  I certainly hope not--but I also haven't voted in this poll and don't intend to, so I won't quibble.

Just nice to learn some newspeak now and again.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

DemPGH, what's your opinion of the late Christopher Hitchens? A lot of his broadsides make for entertaining reading and hold up decently, but they also strike me as often argued in bad faith, in this case meaning from questionable historical and anthropological angles and at times in service of the awful geopolitical ideologies that he ended up in hock to.

The gentleman in your signature is Michael Shermer, right? I've always had a good deal of respect for him. Seems like a nice, honest guy who happens to devote his time to advocacy for a cause with which I disagree.