Is there such a thing as aggressive atheism?

[noname223]

I had to think about that when a member started a thread with something like. I don't want to offend anyone but am I the only who considers it absurd to believe in God?.

This wasn't actual aggressive atheism. But I considered it absurd someone would express saying something like that would offend people on SaSu. Theoretically a few members could be offended. Though, I think actually believing in God is on SaSu way more controversial and perceived as more offensive.

I once was extremely in the pro atheism camp. When I was the first time in my life very suicidal I always feared hell. And the process of leaving my somewhat religious upbringing felt so relieving. Retrospectively, I think though it was also motivated which belief system brings the biggest benefit for me. I still was very convinced of atheism but I also chose this narrative because I felt way better when losing my faith.

I think there are some good examples atheists use why should the existence of God how he/she/they is portrayed in most religions be more likely than the existence of demons or goblins for example. Personally, I think one could also argue against that.

Personally, I think atheism is not the fully inherent and perfectly logic conclusion anymore. One could argue on such questions logic should not really matter. I am also not sure on that. But the way how human logic in daily life works is also deeply flawed.

Personally, I would feel way more comfortable if God didn't exist and someone could guarantee that. I would reply to the aforementioned member what if God wasn't a good being? That there is suffering in this world might evoke a question like why isn't an allmighty being Interfering in that. And this was the perfect reasoning why God cannot exist. Maybe we are wrong on certain assumptions about God though.

A different question would be whether religion had an overall good or bad impact on this world. Has religion in the current world we live a net positive effect on the society?

I think some people assume one could destroy religious people with facts and logic. And for dogmatic religious people who believe in the literal sense of the bible this might be true. But hard deterministic atheists sort of make the same mistake they accuse dogmatic religious people of making. They are without a doubt convinced that they are absolutely right on this issue. And anyone who disagrees with them is just stupid and led by irrationality.

Personally, I am agnostic with a tendency to atheism. But also because I realized this has the Best impact on my mental health overall.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yes- I think I can be aggressively atheist. Although- my attack isn't meant to be focussed on religious people. More at God themselves- who they could potentially be, how cruel. But, I think it must come across as insulting to someone who really believes.

 

[wakeawake]

You might enjoy reading Christopher Hitchens - he was a really good writer on these topics (I thought of him immediately when you said 'aggressive atheist') him book 'God is not Great' is a good read, also I really appreciate his book 'Mortality' from when he was dying of Cancer

 

[Pluto]

 

[SchizoPolyGymnast]

Very religious person here.

Yes, people can be aggressively atheist, just as they can be aggressively religious. Being able to discuss a topic like religion in a curious and dispassionate way is something of an art. Not many people can do it.

 

[Tobacco]

I'm agnostic. The universe as we know it leaves enough space for speculation about a possible mind behind the universe. The thing is, this being could very well be on a spectrum of evil.

 

[Lamentice]

I'm antitheist, which is pretty much what an aggressive atheist is.

 

[LilGhost]

I had to think about that when a member started a thread with something like. I don't want to offend anyone but am I the only who considers it absurd to believe in God?.

This wasn't actual aggressive atheism. But I considered it absurd someone would express saying something like that would offend people on SaSu. Theoretically a few members could be offended. Though, I think actually believing in God is on SaSu way more controversial and perceived as more offensive.

I once was extremely in the pro atheism camp. When I was the first time in my life very suicidal I always feared hell. And the process of leaving my somewhat religious upbringing felt so relieving. Retrospectively, I think though it was also motivated which belief system brings the biggest benefit for me. I still was very convinced of atheism but I also chose this narrative because I felt way better when losing my faith.

I think there are some good examples atheists use why should the existence of God how he/she/they is portrayed in most religions be more likely than the existence of demons or goblins for example. Personally, I think one could also argue against that.

Personally, I think atheism is not the fully inherent and perfectly logic conclusion anymore. One could argue on such questions logic should not really matter. I am also not sure on that. But the way how human logic in daily life works is also deeply flawed.

Personally, I would feel way more comfortable if God didn't exist and someone could guarantee that. I would reply to the aforementioned member what if God wasn't a good being? That there is suffering in this world might evoke a question like why isn't an allmighty being Interfering in that. And this was the perfect reasoning why God cannot exist. Maybe we are wrong on certain assumptions about God though.

A different question would be whether religion had an overall good or bad impact on this world. Has religion in the current world we live a net positive effect on the society?

I think some people assume one could destroy religious people with facts and logic. And for dogmatic religious people who believe in the literal sense of the bible this might be true. But hard deterministic atheists sort of make the same mistake they accuse dogmatic religious people of making. They are without a doubt convinced that they are absolutely right on this issue. And anyone who disagrees with them is just stupid and led by irrationality.

Personally, I am agnostic with a tendency to atheism. But also because I realized this has the Best impact on my mental health overall.

I mean.... I used to be an "aggressive atheist" when i was a teen (I am from a very religious family with csa flavor to it from my mother so I was defying existence of god entirely at some point and hating on anything related to religion). I find you cant be religious without cherry picking (as (i am talking about bible rn as thats the book I read) there is to much contradictions in it and id take with grain of salt words from a book written thousands years ago and translated multiple times), but now i wouldnt say that religion has only negative impact on this world. I understand that some people are to scared of "nothingness" or want to get on gods "good side" as they loose nothing if wrong after death, but get a chance of heaven if correct.
Tho, I hate the "religion is needed for people to act moral" argument as if you need religion not to be a piece of shit: you are a piece of shit.
I do like the Epicurean paradox

• If a god knows everything and has unlimited power, then it has knowledge of all evil and has the power to put an end to it. But if it does not end it, it is not completely benevolent.
• If a god has unlimited power and is completely good, then it has the power to extinguish evil and wants to extinguish it. But if it does not do it, its knowledge of evil is limited, so it is not all-knowing.
• If a god is all-knowing and totally good, then it knows of all the evil that exists and wants to change it. But if it does not, it must be because it is not capable of changing it, so it is not omnipotent.

Thats quite sums up why despite chance of religious people being right, I won't worship the god. I cant comprehend why something so powerful would do nothing about the cruelty of this world. Not sure if it makes me still being "aggressive" atheist, but tbf I dont have issues with religious people anymore (only with god) and I believe everyone should be able to believe in whatever they want, even noodle monster ^^.

Surely, maybe we deserved hell on earth for what we have sinned. But what did kids do? Infants? They are considered to be "pure souls" (at least in Christianity) why do they go through sa? Cancer? War? And I its also completely separate question to which religion be correct and what "believes" in it. For example, if we are taking everything Orthodox church is saying as truth: why god punishes for love? Why if you suffer as much to choose to die - you will get to suffer for eternity?

So.... I am not an "aggressive atheist" as the definition for me would be firm believe in absence of a god. I do accept the possibility. Just, as much as it doesnt make me frightened (As eternal suffer in flames isnt really my thing...) i fear i wont worship it even if there'd be proof of existence.

 

[sheeplit]

Religion is absurd. If people can believe in god on faith alone and not be considered crazy, I should just as well be allowed to believe a pink unicorn lives inside my consciousness, and that some arbitrary far off land is the holy land. Or a sentient spoon wanders about in the cosmos waiting for us to become a spacefaring civilization to fill it with soup. Of course, people would think me crazy for that, much less accept it as a religion.

As good as religions make themselves out to be, it is, ironically, rather anthropocentric, self-important, and arrogant a conception of an entity such as god. As god has made us in his own image, we have made him in ours. I have my bets on which came first. I'd be damned if I'm wrong but I'll take those odds.

Religion is a collective delusion. Now, there isn't anything inherently harmful with that. It depends on how it's used. We, as humans, delude ourselves in small and large scale moments to help us get by. We hype ourselves up, believing we can do something without any evidence, just to get us to do the thing. "We can do this," we'd say to ourselves. It's a crutch; it's a tool. Whereas religion might say "we can be decent people and live decent lives", "life isn't pointless", "we are not alone", "there is something after death", "someone cares", or whatever else to help us along that path. With self-hype, we know it isn't necessarily true nor false, we know what we're doing and we utilize this tool of deception in a meaningful and productive manner. However, with religion, it is treated as though it is true. That is the difference. That's the danger.

I, too, am agnostic leaning toward atheism. Though I regularly refer to myself as atheist out of laziness (and needless preference of the word atheist over agnostic). If a religious person came up to me and said, "I believe in god because I cannot contend with the philosophical and existential questions that lay unanswered in its absence. I cannot function properly without it, but will do my utmost to avoid needlessly involving you into this need of mine." I would have much respect for that person. Go! I say, believe in your god because you need it and have the intellectual awareness to know it may not necessarily be true (or false). The nature of such a belief would, in practice, be significantly different from the popular constructs and institutions that religion is today.

We want a society of people who can ask difficult questions while also being capable of admitting their own weaknesses and inadequacies. But religion, as it stands today, fundamentally exists on the suspension of one's inquisitive mind by a presumption and full acceptance of some almighty truth. This very statement alone should alert anyone to why it is dangerous to any society. If religion could exist without this, then I think it would be okay. Arguably the hardest questions in life are answered by simply picking whatever it is that suits our fancy and is quietly accepted by a large enough group, along with all the rituals and nonsense baked in with it. At the most critical of areas, we allow ourselves the dulling of our own minds; this quietly gives us permission to do the same with anything that is of less importance.

Think of religious schools teaching you of god. That's basically teaching a young mind to accept the existence of something just because. We should be up in arms about this sort of nonsense. "Yeah, sure, maybe god does exist. You don't know that! So stop acting like you do, and stop infecting children's minds with it," is what I would say to them. Now, if schools acted more like so: "Some people believe in god, we call it religion. Here's it's history, you can decide for yourself where you stand." That would be acceptable. Instead, we have indoctrination at a very young age, where at its center is a prime importance of the belief of some god. Put in another way, teaching young minds that one of the most important things in the world is to not think and accept this thing they tell you exists. "This is right; this is wrong. Do as you're told." Um, no thanks. That there is just the recipe for robotic adults.

Idiotic things done in the name of worship, allowed and tolerated by society out of some naive sense of acceptance. Like, no, you can't erect a wire over Manhattan for your 'symbolic space' or whatever you call it; otherwise, why can't I for my own reasons? Ah, because god! Unless I have an old enough book that says so, I cannot have my own god, and thus cannot erect a wire over Manhattan too. Only your god exists, along with three or four other gods accepted today. The rest are imaginations. And of the handful accepted only one god is the real god depending on who you ask. Sure, we're the assholes for finding it absurd. *shrugs*

Any keen eye willing to look at religion critically will see absurdity every which way.

In the end though, I consider religion a symptom of a harder problem. If we were to somehow take religion away, the same problems would manifest somewhere else (as it already does). If that problem is solved, I think religion would eventually disappear, or its nature as well as our treatment and definition of the word would drastically change.

Now, dogmatic thinking, sanctimonious self-righteousness, aggressive conformity and tribalism, prejudice towards out-groups, demand for preferential treatment, the insidious degradation of critical thought, these are real problems inherent in religion but is not exclusive to it. Religion serves as a decent large scale case study for these problems.

To your question, is there such a thing as aggressive atheism? I'd say likely yes. But it must not be confused or conflated with the reasonably strong pushback against the blatant absurdity of religion.

The presumption of understanding is antithetical to the human spirit and achievement. It is also a core requirement in religion.