Atheists/Anti-theists HAVE to be rude to theists/those with differing opinions?

DaftChris

I was on another forum (the Internet Movie Database to be exact) and I went on a thread about Christopher Hitchens. It was along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here) how he was "needlessly arrogant and unnecessarily rude; despite his intelligence". One of the reply's was (paraphrasing again) that, because theists were bullies, it was necessary for Hitchens to be a bully right back.

O RLY?

If I were in High school, I would agree that the only way to speak to a believer was to be condescending and rude. However, a wonderful thing called maturing occurred and I began looking at all sides. Now, I'm not going to deny that religion has done some horrible things in the past (it has done some good, shockingly enough...) and that neo-fundamentalism needs to be stopped, but this notion that an atheist has to be a jerk to someone with differing beliefs baffles me. Many subscribers to the "new atheist" movement say they are more intelligent than theists, because they don't believe in a "sky daddy" or receive guidance from a 2000 year old book. With this notion of intellectual superiority, the only way to debate with someone is to be an a**hole? Even if the other person is being a bully? The best way to deal with said bully would be to stoop to their level?

Theists are often times (but not always) very rude and militant with their debates, but if you are a non-believer, and you think that you are smarter than said theist, why be rude to prove your point? It does absolutely nothing but fan the flames. That and it will help your book sales...

Enough with my little rant. I just want to see what all of you think about this?

person

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a nice rebuke to Richard Dawkins about this topic and Dawkins has a funny but dickish retort.

Cam

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a nice rebuke to Richard Dawkins about this topic and Dawkins has a funny but dickish retort.

[video]

I thought Dawkins had a great response

I can somewhat understand the view that we need 'militant atheists', given the state of scientific education (notably) in America. They could definitely have a bit more finesse about them though.

andyrobyn

Neil Tyson has good point in my opinion and his point is one which I think applies to many well informed and articulate " online buddhists ".
I found Dawkins reply predictable and unclever as well as not funny.

vinlyn

Hmmm. Often, authors and public speakers lose the favor of their audience by being smart asses. I'm not sure it's a debate, but I'd give the point to Tyson.

JohnG

Many people, both faithfull and athiest, are fearful of other idealogies, and their only recourse, to keep their idealogy is rudeness and arrogance. They need a form of supremecy to balance their life; and see others as inferior, and keep doors closed to anything remotly allowing an idea of possabilites to a multitude of light.

federica

MOD note:
I deleted a somewhat rude remark from one poster to the other.
Then - AFTER that - I watched the video.
I now understand the context of the remark.

My deletion still stands.

Back to topic.

andyrobyn

My husband was a big fan of the character from House - Gregory House ( a series produced for television, which we viewed on DVD ).

For me, House personifies the atheist which Dawkins identifies ( I agree with Dawkins that he isn't quite as good in delivery as some ).

genkaku

More than once, Christian pamphleteers have arrived on my front stoop unannounced. The same is true with environmental or political messages. I am generally polite, but I can't deny feeling that their discourteousness (if you want to visit, just give me a call) does not require me to be courteous in return. Their messages may feel compelling to them, but it is juvenile to imagine that others will see those messages in the same light.

I will probably continue to be courteous to uninvited visitors, but I believe I will forgive myself if I tell them to pedal their wares elsewhere. If people are truly as serious about what they believe as what they pretend to be, what need is there to insist that others be similarly serious? Relying on others in order to make an argument is a sure sign of uncertainty about that argument.

DairyLama

Many subscribers to the "new atheist" movement say they are more intelligent than theists, because they don't believe in a "sky daddy" or receive guidance from a 2000 year old book.

I wouldn't say necessarily more intelligent, but I would say more intellectually courageous, not satisfied with easy answers.

Bekenze

MOD note:
I deleted a somewhat rude remark from one poster to the other.
Then - AFTER that - I watched the video.
I now understand the context of the remark.

My deletion still stands.

Back to topic.

What I said was funny, and if you don't agree, you c- eh, nevermind. Gosh.

federica

Well... i guess 'funny' is subjective....
Engage brain before putting mouth in gear.
My father always used to say.

Enough said.

genkaku

Well... i guess 'funny' is subjective....
Engage brain before putting mouth in gear.
My father always used to say.

Enough said.

Whiiiine!!!! But @Federica, how can I know what I think till I see what I say?

federica

Enough said.

RichardH

Many people, both faithfull and athiest, are fearful of other idealogies, and their only recourse, to keep their idealogy is rudeness and arrogance. They need a form of supremecy to balance their life; and see others as inferior, and keep doors closed to anything remotly allowing an idea of possabilites to a multitude of light.

That need to stay on top is natural, maybe.. and sneaky. Views are held because they are held as True over falsity.. and the degree to which that holding is clamped down tight.. there is hot defense. I think we are all prone to it... but it wears out over time, and holding a view tightly is unsustainable. Getting locked into a view is misery. That contributes to the heat.

Really like the idea of "a multitude of light".

Bekenze

Well... i guess 'funny' is subjective....
Engage brain before putting mouth in gear.
My father always used to say.

Enough said.

It was funny.

federica

Bekenze - leave it, ok?

Mountains

Intellectuals (atheist or otherwise) have historically often been perceived as "rude" or "pompous" by those of lesser intellectual capacity. A quick look at what passes for political discourse in the USA right now proves this is still the case.

andyrobyn

MOD note:
I deleted a somewhat rude remark from one poster to the other.
Then - AFTER that - I watched the video.
I now understand the context of the remark.

My deletion still stands.

Back to topic.

What I said was funny, and if you don't agree, you c- eh, nevermind. Gosh.

As I said I don't think it is funny - it was trying to be humourous and clever - obviously in the same way we are talking about in the thread ( which is why I am chosing to comment on it ).
Personally as I was the person who started this with my comment on the video ( sorry federica !!! ) I didn't think it wasn't particularly offensive in context ( actually, I thought it was funnier than when Dawkins said it, if that means anything; Bekenze it was definitately your delivery which was better ! ).
Just as House says you can't get through to those with faith, you can't get through those who need supremacy of view - as JohnG said beautifully above.

Cam

What I said was funny, and if you don't agree, you c- eh, nevermind. Gosh.

This definitely made me laugh! Hahaha

ownerof1000oddsocks

Everything seems rude when I'm ultra serious about everything. I kind of like Dawkins, and Hitchens and Tyson but I'd probably stick cotton wool in my ears after a while.

That said, there are probably more grave matters at stake, but is it only a bone of contention or is there any meat on it to squabble over?

B5C

What an atheist threat without me?

Seph

I can somewhat understand the view that we need 'militant atheists', given the state of scientific education (notably) in America. They could definitely have a bit more finesse about them though.

I think often times we forget that Atheists can most definitely (and do) suffer from religosity and fundamentalism, no different than religious fundamentalists can and do.

At the end of the day, the one point many atheists miss, is that their is itself just another of many belief-systems.

Seph

What an atheist threat without me?

Sam Harris?
Are you just using his pic or is that you?
I just finished reading Free Will. What a curious avatar.

ittybittybat

Everyone has the ability to be militant or rude. I do think it's mean how people tear others down because they do not believe as they do. Athiests do it, Buddhists do it. Everyone does it, regardless of the belief system. I don't think that those militant athiests are any more rude than those militant Theists. Both can be extraordinarily rude because they are insecure about their own beliefs.

I personally stand by the belief that all things are possible.

vinlyn

Everyone has the ability to be militant or rude. I do think it's mean how people tear others down because they do not believe as they do. Athiests do it, Buddhists do it. Everyone does it, regardless of the belief system. I don't think that those militant athiests are any more rude than those militant Theists. Both can be extraordinarily rude because they are insecure about their own beliefs.

I personally stand by the belief that all things are possible.

I agree that everyone can be militant or rude. But -- and I can only speak about the atheists I have met or known -- when it comes to their belief in atheism it's like they're a knight on a steed, ready to do battle at the slightest provocation for "their cause". Which is a not uncommon stance for people who FEEL they are pushed into the position of a minority.

Zeron

I think often times we forget that Atheists can most definitely (and do) suffer from religosity and fundamentalism, no different than religious fundamentalists can and do.

At the end of the day, the one point many atheists miss, is that their is itself just another of many belief-systems.

Atheism, by its very definition, is not a belief system. A "lack of belief in something" is not the same as a "belief in a lack of something".
If someone insists on calling atheism a "belief system" then this person ought to be consistent and call bald a hair colour.
It's just like being a smoker or a non-smoker. If an atheist is a believer, then a non-smoker is really a smoker that smokes a lack of tobacco.

person

I think often times we forget that Atheists can most definitely (and do) suffer from religosity and fundamentalism, no different than religious fundamentalists can and do.

At the end of the day, the one point many atheists miss, is that their is itself just another of many belief-systems.

Atheism, by its very definition, is not a belief system. A "lack of belief in something" is not the same as a "belief in a lack of something".
If someone insists on calling atheism a "belief system" then this person ought to be consistent and call bald a hair colour.
It's just like being a smoker or a non-smoker. If an atheist is a believer, then a non-smoker is really a smoker that smokes a lack of tobacco.

In theory this is true, in actual real life situations there are plenty of Athiests with a hardened belief system, or rather non-belief system.