Comments on: Three Crucial Things You Must Know Before Challenging An Atheist’s Unbelief

By: Nuno

Nuno — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:22:14 +0000

Sorry for the double post, but it only tells how much appealing, in a food-for-thought way, your text is!
I’m thinking that, even more, your categories imply, even if only implicitly, both an internal state of affairs as well as a general external attitude towards an argument. Incidentally, they don’t need to coincide: My guess is that a #2 atheist can argument as a #3 one (or any other combination for that matter). Here, as well as with any other kind of discussion, the determinant happens to be your own interlocutor.
Anyway, just kind of thinking aloud here

By: Nuno

Nuno — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:14:26 +0000

I did like ur categorization. Of course, as with any other categorization, soon people notice the gaps and tend to broad the criteria (even suggest a few more categories, as one can see from the comments). That’s only natural but, in the end, you may find that some are just sub-categories. Anyway, there’s one thing I think your categories lack: The inclusion criteria are to much focused on external factors, rather than internal ones – since we are refering to atheism, an explicit “internal” stance, it would be much more proficuous to focus on that. You don’t even need to change that much – all that you refer to as external factors (parents, shool, friends, whatever) just needs to be seen from a phenomenological point of view – it doesn’t matter that much if your parents are catholic or atheists, if none of that is “internalized” in your mind. For instance, the fact that your parents are atheists doesn’t mean necessarily that, when it comes to faith, they represent a model on the issue. Due to a friend or some other relative, one can find that he fits best to #3. By making the categories more internal-focused, one can avoid a certain deterministic sense in purelly contextual factors and turn to the more important stuff – why did this person, from a subjective (as in relative to the “subject”) perspective became an atheist? Also (and I’m still trying to make my mind on this: indeed the path to atheism seems to be a one way road; however, it’s also true that one tends to rethink the issue once in a while), there’s no reason to picture the categories as static – I could point some moments in my life when I felt more like one category than another and vice-versa (not as in becoming an atheist, but as an atheist going over what drove me to that and reinterpreting some life events) – Once again, that depends only on some kind of internal conflict, independent of its source (maybe I had an interesting conversation or read something) which, moreover, happens to be dynamic.
Anyway, I do recognize that all this is secundary to your discussion since the main point was how believers approach you and how easilly they do that with some kind pre-assumptions. Kudos for that!

By: meh

meh — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:30:53 +0000

i was number 2 my family wasn’t that religious but i studied the fuck out of it first so #2 & 3 but when i came out to my family all of a sudden it was a big deal and they were asking arguments that aren’t even related to the subject whatsoever

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 06:50:39 +0000

I think the “wishing we were wrong” thing is much less common than you make it sound. I’ve never wished it, and I find it quite rare among cat 1 and 3 atheists, and as you stated, cat 2 just doesn’t give a shit. Hitchens and Dawkins don’t wish for it, and often state how great a thing it is that it is not true. I don’t recall Harris ever giving me the impression that he wished for it, Julia Sweeney speaks of a brief period of depression coinciding with her deconversion, but it passed. I think the more you learn about religion, the less you wish for it to be true.

By: James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil

James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:30:47 +0000

As an atheists since I as 13, I have heard it all in such tedious repetition that I quickly become disgusted with the irrational and silly arguments of all theists. They like to tell atheists to “Just shut up” So I say to them, “Stop insulting my intelligence and start using some of your own.” Yes, that’s a bit rude, but so are they.

Religion has been getting a free pass to everything for far to long. It’s long past time to start taxing them like any other business and start demanding that they take responsibility for their behavior. That means showing some respect for others and keeping their abhorrent beliefs to themselves instead of constantly enacting them into laws for everyone.

By: Bookwrm87

Bookwrm87 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:10:19 +0000

I’d probably fit easiest into cat#2, but I will never be converted because I don’t care one way or the other. Religion never appealed to me, and so by default, I was an atheist.

By: Mj

Mj — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:14:04 +0000

What the? Who the? What type of link is that?

By: joesmith (really)

joesmith (really) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:40:47 +0000

Bravo. Superb piece. I’ve only adopted the atheist label within the last couple of years and am solidly in category #3 — ONLY after childhood in a Baptist church and 20+ adult years of searching & researching all manner of religions. It’s been a “soul” searching journey and intellectual pursuit that hasn’t been easy, but I wouldn’t trade what I’ve learned about life — and how much more I’ve come to appreciate this one & only life — for an infinity of gods and heavens (or hells).

By: Sarx

Sarx — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:21:43 +0000

My usual response to an atheist is “Ah” and that’s about it, unless they want to have a conversation. For most atheists of cat 3 especially, I find that conversation to be very similar in style to a conversation I would have with a hyper-religious person. They start in on my beliefs, my intelligence level (an immediate violation of logic which they claim to have mastered better than anyone else) which usually winds up with a withering counterattack on their own hypocrisy. You see, the irony is that militant (or dissonant as you call them) atheists frequently vigorously and loudly confess to detesting dogma, proselytizing, judgmentalism, etc, and claim theists (Christians in particular) are the most guilty of these things (not saying the many Christians, in particular, are not guilty of that, b/c many are). They then proceed to do the very same thing of which they complain. Atheists can be just as dogmatic as anyone else. Fine, you don’t believe in God. Why do you care so much that I do? (Not throwing those out in this forum, really, but that’s something that sometimes comes up.)

Furthermore, when you get into the arena of trying to legislate against religion or religious activity or in some way influence the public arena of ideas, you are now just as guilty as any theist who is trying to do the same thing (aka, the “Christian Right” or Muslims with Sharia law, etc). It’s hard to profess hating the above things, and then trying to frame things in such a way to show one isn’t doing that. Like most religions (Democrat, Republican, Christian, Muslim, Atheist) these types of articles usually are just preaching to the choir; facts are irrelevant.

The good conversations are always quite amazing. My usual experience (and what I read above) is the vast majority is a reaction against perceived mistreatment in a church (mostly) and very little understanding of what I believe. When cordial and polite, those kinds of conversations are stimulating and enjoyable. I don’t really participate in throwing fireballs (e.g. “You’re going to burn!! countered by the atheist “You’re an idiot!!”).

By: Fergus

Fergus — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:23:14 +0000

I’d say I’m a category #1, and thankfully the only experience of belief I have is from when I was about six years old, and my mother told me about how in medieval times pretty much everyone in Britain was Christian. I then misunderstood her words horribly and spent about a year thinking that it was illegal to not believe in god. What really annoys me is now when christians profess to know my exact thoughts and feelings on belief.

Surely, when such a tiny amount of (probably circumstantial) evidence supports superstitious belief, it’s only natural not to believe?