BookTalk.org

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-dav ... 33662.html


I think it's 100 percent psychological, of course. There's no need to look for other explanations for the bad and billgerent behavior of atheists, particularly on social media, who love to flood religious websites with their vitriol.

Some reasons may be due to:

1) megalomania as inflated self esteem

2) the need to feel superior to people that are "different"

3) Domineering parents (mostly a father figure gone bad)

4) religious discontent experienced at home

5) guilt and the desire NOT to have to eventually answer to a superior being.

6) fear


The article states this interesting thought:

Here is where I make my bid for more obloquy to be visited on my head. There is an arrogant unwillingness to engage with religion's serious thinkers. Too many atheists assume that a couple of insults will substitute for argument. They suffer from the incredulity of those who cannot believe anyone would disagree. It reminds me of the most self-assured of the faithful, who suffer the same intellectual imperialism. "I am right," a statement we all identify with from time to time, becomes "therefore you are stupid for disagreeing." A disagreeable sentiment, to say the least. And a narrow, thoughtless one, to boot.

It holds true and a quick search on the internet will find a plethora of responses from atheists that are patronizing and insulting in their responses to topics about religion.
This exposes the poor psychological state these particular atheists suffer from: the need to be right; the need to feel superior; the need to dominate others with their personal opinions: and mostly, the need to release bottled-up anger.


What are some opinions about this?

Thanks, guys.

Quote from the article: (emphasis mine)

In a world in which so much is still not understood, in which multiple universes are possible, in which we have not pierced the mystery of consciousness, to discount the supernatural is to lack the openness to mystery that should be a human hallmark. There is so much we do not know. Religious people too should acknowledge this truth. Epistemological humility -- the acknowledgment that we are at the very first baby steps of understanding -- is far wiser than arrogance on either side. After all, we comprehend with our brains, and who knows how limited are our only organs of understanding?

I agree with this.

Both sides are guilty of arrogance.

Finally, I will go so far as to say that there is sometimes in the atheist a want of wonder.

That's kind of like ant trying to throw in the word "strawman." Maybe if you say it enough someone will think it applies to both sides.

The Rabbi's other points are at least better than ant's attempt at more "daddy" philosophizing. The theory has now gone to 100% certainty! Wow, I thought that wasn't even possible.

First of all it's not a theory it's a hypothesis.

A little more about the distinction here:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_d ... hypothesis


The Rabbi was opining.
Of course any opining that attempts to examine atheism is automatically tainted with fallacy.

Opinion - OPINION.

Gosh, some people turn into mega idiots whenever they get sensitive about something.

Dexter;

Has anybody ever told you you're arrogantly dismissive of any opinions or arguments from ANY source that are critical of atheism?

Could it be because you're used to having people echo your opinions?
I mean, what's smart or intellectually daring about that?


Be careful my friend, anyone can feel secure living in a closed environment where their personal beliefs are echoed by "friends"
We wouldn't want you to become complacently stupid.

I may be arrogantly dismissive of your arguments critical of atheism, because

a) you are arrogant and annoying

b) you continuously (to an absurd extent) misrepresent other peoples’ positions with strawman arguments

c) you change the subject as soon as one of your arguments is challenged, making discussion pretty much pointless

d) your other arguments are blatantly silly and are apparently just disguised insults, i.e. people are atheists because they have “daddy issues”

The Rabbi here made some reasonable common-sense points, e.g. that people are atheists because they apparently believe there is no God and that religious belief can have negative effects, not because of some psychological issue (wow, imagine that). I believe the statement about atheists lacking wonder is ridiculous and should be called out as such. He doesn’t get a pass because he is an expert on Judaism.

Thanks for proving my point

I didn't read this article for the reasons Dexter mentions. Here's a couple more:

1) Intellectual laziness. Ant's MO is to dredge up content from the web that fits with his biased and bigoted views of atheists. Um, yeah, what he said!!

2) Intellectual dishonesty. Okay, well Dexter did mention this. This thread is just a continuation of anti-atheist-themed rants. Just go through these threads and look for all the challenges to his "arguments." They are ignored. Time to start a new anti-atheist thread!!

Ant proudly states that he accepts the Daddy Hypothesis despite the obvious bias and the author's absurdly non-scientific methods (that were pointed out and ignored on another thread). This is the same kind of bias and motivated reasoning that creationists use to reject evolution. Ant is oblivious to his own bias that leads him to accept unwarranted beliefs. I know elementary grade students who demonstrate more introspection and intellectual integrity than what Ant shows here on BT.

Taylor said it well when he said "this article and its author lend a great deal of nothing to the life worth living." This was in response to an article Dexter posted to ridicule the author's obvious goal to diminish those who don't think just like him. The joke is that Ant could have easily selected the same article because it fits right in with his bigoted worldview. But Dexter beat him to it.

And so here's another one that Ant dredges up in his nonstop quest to put others down. I don't have to read an article entitled "Why are atheists so angry?" to know that this article is not worth reading and that it contributes nothing to a life worth living.

I do think it's an interesting psychology experiment. There is a carrot on a stick somewhere in the need to be right about something. Mix this with the "click" that comes when you learn of Christianity's nonexistent epistemological foundation, and it's motivating.

There is also something about the constant anti-atheist articles. They try to blame the motive of an atheist on everything but the kitchen sink. How about the idea that an atheist argues against theism because he's pushing what he thinks is true? At surface level, that is no different from missionaries traveling all the way around the world to tell others what to believe. The difference is the method. Christian missionaries have stories, while atheists have epistemology.

Some reasons may be due to:

1) megalomania as inflated self esteem

2) the need to feel superior to people that are "different"

3) Domineering parents (mostly a father figure gone bad)

4) religious discontent experienced at home

5) guilt and the desire NOT to have to eventually answer to a superior being.

6) fear

7) Christianity is false and people need to know.

Most of these made me laugh. #5 especially. It's like they're examining aliens.