The term Village Atheist has many different meanings, from one who simply lumps all religious views together, with no thought of accurately considering the contents of specific doctrine, or from one who judges all believers to be foolish, and simply a product of indoctrination in their youth. To be honest, I find myself often in the latter definition, so do not think I am pointing the finger, with no attempt at introspection on my part.
But both of these practices are in them selves, rather unfair if we are to be honest. As it assumes that all believers gave no genuine thought or consideration towards their beliefs. Most often, the Village Atheist will create a dichotomy of intellectuals, being anyone who is a skeptic or non-believer, and fools, being anyone who holds to some religious affiliation, or belief outside of the sphere of what they deem skeptical inquiry. A few examples of the behavior of a Village Atheist follows:
Rash assumptions towards the motive of the believer.
A demand for evidence, but offers no explanation of what constitutes evidence.
Out-of-hand dismissal of any reason offerd as to why one holds belief in their respective holy texts.
Ad hominem attacks in reaponse to criticism.
A limited understanding of the specific religion they are arguing against.
Reading only what other Atheists have to say concerning criticism of religion and never bother reading what believers have written in defense of religion.
A blatant disregard of the terms used by the believer and a refusal to consider proper definitions of those terms.
These are just a few examples, the reason why I wrote this is because there are many Village Atheists within the community at large. These types treat Atheism itself as some dogma based religious movement, and actively seek out any such sign of heresy among the group. And they for the most part do far more harm to any progress that could be made, and they gain a lot of support from other Atheists because of the notion of gaining 'points' against the faithful with quick retorts and vitriolic responses, which is more entertaining than even handed open discussion.
We all can be guilty of these practices, myself included. So we as a community should try and avoid these, and call each other out when we see them.
Thank you for your time.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"We..."
How I hate the use of that word to describe people who identify as atheist. I hate it when theists lump all atheists together and I hate it when an atheist does as well.
I don't give two shits what someone else who identifies as atheist thinks or how they act as long as no one is infringed upon.
The only thing all people who identify as atheist have in common is the lack of belief in a theistic god. It is therefore, my opinion that a person who instructs others in 'proper atheist behavior' is full of it.
(In case anyone wants to jump to any conclusions , this was not an attack on the OP. It is simply the statement of an opinion. I did not write it with anger in my 'voice'.)
Thank you for your response, by we i mean everyone, including myself, should try and act in such a manner that gets results. I was not lumping all atheists together but talking about a specific behaivor that is common place with the atheistic community. If you have spent any amount of time on any forum that debates with theists you will see the examples I have laid out. Does everyone do all of these? No, but it nonetheless needs to be acknowledge that some people who identify as atheist do some of these, which is no different than how theists can behaive. It all comes down to what it is we are after by engaging in debate with theists, is it an honest attempt at convincing them of the illogical foundation of their beliefs, or is it simply beating them over the head with their belief? Because if you only seek to ridicule then all you have done is invite a blow back effect where they fail to honestly consider what it is you are saying and nothing is achieved. You may feel that any attempt at introspection within the community is pointless, but I do not. I want results. And anything that can improve how we go about debating with theists should not be so blatantly dismissed. This idea that Atheists are diverse is true, but it does not follow that because of this all are free from any responsibility of decent conduct. We can try to improve our community, but if all take your position then debate is tantamount to a self congratulatory circle jerk, where everyone pats themselves on the back for sticking it to theists, and soon it is only an echo chamber of atheists, because all the theists have been chased away.
"We can try to improve our community, but if all take your position then debate is tantamount to a self congratulatory circle jerk."
It appears you did not understand.
1. What I am saying is I do not belong to an 'atheist community'. There is no all-encompassing 'atheist community' of which I am aware.
2. My stance, as you call it, has exactly zero to do with how anyone debates.
3. You may want a particular set of results. Some people who identify as atheist want others. It is not anyone's place to be the arbiter of 'appropriate atheist behavior or debate style'.
Just sayin'....
well instead of jumping to conclusions maybe, just maybe, take a second to get over the fact that you DO in fact belong to a community, (Psst, this forum is a community, crazy I know) now try to get over your absolute misrepresentation of my OP and let go of what ever identity you have constructed into your atheism and consider the fact that all you have done is make baseless accusations. What, did you simply stop reading at "village atheist" and decide that was enough, to assume the rest of the OP? Because it seems like all you have done is get upset by the fact that someone would dare offer a better approach to debate, that was not in line with how you see yourself.
Two things:
1: Ticking off the mod isin't the best idea(though I doubt you could actually manage that with CyberLN).
2: She clearly stated she wasn't "upset". Perhaps its you that should read the whole thing.
I did read the whole thing, but it is obvious that she did not, and when she assumes more than she knows, mod or not, i will call her out on it. Like I will call you out for jumping on the bandwagon. I never claimed what it means to be an atheist in my OP. But she assumed that I did. I never claimed that I am the arbitor of debate, but she certainly assumed that I did. Which is funny in itself because it is one of the behaviors I listed out that a Village Atheist follows, me thinks she protest too much.
We disagree. Okay. I heard what I heard, you meant what you meant. It's just not that big a deal to me. I don't, tho, assume more than I know. We can only look at the world thru our own set of eyes and hear with our own ears. It is simply impossible not to do do. AL, if I disagree with you, or anyone, it is not an attack. Chillax. I just HATE the word 'we' when someone speaks for a group when they haven't permission from all to speak for all.
Dude, if I have EVER demonstrated any behavior that indicates I would base my duties as mod on being 'ticked off' by someone, I sincerely apologize! That is not my objective to do do.
And do fail to see the problem with your response? You falsely claim that I seek to be the arbitor of atheism and debate, telling me what I can and cannot do, which is you taking on the role of arbitor of atheism and debate. I pointed out habits of behavior that i suggest to be avoided, you ignore all of that, and demand that YOUR position is the correct one. This tells me that you responded before you ACTUALLY considered my OP. If you do not like what I wrote, that is fine, but consider first what it is your saying because you have done exactly what you falsely claim that I have done.
I have to admit that I don't want you representing me, AL. I can do that myself. And no, I'm not suggesting that you are trying to represent me. And I'm not jumping on a bandwagon.
"I have to admit that I don't want you representing me, AL. I can do that myself. And no, I'm not suggesting that you are trying to represent me."
Then why say something so pointless? And yes, you were jumping on a bandwagon, like with that statement, just parroting what Cyberlyn had said, even though you have no grounds to do so. I am not upset, just shocked that a post that simply outlines what I view as unproductive behavior would get everyone's panties in a bunch. Did I strike a nerve, hit a little too close to home?
Here, I'll give you the benifit of doubt, what specifically in my OP do you take issue with? It seems that everyone has an issue with it, yet are incapable of explaining to me what specifically that is. You do know that village atheist is not a term that i just made up, right? I used it to set as a lexicon to distinguish the behavior of unproductive tactics and where debate with theists is concerned and gave it a name so as to better get my point across... I cannot be the only one who took a writing class in philosophy.
@Cyberlyn Same question for you.
I'm at fault with the fact that you seem to think there is some "proper" behaviour for atheists. Which there is not. Atheisum means only;
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Everything else, including behavior, is free range.
well try and read my OP again, because if you actually read it the first time I said that my intent was to avoid behavior that does not get results. Now kindly jump off the wagon because but if you feel comfortable just following along with CyberLn's false representation of my OP then it appears that you do in fact want someone to represent you.
It's CyberLN...not lyn
AlphaLogica - "You falsely claim that I seek to be the arbitor of atheism and debate"
AlphaLogica - "telling me what I can and cannot do"
Are those quotes in reference to this thread? If so, I don't see it.
@Nylar
Man, so many people feel comfortable with posting but not reading. Here let me do the work for you:
It is not anyone's place to be the arbiter of 'appropriate atheist behavior or debate style'."
" It is therefore, my opinion that a person who instructs others in 'proper atheist behavior' is full of it."
So, do you see it now?
Read: Advising
ad·vise
ədˈvīz/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: advising
offer suggestions about the best course of action to someone.
"I advised him to go home"
synonyms: counsel, give guidance, guide, offer suggestions, give hints, give tips, give pointers
"her grandmother advised her about marriage"
recommend (something).
"sleeping pills are not advised"
synonyms: advocate, recommend, suggest, urge, encourage, enjoin
"he advised caution"
inform (someone) about a fact or situation, typically in a formal or official way.
"you will be advised of the requirements"
synonyms: inform of, notify about/of, give notice of, apprise of, warn of, forewarn of; More
well if you can do all that, but cannot actually read my OP and see for yourself that I did not dictate what is proper atheist behavior, but instead what is a better approach to debate, then you obviously do not want to have an honest discussion, but troll for chuckles. Well congrats, because I am certainly laughing at you. This is getting pointless, shall I quote every time i specifically stated that I am not stating what is and is not proper atheist behavior, or will you simply ignore that as well? Because you seem more interested in parroting than thinking for yourself.
AlphaLogica - "So, do you see it now?"
No, so maybe you should offer to give me English lessons because of my diminished capacity to understanding the English language. Oh wait, you already did. I guess there is nothing to be done.
well if that is how you feel, but I notice you have not bothered to actually assess the contents of my post, it appears that clinging to a clique is more preferable than honesty. Ah well, just reveals the content of your character.
More insults, nice. I see you forgot to accuse me of cowardice this time. /e Oh and you forgot to fake a quote this time as well!
Insult? No, just calling you out for your lack of interest in an honest discussion, which does speak to your charecter, you cannot attempt to troll me, then cry offense. You would see that if you actually cared to. But you want to be clever instead.
"Insult?"
Well, it certainly seems like one.
"No, just calling you out for your lack of interest in an honest discussion,"
Disagreement does not mean lack of interest.
"which does speak to your charecter,"
How so?
"you cannot attempt to troll me, then cry offense."
Your seriously calling him a troll?!
"You would see that if you actually cared to."
Can't see what isn't there.
"But you want to be clever instead."
So, to, could this be applied to you.
"No, so maybe you should offer to give me English lessons because of my diminished capacity to understanding the English language. Oh wait, you already did. I guess there is nothing to be done."
" I see you forgot to accuse me of cowardice this time. /e Oh and you forgot to fake a quote this time as well!"
Yes, I am absolutely calling him a troll, dragging an old disagreement into a thread that is in no way related to the topic at hand, what would you call that?
Exactly what it says on the tin: Dragging a disagreement from an old topic to an unrelated one. Trolling is much more egregious.
Well I gave you a chance to show a even hand. I guess you are not interested in that.
AlphaLogica - "Yes, I am absolutely calling him a troll, dragging an old disagreement into a thread that is in no way related to the topic at hand, what would you call that? "
Oh you should report me then. Here I'll make it easy: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/site-support/officially-reporting-...
Why would I want to report you, when your own posts do a much better job at demonstrating what you are after? You are here to instigate, nothing more. I prefer to let you hang yourself. Anyone who is interested in being honest will see your posts for what they are. That is good enough for me. =)
In all honesty, the content of your op doesn't deserve to be addressed with how your reacting to criticism here lately........
P.S: By resulting to personal attacks, YOU are showing stereotypical atheist behavior. Way to go.
oh really, so because i refuse to allow you to misrepresent my OP, now I am the one at fualt? No. You came here and offered nothing to support your response, just jumped on the bandwagon. So when I call you out in it, you do not attempt to clarify, what you said, or ask me to clarify what I said. Just continue on with your misrepresentation, and try to play it off as if you had no role in this. You do, you are just as guilty as I am. You do not get to act as if you are standing on the moral high ground. If you want we can start over and go from there. But you have to meet me half way. Cherry picking parts of my response to justify your feeling of offense, while ignoring the parts that explained why you are mistaken is not honest discussion. At best you are trolling when you do this.
Pages