'Why Atheists being Angry is Justified'

[fungusdrool]

Just because something might cause harm doesn't mean that there's no reason for it

I agree with this.  But to be justified, there must be some benefit.

Buss (1989) proposed that negative emotions such as anger and fear may aid an individual in dealing with the attempts of others to interfere with one’s strategic goals: When a source of interference is detected, negative emotions (e.g., anger) can draw attention to the source of interference, mark important events for storage in memory, and activate behavioral routines that serve to minimize current and future interference.

Buss = appeal to authortity.
...may aid... = doesn't sound convincing.  Calmly reasoning can also "mark important events for storage in memory, and activate behavioral routines that serve to minimize current and future interference".   And I'd add that forming memories in an elevated emotional state is frequently difficult.

I'm not saying I know more than Buss (never heard of him, actually). 

Just saying that when I approach a situation it has always ended better when anger was left out of the picture.  E.g. argument with wife, et al....

[kin hell]

me personally   

I have real difficulty accepting I live in a world where the majority of it's inhabitants (my fellow earthlings) prefer irrationality over rationality as a tool to describe how they should perceive and interact with the world,  the universe,  other people and how to live their lives.

Perhaps this is fair justification of why occasionally I may be just a little annoyed with the lame-brained and the sheep-dipped mouth-breathing faith fancying theists.

However as far as my life goes, other peoples idiocy is an irritant, and not a worthy cause in which to invest my own emotion.

[Timo]

Just because something might cause harm doesn't mean that there's no reason for it

I agree with this.  But to be justified, there must be some benefit.

Buss (1989) proposed that negative emotions such as anger and fear may aid an individual in dealing with the attempts of others to interfere with one’s strategic goals: When a source of interference is detected, negative emotions (e.g., anger) can draw attention to the source of interference, mark important events for storage in memory, and activate behavioral routines that serve to minimize current and future interference.

Buss = appeal to authortity.
...may aid... = doesn't sound convincing.  Calmly reasoning can also "mark important events for storage in memory, and activate behavioral routines that serve to minimize current and future interference".   And I'd add that forming memories in an elevated emotional state is frequently difficult.

I'm not saying I know more than Buss (never heard of him, actually). 

Just saying that when I approach a situation it has always ended better when anger was left out of the picture.  E.g. argument with wife, et al....

Ha!  Citations are now appeals to authority.  Good to know.

[Nam]

OP,

To a religious person, an "Angry Atheist" is a person who hates god but still believes in god.  To an atheist, that's just not true.  Though, I have heard "atheists" state it to be truer than it actually is.  The problem with those types of atheists is that they aren't really atheists yet to tell them that makes them angry, and you a liar.

-Nam

[EV]

This is a good point. I have the opposite reasoning, if I were with a theist (which I am not, my girlfriend is agnostic/atheist), they would certainly not be able to put up with my frequent moaning about how annoyed the school chaplain is making me. (for those who don't know, my school has compulsory chapel, which I usually don't mind going to...)

He tried to say that Jesus loves gay people this morning, it was bloody ridiculous. There are well over ten counts specifically in the Bible condemning the act of homosexuality and saying that homosexuals are destined for hell...

Utterly ridiculous, fallacious and infuriating to listen to. I did NOT approve of his argument.

I don't know that I would share your frustration there.  I think it's fine to say that Jesus loves everyone.  Love the sinner hate the sin and all that good stuff.  It's also worth remembering that despite the the laser like focus on homosexuality by today's religious conservatives, this focus is not something that's always been a part of Christianity or Judaism.  To be sure, homosexuality was considered to be immoral and a kind of excess but it was in the same category as premarital sex and masturbation.  And yet, I don't think that most people would have so much as batted an eyelash if the good chaplain claimed that Jesus still loves the vast majority of straight people that have had sex before marriage.
Peace

It was the way he said it that sounded awful, and I can't remember his exact wording because I was not really awake, getting up for chapel is not a nice thing to do on a sunday ... I wasn't the only person who shared this grievance...

But very good point as well, you make some great points here. Sorry to confuse

[EV]

OP,

To a religious person, an "Angry Atheist" is a person who hates god but still believes in god.  To an atheist, that's just not true.  Though, I have heard "atheists" state it to be truer than it actually is.  The problem with those types of atheists is that they aren't really atheists yet to tell them that makes them angry, and you a liar.

-Nam

Great point, I am referring in this argument to full atheists, not from a religious point of view, but from another POV entirely- the rationalist and godless POV.

Quick expansion of that point (IMO)

I don't hate God, I like the idea of an all-loving being who can make everyone's life better. If it were true, we'd all have a brilliant quality of life.

Unfortunately, most religions turn it into a killing machine that must be worshipped or you get sent to the pits of hell, and they use rather irrelevant points (i.e. the Bible) to enforce their will on others. I don't like what organised religions make of God, or that most definitions of God are in themselves inherently contradictory. (simultaneous omniscience and omnipotence not really working out for me)...

After much deliberation, I think that the main reason I am going to argue is that atheists get angry is when theists try to tell us that their belief in something without any proof is morally superior to an rationalist/sceptic/empiricist/logical viewpoint. That and the ethics of indoctrinating small children. Those are nicely arguable, because logic is superior to belief without proof, and inductive/fallacial arguments about the world based on belief are never as good as true deductive ones.

If it's okay with you Nam, this point shall be used in my essay

Shall I post the essay here when it's finished? It won't be up to a lot of your standards, but I am only little, so I'm sorry for any really crap arguments I make...

Luckily, my philosophy teacher is an agnostic atheist, and sympathises with my case... So hopefully I'll get a good mark

[EV]

Just because something might cause harm doesn't mean that there's no reason for it

>snip<

Just saying that when I approach a situation it has always ended better when anger was left out of the picture.  E.g. argument with wife, et al....

Perhaps the benefit of anger is change?

Look at some of the social movements of the 20th century- the suffragits, the womans rights, french revolution, dissolution of Communist Russia (my history is appalling, sorry if some of these are wrong but I seem to remember that most social change for the better is based on anger and haven't got enough time to google everything)...

If people had just accepted the conditions, we'd be living in a pretty disgusting world.

The largest social change in human history could arguably one day be Atheism overcoming Religion, where reason replaced belief. You could follow on from there with an inductive argument showing many social movements that ended in change for the better that were driven by anger at the situation in question, and a small majority rising against the masses.

Maybe even going so far as to say that the increasing number of Atheists in the world is the beginning of this movement, and it is partially because people are sick of the fallacy of Religion. Maybe people want to break free of the repressive bond to God, and want to finally live their own lives. You could argue that it is caused by anger.


Apologies for the huge amount of conditional tense there, my imagination ran away with me...

I'm not saying doing it by anger is right, but it's a good point for my essay

Thanks muchly!

[Nam]

My problem with such fallacies is that they react different with different people who may necessarily believe in the same things.  Like there are many of us here who are, by other points-of-view, to be one of the same -- we are all "atheists" or are labeled as such by either those who have such views, or those who do not.  Those who do not usually see atheists as 'one's without morals' and that's because they are taught this, or that they can't believe someone is stronger than they and are willing to question the norm.  Those who do have differing opinions of minor things but, in the end, agree on the main points, and really do not go out of our way to consider the other less just because "we" can.  Where as those of the religious perspective deem to do such things at a constant just to prove that they are not fools yet that's all they're really proving anyway.

It's all relative, I feel.

-Nam

[EV]

[insert OP here]

Anger is justified when others FORCE you into living your life in accordance with a worldview they hold.

That is a really good point ToT. I think that is quite true, and especially in a Christian school (where I am now), such forcing of beliefs does indeed happen. This repression does annoy me considerably sometimes, as I feel I cannot speak out as much as I normally would.

This is of course far more true in places like Texas, and other places in the Bible Belt, where I know many site members live, where they have to hide their Atheism, and have to fit in with the other theists, agreeing or being excluded and persecuted for their lack of belief...

That sort of continued repression is never particularly good for the mind... I'm sure many will agree with this.

Thanks

[Whateverman]

My philosophy hurdle is going to be an argument entitled: 'Why Atheists being Angry is Justified'.

Any possible suggestions from a very biased sample of people?

I'll start off by immediately telling you that I don't like the subject of your essay; I believe it's philosophically (and dialectically) unsound.  However, I'd like to be helpful rather than critical of your idea.  I can think of a number of legitimate reasons for why atheists might be angry (as a group of people).

First off, in the US where freedom of religion is one of our founding precepts, there are actually laws that prevent atheists from holding public office.  Along a similar line of reasoning, there's at least one major religion that, while actually representing a majority of people in this country, enjoys portraying itself and its values as under persecution.  it does this after being the source for nearly 2000 years of anti-atheist bigotry.

Second, several studies have suggested that education/intelligence is greater in non-religious people.  If we assume this is accurate (and I'm not sure that's safe), the more educated a person is, the more he/she is aware of the world at large.  This awareness probably contributes to a better understanding of the injustice being done in the name of religion, which would lead (understandably) to some anger about it.

I've got other ideas about this, but hopefully these two give you something useful.  Good luck

[EV]

My problem with such fallacies is that they react different with different people who may necessarily believe in the same things.  Like there are many of us here who are, by other points-of-view, to be one of the same -- we are all "atheists" or are labeled as such by either those who have such views, or those who do not. 

Those who do not usually see atheists as 'one's without morals' and that's because they are taught this, or that they can't believe someone is stronger than they and are willing to question the norm.  Those who do have differing opinions of minor things but, in the end, agree on the main points, and really do not go out of our way to consider the other less just because "we" can.  Where as those of the religious perspective deem to do such things at a constant just to prove that they are not fools yet that's all they're really proving anyway.

It's all relative, I feel.

-Nam

May I quote you yourself here?

"If an atheist argues with another atheist over religion -- who's the delusional one?" [from signature]

It is all relative. But we do disagree on minor points, and that is good, especially considering how many sects and differing interpretations of various very old books (not just the Bible) there are that get argued over by everybody, regarding which one is 'right'.

However, IMO there are some unifying factors. The way that we all fundamentally do not believe in a God or gods, and the way that theists fundamentally believe in a higher power of some sort.

That alone is enough to cause some sort of controversy between the two groups, and when that underlying controversy is discussed at any length, or elaborated on to include individual views, you end up asking questions like 'Why won't God heal Amputees?'

[EV]

My philosophy hurdle is going to be an argument entitled: 'Why Atheists being Angry is Justified'.

Any possible suggestions from a very biased sample of people?

"Why are you so hateful?"  "Why do atheist hate god?"

These kinds of questions are loaded and they are delivered as a type of incredulous argument, where the implication of your dislike of something invalidates your claim against it.  I think you see these kinds of arguments with all kinds of specious claims like homeopathic medicine or other new age crap.  I always find it funny that when someone makes such an assertion, they are rarely able to coherently identify what is an example of this 'hatred'.  It is as if they unconsciously know that you're careful criticism of the subject isn't really hateful and refuse to cite the specific examples.  Nor are they concerned with the possible justifications for not liking something, that challenges their hyperbole that hatred invalidates your criticism.

Lol, great point. I am routinely asked these questions as I'm sure many of you are, and love answering them. I usually come back with something along the lines of 'I am not hateful, I am being open minded.' and they tend not to think of anything more to say after a couple of questions.

[fungusdrool]

If people had just accepted the conditions, we'd be living in a pretty disgusting world.

I don't mean to hijack your thread, so this will be my last post here:

Getting angry has nothing to do with change.
Getting angry has only to do with letting your emotions get the better of you.
(Though I would accept that there might be some redeeming psychological value--dubious as that seems to me.)

Atheists are generally rational people.
One could rationally decide to act to improve his or her situation in life without anger.
One could, in extreme circumstances, even devolve to violence without anger to accomplish a goal.
So to me, atheism and anger are antipodal.

If we were in a fight and I wanted the advantage, I'd try to make you angry and thus cloud your judgement. 

[pianodwarf]

One could rationally decide to act to improve his or her situation in life without anger.

Sorry, but no.

You're probably aware that atheists, when confronted with Pascal's Wager, are forever explaining to the theist employing it that we are not capable of choosing our beliefs.  This is similar.  We're not capable of choosing our emotions, either.  (Would that we were.  Life would be wonderful.)

[curiousgirl]

Buss = appeal to authortity.
...may aid... = doesn't sound convincing.  Calmly reasoning can also "mark important events for storage in memory, and activate behavioral routines that serve to minimize current and future interference".   And I'd add that forming memories in an elevated emotional state is frequently difficult.

I'm not saying I know more than Buss (never heard of him, actually). 

Just saying that when I approach a situation it has always ended better when anger was left out of the picture.  E.g. argument with wife, et al....

Actually, I am providing scientific evidence. If you click on that link that I provided in my earlier post, you will find that evidence. I provided proof to back up my claim. You have been speaking in generalities and providing personal experience (argument with wife), which does not refute the evidence I provided.

[curiousgirl]

And I'd add that forming memories in an elevated emotional state is frequently difficult.

BTW, you are wrong about this as well. In an elevated emotional state, adrenaline is released by the body and causes us to form memories better, therefore it is not difficult.

http://www.clta.uci.edu/documents/article4.pdf

BTW, if you actually click on the link and read the evidence, you will find that I am basing my argument on scientific research rather than your alleged "appeal to authority".

[fungusdrool]

I know I said I would not post to this topic again...but I'd just like to post for the record that I read curiousgirl's link and stand corrected. 
Apparently anger can improve memory and so has at least one basis for being justified.  Sorry.

[EV]

I know I said I would not post to this topic again...but I'd just like to post for the record that I read curiousgirl's link and stand corrected. 
Apparently anger can improve memory and so has at least one basis for being justified.  Sorry.

I asked you to post again, so it's cool and to be honest, you've helped me more than you may know.

Not only have I now got a counter-argument, but even a counter-counter argument for inclusion in my essay! Excellent.

You all have no idea how helpful this thread has been, thanks so much for your time

[curiousgirl]

Thank you for your honesty, Fungus! That is very cool of you.

[Nam]

Reply #39 on: September 19, 2011, 02:22:19 PM »

It is all relative. But we do disagree on minor points, and that is good, especially considering how many sects and differing interpretations of various very old books (not just the Bible) there are that get argued over by everybody, regarding which one is 'right'.

That quote was something I stated in another topic on the whole perception of "atheists" on this website (that I've seen do countless times) calling those who believe in a god/gods or are religious, delusional.  I disagree with such an assessment.  I'm sure if I picked at it long enough, I could find delusional aspects by each atheist on this website -- we all have our delusions, some may be sillier than others but no one should really kid themselves that "we" all do not.  So, by calling them "delusional" is just stooping to a child-like idiocy (in my opinion) of calling people names.  However, I am not deluded in the notion that I, at this moment, do not call people names; I do, mainly idiot.

-Nam

[jetson]

Reply #39 on: September 19, 2011, 02:22:19 PM »

It is all relative. But we do disagree on minor points, and that is good, especially considering how many sects and differing interpretations of various very old books (not just the Bible) there are that get argued over by everybody, regarding which one is 'right'.

That quote was something I stated in another topic on the whole perception of "atheists" on this website (that I've seen do countless times) calling those who believe in a god/gods or are religious, delusional.  I disagree with such an assessment.  I'm sure if I picked at it long enough, I could find delusional aspects by each atheist on this website -- we all have our delusions, some may be sillier than others but no one should really kid themselves that "we" all do not.  So, by calling them "delusional" is just stooping to a child-like idiocy (in my opinion) of calling people names.  However, I am not deluded in the notion that I, at this moment, do not call people names; I do, mainly idiot.

-Nam

Delusional is a perfect term for god belief.  Just as ignorant is a perfect term for one who has not yet learned something specific.  If delusional is the extent of the "name calling", then the theists are lucky as he'll, considering what they have called atheists forever.

[IAmFirst]

Elliot, I think most have covered some large ones. I'll add the violence in the bible from "our creator" and the fact that most who say they believe do not know the bible. Think about this: religion basically tells people they are bad, they are going to burn forever when they die unless they accept a character into their "hearts". (No, I don't mean blood or cholesterol. ) Those who accept don't even have to read (like jeebus), they just have to believe. And how most believers have never even studied their bible or dogma.

Couple more from the U.S.:

The West Memphis Three - These kids were only convicted by a rumor of satan worshipping. Religion convicted them. If we didn't have one that had a satan in it, people wouldn't have leaped to the idea that teens who wear black T-Shirts worship evil. Finally released, but they can't sue the state.

The Salem Witch Trials - I'm sure you're familiar here. If no religion, then no hanging of children.

Also google Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, Deanna Laney - Three women who killed their children for religious purposes.

The coddled and religiously influenced places they have lived in have pseudo preachers telling them that they have demons and/or they have sinned instead of recognizing the women's replacement of "demons and sins" with real mental disorders. If we had no religion here, these women most likely would've been recognized as mentally unstable and given treatments, instead of looney religious influence.

Leap that hurdle!!

[EV]

Hi IAmFirst!

Yeah, I've had some great responses. Really grateful for all the help, thanks all.

The Memphis Three is a very complicated case, but a very good point too. All three of the boys in question were mentally very unstable, with one doing time in an asylum. They did not conform to the 'Bible belt' area in which they lived, and as such were persecuted from it. From what I've read, it sounds like it was 'Mr Bojangles' who committed the crime.

Might use this

Also google Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, Deanna Laney - Three women who killed their children for religious purposes.

The coddled and religiously influenced places they have lived in have pseudo preachers telling them that they have demons and/or they have sinned instead of recognizing the women's replacement of "demons and sins" with real mental disorders. If we had no religion here, these women most likely would've been recognized as mentally unstable and given treatments, instead of looney religious influence.
Leap that hurdle!!

http://whatstheharm.net/children.html
This was a fantastic resource for me to get some points of Child harm. I went with some parents inflicting starvation on their children because 'money belongs to God', leading to one child dying and one becoming seriously malnourished.


I've nearly finished, on point three of my four point argument, it was due in tomorrow, and I found out that it was only supposed to be 300-600 words...

It's currently on 2,500..... 

[NHB]

I wouldn't call my anger "atheist anger"... it's more like "ex-fundamentalist christian anger"

I am an atheist, but it in itself has nothing to do with my anger.


 

[RaymondKHessel]

Did I ever tell you guys the story about the Jehovah's witness who turned up on my doorstep, tried to convert me and ended up deconverting afterwards?

My proudest atheism-related achievement to date, bar joining this site and becoming one

That was a good day.

I dunno... If you did, I think I might have missed it. Do you have a link? I love those stories. Deconverted a few myself. Some of those guys, it's pitifully easy. You throw out one of the most basic quandries from atheism 101, like, "Noah's Ark? Really?" and then point out a few of the plotholes, and they come back with "Wow. You know, I never really thought of it like that."

Like, REALLY? You REALLY never stopped to ask yourself how a 200 year old man or whatever built a wooden boat by hand that carried umpteen million species of animals on it for 40 days? Never stopped to think of where all the poop went? Where they kept the bacteria and viruses? How they made sure none of the legless lizards got mixed up with the 2,700 different species of snakes? Never occured to you to, you know, think about this stuff?

Those ones don't give much satisfaction though. I don't get karma cookies for introducing semi-retards to basic lines of critical thought. Now converting an intellectual theist who's already asked the questions and fortified themselves with answers chock full of bullshit... THAT's a challenge. Those are the fun ones - they earn their cup of coffee lol. Untangling the spiderwebs from their thought process one at a time, over the course of weeks or months, and actually seeing how doubt begins to creep in, followed by real honest-to-goodness analyzation and application of reason, all on their own...

It's a beautiful thing to see. Kinda like the first glimpse of chrome when you wipe the dust off a classic car that's been sitting in the garage for too long. Or the first rays of sunlight that start eeking through when you clean a window that's been covered with filth for decades.

I still want to deconvert a preacher. That'd be the bee's knees. Who knows, I might have... I've had some pretty successful conversations with preachers, but I never got to follow up with most of them. I did confirm that one of them ultimately left the church and started some kind of warehousing business... But it was like 6 months after our conversation so I can't take credit for sure.

Still, I kinda like to think I helped water the seeds of doubt there. 

Anyway, yeah, if you have a link to your story, I'd be entertained reading it!

Anger is pointless. 
It accomplished nothing other than causing stress to the angry and the target.
As such there cannot be a just reason for it.

I very much disagree. "Anger is a Gift" to quote one of the greatest Emcees in history.

Anger is definitely one of the most useful of the "bad" emotions. Assuming of course that it's channelled decently and isn't some sort of reckless freak-out type of anger. Anger is empowering. It inspires action, passion, the release of it is therapeutic and can be blissfully satisfying. It can keep you focused, it can strengthen your resolve, it can illicit responses in people that nothing else can. It's an emotion that can make you stronger.

Good example - Don't know about anyone else, but I've had a couple bad break-ups in the past... And without fail, it is always 100 times easier to deal with a bad breakup if you're angry or left hating the person rather than feeling depressed, betrayed, helpless, abandoned, or whatever. Pining for the Fjords can haunt you until the day you die if you let it. But if you can turn that bad juice into anger, you can easily put it behind you in a week or two.

That's my experience, anyway. But yeah, what I'm saying is, at least for me, anger has always been a very helpful emotion in my life. I owe it quite a bit, actually lol.

I guess that makes me weird, huh? 

[rickymooston]

Ha!  Citations are now appeals to authority.  Good to know.

I never bothered to take a formal philosophy course; the ideas are pretty braindeadly obviously and yet its obvious that in context, many so-called logical fallacies have their purpose in genuine discourse.

I've tried to deal with the subject before. Its probably best to deal with one fallacy in one thread.

The fact that an article says "X" and that article is published doesn't make "X" true. Still, we need facts, we can't verify every fact. We have to rely on reliable established sources.

Likewise, moving goal posts. If one can establish epilon, such that for all points closer than episilon, a fact is false, one can disprove something. Its obvious that nobody has a chance to test every epsilon but certainly that's valid.

If A->B and we know B, we can't conclude A. Yet, evidence of B is still somewhat evidence of A; if we didn't have B, we'd have disproven A and the probability of A given B is going to be larger than the probability of A without knowing B. The quesion of course arises, what other things cause B (or logically imply B since logical implication doesn't imply causality)