The way I look at it, they start off as victims. But they become enemies when they start passing it on themselves and refusing to objectively examine evidence. Still, they have to be denying fact before I really add them to the list. Deniers of evolution, gravity, and science in general are enemies. Those who convert people en masse are as well, and those who utilize violence. The average theist is just a victim or a person who came to their own conclusions(I can't really call an adult who makes a rational choice to believe in the irrational a victim. Maybe of themselves).

I think it's a false dichotomy; I think most atheists consider believers to be just people.

My wife and I had this discussion a few days ago. She feels there's a lot of anger on-line from atheists, and that many atheists seem to consider believers as the "enemy." Of course it seems this way: many of the theists feel the same way about atheists, after all, and have the numbers and political clout to do something about it. I believe it's in Arkansas that an atheist may not run for public office. By law. So you might consider that some atheists feel as if we are a targeted minority.

Meanwhile, Christians and other theists have a lot to talk about: their god, their beliefs, and so on. Atheists have no such thing, as the only thing that unites us is a lack of belief in God. When we talk about "atheist things," it turns out all we have to talk about as atheists are theists. Otherwise, we're not really talking about atheism, we're only talking about other things, such as science or rationality or history or so on.

I'm not sure if there's a coherent thesis here, but there should be. I was just about as unintelligible when talking about this with my wife.

But couldn't you also say that we are "fantasy prone" as a species or that another quirk is that we are "violent" as a species.  Children believe all kinds of stupid stuff and also will attack each other if left unsupervised.  We try to teach them maturity.  We teach them to control some of their quirky or natural tendencies.  That allows us to function as a society and allows us to build a civilization. 

I can't hold immature fantasy prone ideas, irrational and incorrect pattern connecting thoughts against people who are ignorant of science and philosophy.  They just merely have not matured as far as I have.  I have learned and have been taught scientific thinking, skepticism, objectivity and logic.  Therefore it is my responsibility to be an example to those who are less mature.  Parents shouldn't attack their kids for being quirky, immature or childish.  The same way I shouldn't attack those who are mentally immature for their troubled ways.  If I was more mature and did start verbally attacking those who are mentally / educationally less mature it shows that something is terribly wrong.

Also, to say that if you consider me your enemy I will consider you my enemy, that might be acceptable for equals, but we are not equals to those who are stuck in superstition.  We are not more valuable as human beings, but we have a responsibility and duty towards others, as we are people who are more mature.  Those who are the most objective, reasonable, logical, courteous, kind etc should be the ones who exercise the most self control.  The fact that these people I hang out with, are unfamiliar with these concepts is just frightening.  They have the power of being right, but they wield it like they are insecure and weak and retaliatory.  It is so disturbing.  It is like people say, it is not so much what you say, but how you say it.  They say it in such a disturbing way.  wheew

I think you are implying that these people I am hanging out with are acting in a 'primitive' and tribal way.  That is like the opposite of what they are claiming to be. 

What I am wondering is if non-believers are interested in displaying more maturity than the believers do.  Do the non-believers want to maintain moral high ground, exemplary civil discourse, courtesy etc?  Because, I am not seeing it.

Maybe most atheists consider believers to be just people, but in the group I hang out with there are many people who are very vocal and they don't give that impression.  They clearly state that all believers are delusional, irrational, illogical and practically beyond hope.  It is frightening to be around.  The fact that they can't hear themselves is what is really troubling.

When I was a believer I never considered atheists enemies.  I can't speak for everyone else, but in church there was a saying that said:  "Love the sinner, hate the sin".  We all know the scriptures that say "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".  There were principals in the church that kept hope alive for those who were on the opposite team.  Also I never went to a church group where people constantly confronted each other and blatantly disagreed with individuals in a public meeting, yelling and cutting them off.  It just seems that the non-believers seem to believe "Hate the beliefs and hate the believers" and "Shout down those who think differently than you and make them feel stupid".  There seems to be just such a low standard of social interaction at these groups.  No one is there to model courteous and civilized discourse.

I think you made a good point that atheists kind of have to get together and 'complain' about theists.  It attracts a sort of grumpy old person type.  A sort of whiner, complainer or hater.  I never considered myself such a person and never wanted to be around such people.  But now that I am a non-believer I have been hanging out with them.  Not because I like them, but because I am convinced that they can help me better learn what is factual and true.  I personally believe that the knowledge of facts and truth will allow me to be a better citizen and friend to others.  The more accurate knowledge I obtain, the more freedom I obtain.  The more freedom I obtain, the more powerful I feel.  The more powerful I feel, the more ability I have to dispense love to others.  That is my motivation to know the truth.  But not these people.  Their non-belief seems to come from a different angle and produces a very toxic result. 

Sorry if this stuff seems like a rant or whatever.  I don't necessarily come to these forums to convince or persuade people.  I come here to process my thoughts and get feedback from rational people.  I appreciate all your input.  I have been troubled by this stuff, and it has been cool to just hash it out.

Being in Religion I always felt uncomfortable, because I hated being around brainwashed people, but as a non-believer I also don't enjoy being around bitter and grumpy old people.  I might just get what I can from the group and then leave it.

There are certainly people that are like that. If this is a group that has been together for a while, it could simply be a group dynamic that worked out long before you showed up. People who join up later either end up being just like them, or leaving, so all that's left are the bitter ones.

Or it could be that all the atheists in your area really are bitter.

To me, it's the whole "Love the sinner,  hate the sin" that is the problem. It's hard not to feel persecuted when a particular group tries to ban things like same-sex marriage (as a handy cultural example). What's worse is when they do things like try to push creationism in school, simply because evolution disagrees with their own non-rational beliefs.

It's hard to remain neutral about things like this. It doesn't matter that most theists are rational, and aren't doing these things. For the ones that do these things, they do so because of their theism.

In any case, I think it's easy to fall into the trap of assuming all Christians secretly want to replace secular school with Sunday school, and burn gays and atheists at the stake. It's much harder to think of specific Christians as intelligent,  thoughtful people. Part of it is the "tribal" thing that's being discussed here. Part of it is mental laziness and stereotyping. And part of it is desiring a defined target, a group of people or an ideal that is easily attacked.

It's wishing for a simple solution. "If we could only rid the world of theism, all life's ills will be cured!"

If you don't like them, you might reconsider hanging out with them. There are other ways to learn what's factual and true (which is harder than it sounds). Hanging out with them, there's a chance their toxicity will affect you in ways you can't predict right now.

Just out of curiosity: where are you?

That's what we're here for: to hash things out, to talk about life and other things with fellow non-believers. I don't think your rant has been off the charts at all. In fact, it's been perfectly reasonable, and hardly qualifies as a rant at all.

I know what you mean by scary.  In my travels I not only thought it was scary, it was dangerous.  I made a lot of people very very angry with my search and my questions.  I was always polite, but some of these groups I joined even became physically violent when I didn't accept their teachings fast enough.  I didn't understand them, so I wouldn't fully commit to the beliefs.  They didn't like that and I had to sever 99% to 100% of the ties with the people I had been friends with.  That happened a few times.  So I can relate to what you are saying.

But bitterness and despising something are in my mind severe weaknesses.  If something wronged you or hurt you, you can hold grudges and anger and hatred, but that is so toxic.  Processing those feelings and coming to a place of forgiveness shows maturity, strength, power and growth.  I just find it so suspicious.  If these non-believers are so much more mature and advanced than the believers, then why do they live and talk in such a toxic fashion.  That is what I find incomprehensible.  The more free I become, the more benevolent and relaxed I am. 

I think people also fail to recognize the beneficial aspects of religion and faith.  I think that alot of the people who end up as unbelievers are just those people who didn't want to learn some of the basic social skills that church and religion teaches.  Because they fell away from religion, they get bitter and resentful, but also then fail to learn those social skills.  I think that is why this group is like that.

Some of them repeatedly say that they were kicked out of classrooms or sunday school class because they asked questions.  They sort of pat themselves on the back for being skeptical.  But I was a teacher for a while and I have seen these people in action.  They aren't just asking questions, or being skeptical, they are rude, disrespectful, selfishly take over the control of the evening from the presenter, argue with others, yell at them and do all sorts of uncivilized things for which they would have deserved to be kicked out of any group.  Even on the playground such behavior would make you an outsider and prevent you from making friendships.  They never seemed to have learned basic social skills, and now they are all congregating at the non-believers meetings.  It is like a social reject hang out.  Even those who are not the loud mouthed rude ones, don't even realize how terrible the meetings are.

Hanging out at these meetings is a lot like going to a science convention which unbenownst to you is made up of KKK members.  And when you catch on to their suspected ignorant prejudice you tell them you have african american friends, but that doesn't stop them from spouting their toxic beliefs and they don't even care.  ;^)

Quote

Christians beliefs say I'm going to hell.

If I want to be angry with them and consider them an enemy, I believe I have the right.

Yea, but does that make sense?

First this is a false dichotomy

But for me it depends if they pull the "ha ha I am intellectually superiour to you"

Or if they consider me an enemy, I will treat them in turn.

Theism is an intellectual and moral flaw in a person's character however everyone has flaws atheist or theist. So I think it really comes down to how big their flaw is and whether they inflict it on someone else (me in particular).

You wrote

 If certain religious people are victims of indoctrination, that does not change the fact that if they try to legislate their beliefs and enforce them on me, they are my enemy.

Are you saying that anyone who tries to legislate their beliefs and enforce them on you is your enemy?

Are you saying that you feel that religious people are perpetually threatening to murder you?

Don't you think that your usage of the term enemy is a little bit extreme or loose?

I ask, because the non-believers I meet seem to be stuck in this rut that they have 'enemies' and they need to fight them.  The evangelicals I have hung out with focused more on persuading people and helping others. 

I just find it alarming to hear people say:  XYZ is my enemy etc.  The only people I have heard talk like that are

1.  The mentally ill (paranoid, ex drug addicts, conspiracy theorists, schizophrenics etc)

2.  People who truly have mortal enemies (like Osama Bin Laden vs Bush or Saddam Hussein etc)

3.  Non-native English speakers from Muslim countries

I don't consider myself to have any enemies.  The healthy people I know, also don't consider themselves to have any enemies.  But the non-believers seem to be surrounded and plagued by enemies.

You also wrote:

education is my primary weapon against theists.  I typically don't debate theists.  I just put the information in front of them and hope it has some effect.

Doesn't that sentence imply two things?

One is that theists can't be reasoned with or persuaded.

Or

Two, that your belief system or world view is not a persuasive thing.

Sorry if this seems off topic or whatever, but I am trying to get to the bottom this.  I just can't figure out if this is normal for people to talk like this. 

Wow, what a breath of fresh air.  I appreciate everyones comments, but I get a sense that I have found something here that seems to coincide with what I have been noticing.

You wrote:

Considering someone an enemy on the basis of their beliefs (unless they specifically involve you) is, if I may be blunt, just as ignorant as their beliefs.

I think I agree with what you are saying.  I know when I have met individuals in the general population and they tell me "XYZ is my enemy", then I immediately perk up and evaluate them as possibly being mentally ill.  It has always appeared to be a severe red flag to me, if a joe shmoe believes to have enemies.  Now if you are a drug dealer, president or are in jail then maybe you do have real and legitimate enemies.  But the regular person on the street, what enemies do they have?  None of the healthy people I know claim to have any enemies, ever.  It is an unheard of term.  I don't even hang out with people who act like they think they have enemies. 

I just reread the definition of what an enemy is, and I guess there is a wide range of use for the term.  But it just sounds to me like if I walked around and began talking about my enemies, people would think I am nuts.  If I didn't call people my enemies, but labelled them that way in my head and talked about them, people would also think I am nuts.  That is how I feel hanging out with these people.  They have gone too far, and I don't know if they want to be more civilized.

You also wrote:

I can talk to someone with radical ideas very calmly. I will argue them, sure, but I won't get angry/annoyed unless they begin to say completely violent, insulting or ridiculous things.

When I hang out with these non-believers they have said some really radical stuff, like 'we should ship the believers off to (konzentration) camps' or something like that and other crazy things.  They call believers idiots and stupid and constantly complain.  It is so shocking to hear a whole group of people get together and start talking trash like that.  I am constantly wondering if they might suddenly turn on other groups and pull out white sheets and burn a cross.  It is just a recipe for disaster the way these groups are interacting.  They have don't seem to care much that their speech is offensive, and when I brought it to their attention it was as if I was speaking a foreign language.

It just dawned on me that these people might be scientifically literate and logical, but they have practically zero social skills.  That is their problem.  They have no social skills.  If they had social skills they wouldn't feel so isolated, bitter, resentful, paranoid, hopeless, helpless and angry.  They would be out there convincing people, persuading people, enjoying life and sharing their intellectual freedom and joy with others.  They are not doing that, because they are deeply disturbed.  They may be right and may aquire knowledge, but they have no power.  They are like social rejects, outcasts and loosers.  Not because there is some great conspiracy, but because nobody wants to be around a whiner or a complainer.  They happened to all find each other as atheists and use the group as one giant pity party. 

They don't have politcal power, social power, financial power, charisma, or fame and most of them don't have interesting lives.  They are boring, grumpy, paranoid old people.  I hate hanging out with them so much, because they spend practically zero time focusing on virtues.  They constantly focus on vices. 

Thanks for the suggestion.  I took programming in college.  I will have to sit down, study that and see if I can figure it out.  Hopefully my programming training will give me skills I need to decipher all those instructions.

But you also miss my point.  The fact is that however you label them in your head determines how you talk about them and how you treat them.  The people you disagree with pick up on that, and the people that trust you pick up on that.  If you see others as enemies, because they don't believe in gay marriage or they don't want to do embryonic stem cell research yet, then they will pick up on that.  If you see people who have had spiritual experiences as victims of brain malfunctions and treat them with compassion and kindness, and reason with them and show them that they can get help, they will pick up on that.  How you label people in your mind, makes a difference to how you treat them.  It can create channels of communication and civil discourse or it can shut it down. 

You say that people who disagree with you are just people.  I wonder if that is truly what you believe.  I know that whenever people have disagreed with me on anything of substantial value, I personally fall into very basic response patterns.  Some patterns are childish and immature and are not helpful.  Other responses have been trained, cultivated and acquired.  Those more mature responses lead to more peaceable outcomes. 

I'll answer a few q's not necessarily directed at me, but as if they were, since they responded to comments I agree with.

Yes.

I don't have a direct sense of danger in this regard, but neither do I travel to certain places due to keeping it in mind. And I'm also aware that the lack of threat is due to the work of people like me, before me. If I were living 400 years ago, I'd have been killed for suggesting god doesn't exist. I'd constantly live in fear. The same applies to if I were living elsewhere in the world. I calculate this into consideration for labelling someone an enemy.

Perhaps a bit, but it was you who introduced the idea that enemy or victim were the only options. Personally I consider them opponents or obstacles. I've never had an enemy for anything more than brief periods of time. That may change if the war goes to extreme violence, but only time will tell.

We focus more on education than persuasion. And if you've been hanging out with evangelicals without hearing about "godless heathens who are evil", then I'm frankly shocked. Have you been pretending not to hear something? 

Then you haven't been paying attention. Maybe your problem is in the fact that we are blunt and honest about our goals, while religions sugarcoat and make suicide seem like the best thing someone can do.

We are. Where in the world are you, anyway, that you would be so blind to what's happened throughout history?

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/07/10/just-another-salem-christian-persecution-of-atheists-in-the-american-heartland.htm

http://www.helium.com/items/1264071-christian-bigots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

And that is not even the top of the tip of the iceberg.

I think you're in danger of being hypocritical. You speak of the members of the group you visit in a kind of 'blaming' way. But aren't they, too, victims?

You also speak about civil discourse and finding ways to persuade people, but what steps have you taken to persuade these people of the errors of their ways? How successful were you? Did you end up offending some of them? Did they consider you rude and pestering?

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that some people are my enemies. But I don't consider my enemies as demons or devils. They are just people who are opposing me, in whatever way. I realize that each person deserves a foundational level of respect as a person, but that the ideas they hold do not deserve any particular respect, unless they can be shown to be good ideas.

When I say someone is ignorant or irrational, or whatever, I am saying what I perceive to be a fact. People can be ignorant, irrational, etc. It does not make them evil, and it is not an insult in any way. If you believe in a god who created the universe and cares what you do in life and intervenes in human affairs, then you are being irrational in that belief. If you think that evolution says that dogs will give birth to bananas and that 'creation' is a better explanation for this universe and the life in it, then you are ignorant of some basic knowledge. These are not insults, and it's not rude to point them out.

People may get *offended* by pointing out that they are ignorant and irrational, but that is not my fault. People can *literally* get offended about anything. If a Catholic can get offended when someone throws a cracker into the garbage, then literally anything could be considered offensive to someone with bizarre-enough beliefs.

It is not my responsibility to *not* offend people. If someone is offended by something, that is their right, but also their own responsibility. Civil discourse requires that people take responsibility for their own actions and reactions.

Now, if we are talking about the *effectiveness* of communication, then I can agree that it is pragmatically better not to offend someone when you are trying to persuade them. On the other hand, it can be pragmatically better to ridicule a person if you are trying to influence other people who are listening in on the exchange. Also, ridicule -- or, more specifically, peer pressure -- *can* be an effective way to persuade someone under the right circumstances.

Getting back to your group of grumpy old atheists, I think it's more of a generational thing than anything. They are the 'old' atheists. We are the 'new' atheists. Now, I hate that phrase 'new atheists', but I don't have a better one as of yet. My local group of humanists is also dominated by people over 50 who are more interested in patting themselves on the back rather than taking direct action to confront religion. They don't spend as much time insulting and stereotyping theists as the group you're talking about, but they are likewise ineffective at changing things. They don't 'get' atheist activism.

But it has more to do with the environment they experienced in their lives. Before 9/11, atheists were more silent and disconnected than they are now. They were resigned to living in a world full of 'idiots' and whatnot. They had become complacent. They joined groups with like-minded people so they could at least share their misery and complain and at least get some sympathy from their fellows. But now, I think the new generation of atheists has shifted into "Enough is enough. It's time to end this thing." We know theism is irrational and we are no longer complacent enough to stay quiet about it, for fear of 'offending' people.

We see that theism (and other forms of irrationality) is not just harmless superstitions, but is an actively dangerous agent in this world.

So, I agree with you that treating believers as a 'lost cause' is wrong and counter-productive. But the correct way of dealing with complacent and 'grumpy' old atheists is not to 'write them off' either! What you need to do is explain to them exactly what you mean about communication and persuasion. You need to build bridges to them and get them to come over to your side, into atheist activism.

Use your much-touted persuasion skills. What is stopping you?

And, don't forget to tell us here your ideas about persuasion as well. I didn't see much practical techniques in your posts so far in this thread. Mostly you're just complaining about these old atheists who complain so much. What steps are you going to take, and what methods do you think would be effective in persuading them to your side? I am genuinely interested to learn, because this is perhaps my main concern in atheist activism: How to get more people involved and inspired to do something tangible, rather than waste away in complacency.