• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fair question: are atheists effeminate?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
jlee said:
So what are you asking - what trials and tribulations have atheists endured without recanting from a lack of a belief? How do you do that, anyway? "I no longer believe that I no longer believe"?

Atheism is a lack of a belief, not a belief. How is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Perhaps I've made a fool out of myself, but I always assumed that atheism was a belief system which people shared.

I might be wrong though, because I've never seriously studied it. *shrug*
 
janas19 said:
Hmmmm. Perhaps I've made a fool out of myself, but I always assumed that atheism was a belief system which people shared.

I might be wrong though, because I've never seriously studied it. *shrug*
Click to expand...
..
Wikipedia said:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[6][7]
Click to expand...
 
janas19 said:
I thought it was fairly logical, but perhaps I'm wrong. So, what did I misconceive? *wry smile*
Click to expand...
1) That heroism is correlated to masculinity.
2) That heroism has a 'point', or actually achieves something that could not be done any other way.
3) That heroism is somehow inherently 'better' than not being heroic.
4) That atheism should be a cause that inspires heroic acts.
5) That all religious people are heroic.
6) That all atheists are not heroic.
7) That all non-religious people are atheists.
8) That being made to speak and hold an oath in which someone does not believe is something not worth protesting about.
9) That all atheists' struggles are inherently worthless and all religious peoples' struggles are inherently valuable and 'proper' (for lack of a better term) because of their faith (implied).

And some other general statements regarding your post:

1) I'm not an expert in the historical accuracy of Jesus' life, but AFAIK Romans were not in the habit of flailing someone they were going to crucify.
2) Just because someone was fed to a lion for believing in a religion does not mean they are anything other than a dead, digested idiot.
3) You seem to be operating under a lot of false dichotomies. Masculinity vs. femininity, atheism vs. religion, glorious & heroic vs. coward (implied) & whiny. Of course, there is such a thing as a false continuum, but I think you have a ways to go before you need to start worrying about this.
4) You also seem to like making false generalizations about atheists (and about religious people), as I'm sure a lot of others are wont to do. It doesn't really mark you out immediately as being intelligent and having a thought-provoking idea, to tell the truth.
5) You gloss over the 'corruption' of Christianity. Yet this corruption has literally held back the Western world for decades, if not centuries, in terms of scientific understanding of the natural world, superstition, and social practice. And don't forget the ultimate conspiracy theory. Imagine a real, bona fide international conspiracy to deny the public the 'truth' contained within the Bible (among other texts) because it could weaken the stranglehold established religious authorities had on power.
6) To be honest, I would rather be effeminate than masculine in many respects, but that, obviously, is a personal decision about an individual's life.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Pedantic said:
1) That heroism is correlated to masculinity.
2) That heroism has a 'point', or actually achieves something that could not be done any other way.
3) That heroism is somehow inherently 'better' than not being heroic.
4) That atheism should be a cause that inspires heroic acts.
5) That all religious people are heroic.
6) That all atheists are not heroic.
7) That all non-religious people are atheists.
8) That being made to speak and hold an oath in which someone does not believe is something not worth protesting about.
9) That all atheists' struggles are inherently worthless and all religious peoples' struggles are inherently valuable and 'proper' (for lack of a better term) because of their faith (implied).

And some other general statements regarding your post:

1) I'm not an expert in the historical accuracy of Jesus' life, but AFAIK Romans were not in the habit of flailing someone they were going to crucify.
2) Just because someone was fed to a lion for believing in a religion does not mean they are anything other than a dead, digested idiot.
3) You seem to be operating under a lot of false dichotomies. Masculinity vs. femininity, atheism vs. religion, glorious & heroic vs. coward (implied) & whiny. Of course, there is such a thing as a false continuum, but I think you have a ways to go before you need to start worrying about this.
4) You also seem to like making false generalizations about atheists (and about religious people), as I'm sure a lot of others are wont to do. It doesn't really mark you out immediately as being intelligent and having a thought-provoking idea, to tell the truth.
5) You gloss over the 'corruption' of Christianity. Yet this corruption has literally held back the Western world for decades, if not centuries, in terms of scientific understanding of the natural world, superstition, and social practice. And don't forget the ultimate conspiracy theory. Imagine a real, bona fide international conspiracy to deny the public the 'truth' contained within the Bible (among other texts) because it could weaken the stranglehold established religious authorities had on power.
6) To be honest, I would rather be effeminate than masculine in many respects, but that, obviously, is a personal decision about an individual's life.
Click to expand...

I'll need some time to mull this over since I have no response right now.
 
janas19 said:
Why not? It's a reasonable question. If atheism is a true belief system or movement, who are the heroes? The people who made sacrifices with their blood sweat amd tears to show their passion and devotion to the belief of the non-existence of God?
Click to expand...

Im not religious, I'm not sure I'm an athiest either but either person could still be a hero to me.
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
1) That heroism is correlated to masculinity.
2) That heroism has a 'point', or actually achieves something that could not be done any other way.
3) That heroism is somehow inherently 'better' than not being heroic.
4) That atheism should be a cause that inspires heroic acts.
5) That all religious people are heroic.
6) That all atheists are not heroic.
7) That all non-religious people are atheists.
8) That being made to speak and hold an oath in which someone does not believe is something not worth protesting about.
9) That all atheists' struggles are inherently worthless and all religious peoples' struggles are inherently valuable and 'proper' (for lack of a better term) because of their faith (implied).

And some other general statements regarding your post:

1) I'm not an expert in the historical accuracy of Jesus' life, but AFAIK Romans were not in the habit of flailing someone they were going to crucify.
2) Just because someone was fed to a lion for believing in a religion does not mean they are anything other than a dead, digested idiot.
3) You seem to be operating under a lot of false dichotomies. Masculinity vs. femininity, atheism vs. religion, glorious & heroic vs. coward (implied) & whiny. Of course, there is such a thing as a false continuum, but I think you have a ways to go before you need to start worrying about this.
4) You also seem to like making false generalizations about atheists (and about religious people), as I'm sure a lot of others are wont to do. It doesn't really mark you out immediately as being intelligent and having a thought-provoking idea, to tell the truth.
5) You gloss over the 'corruption' of Christianity. Yet this corruption has literally held back the Western world for decades, if not centuries, in terms of scientific understanding of the natural world, superstition, and social practice. And don't forget the ultimate conspiracy theory. Imagine a real, bona fide international conspiracy to deny the public the 'truth' contained within the Bible (among other texts) because it could weaken the stranglehold established religious authorities had on power.
6) To be honest, I would rather be effeminate than masculine in many respects, but that, obviously, is a personal decision about an individual's life.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll respond.

I'm not really sure what you meant by the non sequitur statements. Whereas in my op I offered a legitimate premise, one that makes logical sense and offers concrete examples, in your response you simply say this is what it is, and no reason why. That's fine and I'm not mad at you, but I don't carry the same assumptions as you so you have to lay out your assumptions and premise behind statements like "you imply heroism is better than nonheroism." I'm not going to split hairs over the semantics and definitions of terms, because what I try and do is start out using common, widespread, and acceptable definitions of things such as "heroism is good. Our society values people who do the right thing and are selfless in helping people out, some in need or some in whatever scenario."

SOOO moving on to your general statements paragraph.

#4: making false generalizations about atheists. Where in my OP did I make a false generalization of atheists? I didn't. I asked a fair question hoping to elicit some responses, and I cited a real example of atheism as I have seen it in the media, which was: an atheist who complained because their child had to recite the pledge of allegiance with the phrase "under God." That's not a blanket statement.

#5: You said I'm making generalizations and inaccuracies about atheism, but it's ok for you to do the same about religion? You are a pot, calling a kettle black. You gloss over the benefits of belief and faith, at least I acknowledged the counter side of rhe argument.

So anyways, I'm not too keen on carrying on a prolonged discussion over this, but I just wanted to make a point of whether atheism is a belief, and what heroic figures it may have.
 
Last edited:
dighn said:
is it really so hard to understand the concept of "not believing"? non-belief does not mean belief of the opposite.
Click to expand...

This exactly. It would be like saying there is such a thing as a non-stamp collector. There is no belief, nor do atheists have "faith" of un-belief. I don't have faith that my next door neighbor is a non-stamp collector.
 
Trey Parker and Matt Stone have balls of steel to not cower in the face of numerous death threats from Muslim extremists. Although that has more to do with standing up for freedom of speech and defying censorship than 'promoting atheism'.

Also, this is not serious thread.
 
theprodigalrebel said:
Trey Parker and Matt Stone have balls of steel to not cower in the face of numerous death threats from Muslim extremists. Although that has more to do with standing up for freedom of speech and defying censorship than 'promoting atheism'.

Also, this is not serious thread.
Click to expand...

Ok. I give this one to you. I actually think this is right....

Welp, feeling kind of deflated now. Lol. 🙁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top