And for the purposes of consistency, I have decided to include atheism and anti-theism as forms of religion or systems of belief.

And accordingly try to be sympathetic. But if engaged in debate, I seldom let their absurd statements go unchallenged.

I learned over the last few years that some number of atheists, hopefully not representative of atheists generally, are really defensive and exhibit many of the same signs we see in cases of child abuse, spousal abuse, and PTSD generally.

These include:

Screaming, shouting, yelling

Exhibit distrust of others

Exhibit emotional outbursts

Have low self-esteem or confidence

Express feelings of hopelessness

Exhibit self-injurious behaviors

Refuse offers of assistance

Be fearful of intimacy and touch

Express self-hate, self-blame, guilt or shame

Have attention and learning disorders

Engage in destructive activities

Learn passive/aggressive behaviors


Agnosticism seems to me to be the most passive and tolerant position to maintain. It takes a strong and confident person to admit that they aren't sure and don't know while not objecting to others' insistence upon a different POV.

I agree with Hannah; "Love" is a really loaded term. I would agree that "respect" or "accept" are better terms us use.

K/R

At least as they apply to heated and unproductive debates.

No doubt, each group has it's share of legitimate victims of bad treatment.

And, probably, among each group are disruptive types who exhibit the defensive behaviors but were never victims.

My two points are:

Like Islamic terrorists, or overzealous Christian ministers, the most visible or noisiest "representatives" of a belief or non-belief system are decidedly NOT representative of others, and,

Those same noisy ones seem to exhibit behaviors similar to people who have been traumatized.

Your list seems not unreasonable for someone who has been told for much of their life how evil they are.

My experience leads me to think that being an atheist isn't really a choice for a lot of us, short of some sort of torture I'm not sure it's possible to get people to believe something that seems ridiculous to them. A common experience for atheists in the US is to have started asking what seem to us as natural and obvious questions about specifics of scripture and religious instruction at a fairly young and impressionable age and then treated as being somehow evil and wicked for doing so.

If a group of people are acting as PTSD sufferers maybe somewhere there actually was a trauma.

A lot of hurt is done under the color of "religious practice", some of it leaves scars that don't go away.

And it doesn't take torture to do severe and lasting harm; subtle but daily cuts can lead to horrible wounds.

I have to say, however, that I wish we could find some common ground and agree, at least, that there are reasonably two groups of atheists:

Those who have been harmed and feel the pain still for standing up for their non-belief.

And others who simply don't want to believe but haven't been harmed.

Both groups are atheists, but the second group is often chastised and insulted by some in the first group, so I find that a narrow and exclusive point of view.

C'est la vie.

Not all by any means but enough to make someone who is already feeling bitter over old pain shift some of that bitterness to those who they see as denying their experience.

"Well I wasn't harmed so obviously anyone who says they were is just being (insert dismissive slur her)."

I fully agree that some people have been treated very badly because they identify as atheists. This is a particular issue when it comes to children who live in communities dominated by strong believers. There probably is a PTSD component with some of the people who are really angry.

You would really have to raise children from birth in a completely religion free environment to get a valid reading on what percentage were going to develop a sense of the divine on their own.

Since that environment doesn't exist and probably won't in the foreseeable future I'm not sure it's possible to judge.

I think the difference in rates of religiosity in places like say Norway vs Egypt shows that culture makes a big difference, I've mentioned my nephew being a redneck Iranian Southern Baptist.

But my hypothesis that for some religious belief or non-belief is not a choice, but just a part of who they are. If there is a genetic component, then it is even harder to really study it in a way that would use a control group.

I do think culture makes a difference, as does economic status interestingly.

I can't watch this video but have seen a clip of him before and he is very funny.

But he shares none of the cultural cues, not the language, food, nothing.. A very disorienting experience.

I don't have the bandwidth for video right now, but I promise to look at it at another time.

It leads to a form of culture shock and disorientation.

"Wow, these people look like me and talk like me and mostly act like me but some of those things they say they believe I don't understand at all and they get mad at me for asking questions. The teacher sighs at school when I ask questions but she doesn't get mad at me and call me wicked. There must be something wrong with me, I don't see anyone else asking these questions or getting in this trouble."

Bear in mind I'm figuring out a lot of this as I go, I'm not writing finished thoughts but more stream of consciousness.

I am into "immersion travel" at this point in my life. We are basically living in different locations in order to really become a part of the community and learn as best we can what it is like to be them.

There are assumptions about american tourists at times which disorient me because it is foreign to me.

That is not even close to what your nephew experiences, I am sure, because his outward appearance triggers stereotypes that are completely foreign to him.

And I understand that this is the position that many kids who are questioning religious beliefs find themselves in as well.

The age that young people tend to want to fit in the most is when a lot of atheists realize they are different in a fundamental way that everyone around them sees as horribly bad, or it certainly looks that way to them at that point.

Did you read the first contact story I linked to a little while back?

Just as it became cool to be gay in certain communities and within certain age groups, I think it's also becoming cool to have no religion or some alternative religion in certain communities.

I know that there are some where the overwhelming majority are religiously affiliated and those are going to be the hardest to "come out" in.

I'm not sure that first contact story you are referring to, but it doesn't sound familiar.

He loves Jesus. I respect Jesus for the social and societal progress he represents.

He believes in life after death. I believe goodbye is goodbye.

He's in the church choir. I knew most of the hymns.

He attends Christmas Eve services and I go with him and we have a good time.

However, he doesn't have superiority over me because he is a Christian. My loved one respects my atheism. He doesn't call it wrong or deluded. He doesn't try to convert me. He recognizes my points of view.

He doesn't hide his religion and I don't hide my godlessness.

And it works.

It works because we are both humanitarians. We care about people and how to treat them with compassion, honesty, integrity, and understanding. It doesn't matter how we put forth our policies as much as we just do it. We joke about our differences and appreciate another viewpoint.

I was talking to some friends the other night about how we are moving towards a religious melting pot, as people of various faiths and no faith begin to marry and raise children in "mixed" homes.

Being a humanitarian is more important than being either a believer or non-believer, as you point out.

This, like the article of indoctrinating children against believers, can apply to both groups to some extent.

There is way too much hostility going in both directions. This, I think, is one of the more important things he points out: