Internet Atheists

[unknown soldier]

I managed to dig up an important comment about "internet atheists":

Not really. Which is why the decision on the part of some Internet atheists to embrace the marginal, discredited theory that Jesus didn't exist, while personally attacking scholars who conclude he did, was always a poor decision tactically. Atheists lose precisely nothing in accepting that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure. But hand Christian apologists an easy win when they attempt to challenge it.

So what exactly is an "internet atheist"? Assuming that not all atheists can be accurately described as internet atheists, what makes the difference between the two kinds of atheists?

I think that many Christian apologists might define an internet atheist as an atheist who:

1. Spends a lot of time online arguing Christian claims with Christians.
2. Has a YouTube channel to use video to criticize Christianity and attempt to debunk it.
3. Is very loud, obnoxious, and ignorant of the Bible and Christianity.
4. Is wrong in that she or he goes public bothering people with her or his point of view on Christianity and theism.
5. Attacks the solid scholarship of those Christians who are experts on their faith.

So it appears that a "non-internet" atheist is a person who keeps her or his atheism private, never says she or he disagrees with Christians and certainly not on the internet where everybody is exposed to it, and shows kindness to Christians online never causing them to doubt painfully.

[unknown soldier]

You just said that "The main point is that he's characterizing people who disagree with him in a negative way." So which is it that you wanted to discuss; the seemingly innocuous term 'internet atheists,' or the negative characterization which Historia applied to the views and behaviour from a fraction of that group's members?

I suppose I'd like to discuss both because they are closely related. I'm not complaining about either one but just want to know why many apologists use the term and deride that segment of atheists.

...obviously your negative characterization of Christian apologists as typically "splitting hairs" (which Tam didn't do, but never mind), however impolite, is not relevant.

I just wanted to explain to Tam why she was arguing poorly. Besides, I've found that it is fairly typical for apologists to split hairs.

...if most of us including you characterize views we disagree with in a negative light, then complaining about Historia's rather mild comments would be a little pointless.

Again, I'm really not complaining about what Historia said about "internet atheists." In fact, I hope he continues to talk that way and people know about it. Maybe that way a lot of people will seek out such atheists on the internet to see what the fuss is about.

To avoid confusion, I'm not a Christian; those who promote the 'lack of belief' definition would consider me an atheist, though I'd describe myself as a theist-leaning agnostic.

It is confusing when a supposed non-Christian argues like a Christian apologist. So what is it about Christianity that doesn't convince you?

If you're interested you can check the Probation forum to see the list of incidents for which Jagella was banned.

I understand that Jagella was upset protesting that (she?) was not treated fairly. If Jagella was unfairly treated, then the forum must have improved because I really can't complain so far.

There are Christians who don't believe in the existence of God, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are Christians who don't believe that Jesus existed either; for example one of the best-known promoters of one of the Jesus myth theories is Robert M. Price, who describes himself as a Christian atheist (at least as of a 2005 interview). Trying to pigeonhole all Christians into a narrow conception of what you think must be "sacred dogma" seems likely to be a limitation on your own thinking more than on anyone else's. If fewer Christians doubt the existence of Jesus than the existence of God it's probably in part due to the fact that Jesus' existence is more likely than the 50/50 of gods'

Well, I think it's safe to say that very few Christians are atheists or doubt the existence of Jesus. So my characterization of Christians and their "sacred dogma" of the historicity of Christ is essentially correct.

Oh, and you just posted an example of hair-splitting. The fact that a tiny proportion of Christians might not believe in the historicity of Christ makes little difference to the truth of what I said about the dogma of Christ's existence.

It's difficult to see how anyone could interpret my comments that way but, to clarify, that is obviously not what I said, as you would have known if you had read the second half of that sentence. In my experience there are some noteworthy similarities between amateur proponents of the fringe position in each case, but the positive evidence for anthropogenic climate change is considerably more formidable.

I'm still confused. If the evidence for climate change is much better than that for Jesus, then why compare the two if you want to make a case for a historical Christ? If we do compare the two camps, then we have the following:

Climate change deniers deny climate change despite very strong evidence.
vs
Mythicists deny the historicity of Jesus despite evidence that is comparatively very weak.

The distinction between the two groups should now be clear. The big difference between them is their doubts being based on very different degrees of evidence. So any comparison between them is probably unfair.

As I noted, there've been dozens of threads on the subject of Jesus' historicity: Rather than dredging up some obscure old quote from a tangentially-related thread to make a big song and dance about claims without evidence, it might have been more constructive (and perhaps informative) to actually glance through some of those relevant threads and see the evidence Historia, myself and others have provided?

I have a better idea: I think I will start my own thread about Jesus' existence.

Finally, I get a good feeling from this "internet atheist" business. If apologists complain about them, then they've got to be good!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #18]

Indoctrination: the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Regardless of your protestations, that is precisely how religious beliefs are propagated and perpetuated.

I'm afraid not, my friend. As I have already demonstrated, there are numerous well educated, intelligent folks I can refer to, who were opposed to Christianity, so much so they were out to demonstrate it would be false, and became convinced Christianity was indeed true, based on their study of the facts, and evidence in order to demonstrate it to be false. This then demonstrates clearly that, "indoctrination is not precisely how religious beliefs are propagated and perpetuated". In other words, even though there may be those who participate in such things, this would not in any way demonstrate, there would be no other way to come to these convictions.

However, there is really no need in us continuing to argue this point, because even if I were to admit this would be the case, what in the world do you imagine this would demonstrate for you? Do you imagine this would somehow demonstrate Christianity to be false? Do you imagine this would demonstrate there would be no other way for one to become convinced Christianity would be true? It would not in the least! Simply because one is "indoctrinated" (taught to accept something uncritically) does not in any way necessitate that what they were "indoctrinated" to believe, would in any way be false.

This is why I can say with confidence, "it is not an argument at all, for one to proclaim they were a convinced Christian at one time, who did not use the mind in order to become convinced". Again, it is not that this would be a weak argument, but rather that it is no argument at all. In fact, I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would even want to bring this sort of thing into the conversation? All it does is to demonstrate for us there are folks who can truly embrace something as a fact, which they have not really thought that much about. With this being the case, how can we all know this person has changed the way in which they think, in order to change the mind? Simply because the mind has changed, does not in any way demonstrate the thinking has changed at all, which again is demonstrated when one can say, "Carrier is a competent historian. Since I cannot verify the history of the church myself, then I must rely on his expertise". GOOD GRIEF!

[Miles]

Indoctrination: the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Regardless of your protestations, that is precisely how religious beliefs are propagated and perpetuated.

I'm afraid not, my friend. As I have already demonstrated, there are numerous well educated, intelligent folks I can refer to, who were opposed to Christianity, so much so they were out to demonstrate it would be false, and became convinced Christianity was indeed true, based on their study of the facts, and evidence in order to demonstrate it to be false. This then demonstrates clearly that, "indoctrination is not precisely how religious beliefs are propagated and perpetuated". In other words, even though there may be those who participate in such things, this would not in any way demonstrate, there would be no other way to come to these convictions.

While I don't fully agree with brunumb, I've found that intelligence has little if anything to do with an acceptance of Christianity. From what I've seen, the ultimate driving force of such acceptance is need. The need for a benevolent God to watch over and protect us, which involves god's intermediary, Jesus. A need that so colors the reading of the facts and evidence relating to Christianity's legitimacy that a fair and proper judgment seldom has a chance.

Basically, Christianity's success derives from a small formula of creating a dire need and then resolving it:

1) Tell them they have something to fear
2) Tell them you have the only resolution for this fear
3) Pass the collection plate


.

[brunumb]

As I have already demonstrated, there are numerous well educated, intelligent folks I can refer to, who were opposed to Christianity, so much so they were out to demonstrate it would be false, and became convinced Christianity was indeed true, based on their study of the facts, and evidence in order to demonstrate it to be false. This then demonstrates clearly that, "indoctrination is not precisely how religious beliefs are propagated and perpetuated".

This does not demonstrate anything of the sort. There are around 8 billion people on the planet and a truckload of religions and their variant sects. That you can find a few who were opposed to Christianity, so much so they were out to demonstrate it would be false, and became convinced Christianity was indeed true, does not extrapolate to the vast majority who actually get their beliefs inculcated from the day they are born. The geographical distribution of religious beliefs testifies to that fact. There are invariably exceptions to any rule as illustrated by the bell curve, and that is all that you have clearly demonstrated.

[Mithrae]

Finally, I get a good feeling from this "internet atheist" business. If apologists complain about them, then they've got to be good!

No-one has complained about internet atheists that I can see. As I said earlier, you seem to be reading into it things which simply aren't there, as far as I can tell.



Edit:

There are Christians who don't believe in the existence of God, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are Christians who don't believe that Jesus existed either; for example one of the best-known promoters of one of the Jesus myth theories is Robert M. Price, who describes himself as a Christian atheist (at least as of a 2005 interview). Trying to pigeonhole all Christians into a narrow conception of what you think must be "sacred dogma" seems likely to be a limitation on your own thinking more than on anyone else's. If fewer Christians doubt the existence of Jesus than the existence of God it's probably in part due to the fact that Jesus' existence is more likely than the 50/50 of gods'

Well, I think it's safe to say that very few Christians are atheists or doubt the existence of Jesus. So my characterization of Christians and their "sacred dogma" of the historicity of Christ is essentially correct.

Oh, and you just posted an example of hair-splitting. The fact that a tiny proportion of Christians might not believe in the historicity of Christ makes little difference to the truth of what I said about the dogma of Christ's existence.

Of the various tangents discussed in your post, I think this one may be worth addressing. In the OP you linked to an old post in a thread in which Historia discusses his consideration of both sides of the issue of Jesus' historicity: But instead of bothering to read those posts or any of the other threads I mentioned, you blindly and somewhat rudely asserted that "Historia cannot accept mythicism" because "it is a sacred dogma to Christians that Jesus existed"... and this in spite of the fact that one of the best-known proponents of mythicism is a Christian. Instead you dismiss it as merely splitting hairs to point out that Christians are capable of independent thought!

Similarly you had earlier characterized it as splitting hairs for Tam to note that Historia's comments were clearly and explicitly concerned only with some internet atheists.

And in that same sentence, declared that splitting hairs was 'typical' of Christian apologists.

In all three cases we see a clear tendency towards lumping all members of a group together (otherwise known as prejudice) and an open dismissiveness towards the qualifiers and nuances which careful thinkers and communicators habitually use as a matter of course. As I already suggested in an earlier post, this tendency more than anything else seems to make sense of the thread and your perception of the term 'internet atheists': Given a tendency to lump a group together, negative comments about 'some' atheists could be presumed to reflect on all atheists.

[Realworldjack]

As I have already demonstrated, there are numerous well educated, intelligent folks I can refer to, who were opposed to Christianity, so much so they were out to demonstrate it would be false, and became convinced Christianity was indeed true, based on their study of the facts, and evidence in order to demonstrate it to be false. This then demonstrates clearly that, "indoctrination is not precisely how religious beliefs are propagated and perpetuated".

This does not demonstrate anything of the sort. There are around 8 billion people on the planet and a truckload of religions and their variant sects. That you can find a few who were opposed to Christianity, so much so they were out to demonstrate it would be false, and became convinced Christianity was indeed true, does not extrapolate to the vast majority who actually get their beliefs inculcated from the day they are born. The geographical distribution of religious beliefs testifies to that fact. There are invariably exceptions to any rule as illustrated by the bell curve, and that is all that you have clearly demonstrated.

I have not at any time whatsoever, attempted to refute the FACT that the majority of Christians, are believers simply because this is the way in which they were taught as a child. In fact, I have agreed with this by referring to the many here on this site who claimed to have been convinced Christians at one time, who go on to admit they were believing upon the word of others, and did not think for themselves. This is not where we disagree! Where we disagree is, as to whether everyone who was brought up in a Christian home, was forced to accept the teachings uncritically, thereby causing them to carry these beliefs well into adulthood. I was never forced to accept the teachings uncritically. Most all of my friends as a child were brought up in Church, and I know none of them who would claim they were forced to do so. This is not to say there has never been those who were exposed to such things, because I know those who have, and have actually counseled a few of them. My point is, simply because one was brought up in a Church, does not in any way demonstrate they would have been forced to accept the teachings, uncritically as you seem to be suggesting. That is simply not a fact!

Next, simply because most Christians are Christians because of the way in which they were brought up, has nothing whatsoever to do with what they were taught to believe being true, or false. In other words, simply because one can only tell you they are a believer because this is what they were taught as a child, does not demonstrate that what they believe would be false. Moreover, simply referring to others who are believers in other religions simply because this is what they were taught as a child, is not any sort of argument at all against Christianity.

So then, I did not claim to have demonstrated that no Christians believe simply based upon what they were taught. Rather, what I have demonstrated is "indoctrination is not precisely how religious beliefs are propagated and perpetuated". In other words, "indoctrination" is not the only way to arrive to the conclusion that Christianity would be true.

Allow me to make this as clear as I can. Simply because a parent teaches a child what they believe to be true, does not necessitate the child is being forced to accept the teaching, uncritically.

[brunumb]

Where we disagree is, as to whether everyone who was brought up in a Christian home, was forced to accept the teachings uncritically, thereby causing them to carry these beliefs well into adulthood.

As I have said before, the vast majority of Christians, and believers in other faiths, were inculcated with their beliefs when they were most vulnerable and that particularly applies in childhood. That does not mean everyone.

[unknown soldier]

No-one has complained about internet atheists that I can see. As I said earlier, you seem to be reading into it things which simply aren't there, as far as I can tell.

You haven't looked very hard. It took me less than a minute to find How to Shield Your Kids From Toxic Internet Atheism.

In the OP you linked to an old post in a thread in which Historia discusses his consideration of both sides of the issue of Jesus' historicity: But instead of bothering to read those posts or any of the other threads I mentioned, you blindly and somewhat rudely asserted that "Historia cannot accept mythicism" because "it is a sacred dogma to Christians that Jesus existed"...

From the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven...

This looks like sacred dogma to me. Christians as an act of faith must believe in a Jesus who lived on earth. So we have good reason to conclude that the fuss over mythicism on the part of some Christians isn't based on a respect for history but on Christian beliefs.

... and this in spite of the fact that one of the best-known proponents of mythicism is a Christian.

I assume you're referring to Robert Price. Price is not a Christian in the normal sense of the word, and he surely has no delusions that he will live forever with Jesus. As such he has no ax to grind trying to make Jesus out to be a real person.

Instead you dismiss it as merely splitting hairs to point out that Christians are capable of independent thought!

Christians surely think independently of each other. They're always fighting over their beliefs.

Similarly you had earlier characterized it as splitting hairs for Tam to note that Historia's comments were clearly and explicitly concerned only with some internet atheists.

She was splitting hairs. I'm sorry to bother you with the facts.

And in that same sentence, declared that splitting hairs was 'typical' of Christian apologists.

I've seen you and Tam do it. Is that typical enough?

In all three cases we see a clear tendency towards lumping all members of a group together (otherwise known as prejudice)...

I see you're playing the persecution card. Since you're dragging me through the mud, is it OK if I whine that you're being mean to me?

...and an open dismissiveness towards the qualifiers and nuances which careful thinkers and communicators habitually use as a matter of course.

Actually, it's very common to communicate without explicit qualifiers assuming that the reader or listener understands that exceptions are allowed for. For example, I might say that swans are white, but no sensible person will jump on what I said shouting: "Not all swans are white!" They understand that I recognize that some swans might be some other color. I only get into trouble neglecting qualifiers when my readers are people out to try to discredit me any way they can.

As I already suggested in an earlier post, this tendency more than anything else seems to make sense of the thread and your perception of the term 'internet atheists': Given a tendency to lump a group together, negative comments about 'some' atheists could be presumed to reflect on all atheists.

By all means use the term "internet atheist" or any other word you find appropriate to describe skeptics. When I started this thread I simply asked what the term means.

And what is so terrible about lumping Christians together? I thought they believed they were all "one body." Could it be that some Christians loathe the idea of sharing identity with other Christians they find to be unlikable?

I'll conclude this post with my observation that you're really whining on this one. Are you out to shame me?

[Mithrae]

No-one has complained about internet atheists that I can see. As I said earlier, you seem to be reading into it things which simply aren't there, as far as I can tell.

You haven't looked very hard. It took me less than a minute to find How to Shield Your Kids From Toxic Internet Atheism.

Yes, three pages into the thread you had to go looking for something to take offence at... though if you read more than the title, you might have noticed that the author's point is spot on about the attitudes and rhetoric of some atheist apologists.

In all three cases we see a clear tendency towards lumping all members of a group together (otherwise known as prejudice)...

I see you're playing the persecution card. Since you're dragging me through the mud, is it OK if I whine that you're being mean to me?

You can whine about anything you want, I suppose, but it might be worthwhile understanding what the sentences you're responding to mean before you do so. Prejudice is not the same thing as persecution by any stretch of the imagination, and so far the only person who has implied any kind of systematic victimization is you; the only person in the thread, I mean, no need impress us with your googling skills again.

"If anything I might be understating the way apologists talk down to skeptics both online and off."

"in a Christian forum, no unbeliever is guaranteed justice."

"many apologists use the term and deride that segment of atheists."

...and an open dismissiveness towards the qualifiers and nuances which careful thinkers and communicators habitually use as a matter of course.

Actually, it's very common to communicate without explicit qualifiers assuming that the reader or listener understands that exceptions are allowed for. For example, I might say that swans are white, but no sensible person will jump on what I said shouting: "Not all swans are white!" They understand that I recognize that some swans might be some other color. I only get into trouble neglecting qualifiers when my readers are people out to try to discredit me any way they can.

Pretty sure no-one is out to "discredit" you - again, no-one on this forum, no need to find a quote from elsewhere - but it does seem that you yourself were pretty keen to go searching for a 'gotcha' response to the fact that no-one has complained about internet atheists, so far as I had seen. Despite that qualification it seems I was still at fault for not having scoured the internet thoroughly enough to confirm your claims of victimhood for you

I'll conclude this post with my observation that you're really whining on this one. Are you out to shame me?

Ah, you've got me; I stayed up all night fuming and plotting about how I could "shame" some unknown self-described 'soldier' on the internet.

In any case - and especially now that my nefarious plot has been exposed - it seems we can put this thread to bed: We have learned that if you really look hard enough, you can indeed find some people who use the term "internet atheist" in a perjorative sense!

[Realworldjack]

Where we disagree is, as to whether everyone who was brought up in a Christian home, was forced to accept the teachings uncritically, thereby causing them to carry these beliefs well into adulthood.

As I have said before, the vast majority of Christians, and believers in other faiths, were inculcated with their beliefs when they were most vulnerable and that particularly applies in childhood. That does not mean everyone.

And I continue to ask you, "what in the world do you think this demonstrates"?