Of course people can be condescending as Christians. But it isn't necessarily so. Neither is atheism inherently condescending. I have the deepest respect for agnosticism or atheism - I completely understand where those people are coming from. Having faith is not easy, but again, few reasonably Christians claim that. I've met very few who act like that, personally. So it isn't really a general issue for me, but in this particular case I think it was very condescending and in a way that is sweeping towards a large group of people that imo deserve a little more respect for their beliefs than that.
Yes. As I said at the end of my post, his aggressiveness is unnecessary.
You said I'm "dismissing atheism" and I'm not sure what you mean by that? Furthermore, I'm not sure I get the point of how Christianity is all-dominating in the United States, etc. My point was not to claim that all Christians are great martyrs and all atheists are idiots, but rather the exact opposite: denouncing a group of people in such a broad, generalizing way is offensive to me. I feel the same way when people claim "Democrats are just lazy people who want handouts" or "Republicans are just greedy rich people who want to keep their money", to take a political example.
You are dismissing atheism as unreasonable by believing in Christianity, which essentially demands a level of certainty that precludes thinking atheism is reasonable. Again, I don't really understand "faith" so this is only based on the few logical inferences I'm able to make.
There is a cultural difference of course. In Sweden it's a bit taboo to be religious so I'm used to being a bit defensive about it and don't really think of Christians as having "the upper hand" in public debate.
That's an interesting side debate, actually. I once spoke to someone from a heavily black area who was frustrated by the acceptability of making fun of white people. He simultaneously felt threatened by being a minority and not having the protections minorities generally have. I can see where you're coming from. I'd say most people I know are non-religious too, but because America and the world are so heavily religious, there's still somewhat of a feeling that the religious are a societally dominant group.
In Sweden, I'm sure it's a different situation.
As for religious faith in itself being condescending is a bit absurd to me. By that definition, any belief that someone disagrees with is condescending. I don't have to view people as deluded or look down on them just because they don't share my opinion on something.
I actually disagree with your second sentence. I'd argue that atheists have a lesser burden of proof than Christians. Atheists simply must be convinced enough that God doesn't exist to operate on that assumption. Christian doctrine requires a little more, does it not?
Do you not think that Judaism, agnosticism, atheism, etc., are logically irrational? If not, how can you eliminate them as considerations?
Again, you seem to still claim that religion v atheism is "feel-good v depressed rationality"
I don't know about seeming to, but I don't claim any such thing. I'm usually excessively vague about things, the very opposite of a generalization like that.
For some it looks like that. For many it doesn't. I know people who are "regrettably atheist" - they'd like to believe that there was a God, but they can't bring themselves to it. But a lot of people enjoy being atheist, I'm sure. You don't have to worry about punishment for your sins, you can enjoy yourself and create your own moral standards. Religion isn't exactly known for giving a rosy, glorious perspective on the world. Many are quite depressing in their nature.
True, but it still gives an objective "purpose" to life. If there was no selfish reason to be religious than overrided the selfish reasons not to be, people wouldn't be religious. If people seek truth, it is to satisfy a desire for truth. That may make their mortal lives more difficult, but for most people, ultimate Truth and Justice apparently overshadows mortal comfort. You could say it's an alternative form of martyrdom, in a way, or at least that it comes from the same place.
Maybe you think that human belief isn't explainable like that, and that there is some "larger" reason for belief - one that doesn't manifest itself in a logical way. Maybe so, I guess. But I don't see any reason to think that.
So I still consider that perspective very simplifying and, yes, somewhat condescending.
When it comes to something like this, anything that simplistic and condescending is invariably also probably wrong.
Poll
