Yesterday, I explained to my mom (a strong Christian) how I am not offended when people say "I'll pray for you," because in my eyes, it has the same intent as saying "I'll cross my fingers" or "I'll keep you in my thoughts."

 

Naturally, she argued it's not the same.

 

Being an open-minded atheist has its drawbacks.  I'm not accepted in a religion because I definitely do not agree in any higher power.  However, I'm not always accepted as an atheist, because I'm too passive about non/religion.  I accept that other people believe in some existence of a god, and I don't always challenge it.  I don't take offense when somebody says "I'll pray for you," when many atheists do, because I see their intention and, in a way, pick up on the intention of the statement as if it was said another way, without bringing religion into the conversation.  I didn't take offense when the lady said, "God bless you," for helping her find her car in the parking lot.  I simply said "Thank you," and walked away.  I explained this to someone and according to them, I'm "not a true atheist."

 

Is it possible to be a passive-aggressive atheist?  If so, are you more on the passive side, or the aggressive side?

 

 

Tags: acceptance, aggressive, atheism, passive

Views: 201

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don`t see the relevant difference between atheism and materialistic naturalism but that may be because I am a materialistic naturalist. Would you care to elaborate on the distinction?

I concede (is that the word?) that there may be some individuals who are on the margins who can be labeled as being atheist but not naturalistic. But that distinction I can only justify on the linguistic level, not the philosophical one. You can simply equate the belief in any supernatural force or event with the belief in a deity because, frankly, I don`t see why anything that is exempt from natural laws of our universe should be considered something else than a god. To me, people who believe in anything supernatural = people who believe in a deity; naturalists = materialists so I would not be so sure. You must allow that not all linguistic conventions really are of use to us. If it were so, language wouldn`t change all the time.

As for you Katie, I do not see any reason for you to call yourself passive-aggressive. I am a perfect example of being passive-aggressive. I question my grandma into silence when she starts talking about praying for me, I constantly accentuate the lack of intelligence and/or reason of people who are religious and I never miss out on pointing out when someone chooses "the easy way out". I never make the first step, though. But still I am worlds away from you in terms of rudeness and aggressiveness. Still, I have sown doubt in many heads and have already made too many people cry to start feeling regret now. I am now at that period of time when all the endeavors come to fruition. People have started respecting me and my position and those who know me no longer see my approach as aggressive and insulting. It has liberated both me and people with whom I talk. Now all of them know they won`t get special treatment when it comes to religious beliefs, as they will not get for any kind of stupidity in general. They know that my only action is a rational, critical, RE-action. Everyone has his/her own way in this but if you ask me, be as understanding as you can if you are not confronted with injustice and stupidity. When, however, you are, do not spare it. Also, there are ways to strike down someone`s attitudes and beliefs without attacking the person. Those people must realize that refuting a claim does not mean insulting the person making that claim

If one considers oneself idiotic then one could define one`s own practices as idiotic. But if you accept and use some kind of a linguistic practice, that particular practice is of some use (i.e. may sound awkward or idiotic, but is shorter or easier to pronounce, etc.) to you. So while to me the difference between a naturalistic materialist and an atheist is not so clear so as to make me feel the need to use terms which differentiate them clearly, that does not mean that I hold the opinion that some other kind of practice is wrong or idiotic. I was just argumentative about the practice being truly useful, not about there not really being any difference (because there is, however slight it may be)

I am wondering if the person who said that you weren't a "true" atheist is a theist or an atheist. I don't really see an atheist saying that but mankind (as a whole) never ceases to surprise me. If you say, "I do not believe in god(s)" then you are an atheist. Enough said. Period. We all have different opinions after that. :)

The person who said that is a militant atheist ha.
ahhh. Maybe this person has been misinformed of what "atheist" means. Not all of us are militant and not all are against religion. There are a few atheists out there who believe mankind needs religion and would fail without it; though, I would beg to differ.
I think you just sound pleasant and easy to get along with.  Those aren't exactly negative traits.

I think there's a subtle distinction and you have to draw your own line.  For example, I have a good friend who is a Christian.  When i talk to her about being angry or sad or whatever is bringing me down, she always says, "I'll pray about it."  I accept that the words are just a vessel which carry the message - the message being that she cares about me and wants me to be happy, and she feels that praying is the best way to help.

 

On the other hand, the cashier at the local Steak-n-Shake insists on saying "God bless you" when someone pays their bill.  So I don't go there.  Because those people don't care about me.  They just say it because they feel like they're supposed to say it. 

 

The underlying idea here is that your personal boundaries are personal. 

Your friend could also be saying it because she has someone of authority/power/she respects say it to here with the same/similar meaning, so she says the same thing to you because she thinks that is the proper thing to in that situation say.

There are passive agressive humans, what they believe about reality doesn't really say much about agression.

 

If somebody says to me "god bless", i usually retort with a smile on my face and say "which god?", this gets a smile almost every time and gets them thinking, if the talk goes further then I will say I am an atheist and explain to them why I think prayer is nonsense.

 

I find this approach more effective than just blurting out "god had nothing to do with it" through squinted eyes of agression.

I like what you say better than what I usually do, because it accomplishes the same goal as "god had nothing to do with it" but without the angry undertone.

 

What about 'god had nothing to do with it' followed by a smile?

"What about 'god had nothing to do with it' followed by a smile?"

 

That's even better. Blunt and honest but without the aggression. Perfect.

RSS

Forum

Socratic Method

Started by Michael in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Belle Rose 1 hour ago. 1 Reply

Gideons International

Started by Ed in Small Talk. Last reply by _Robert_ 4 hours ago. 5 Replies

Bible Belt Promiscuity

Started by Dante in Advice. Last reply by Dr. Bob yesterday. 11 Replies

Events

Blog Posts

YES

Posted by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on May 23, 2015 at 5:00pm 7 Comments

The Purpose of Atheism

Posted by Pope Beanie on May 22, 2015 at 8:35pm 2 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service