Rude for rudness's sake would be pointless. But pointed rudness can have a lot of utility.

It's a lashing out anger: the sort of anger that is equivalent to painting graffiti on a wall, rather than working to change things. I've seen AYAs go on discussion boards, and say things like "THERE IS NO GOD," not to change minds, not to present an idea, but just to attempt to shock. The actual arguments are more complex, more subtle-- and more convincing.

Anger may be invalid in rationale discourse, but to ignore its existence is not rationale. I think atheists have plenty of reasons to be openly hostile to so-called believers, be they organized or otherwise. The Crudades, the Holocaust, and 9-11 come immeadiately to mind.

Valid.

I don't think that the OP is talking about people getting mislabeled for speaking their minds. I think they're talking about truly angry young atheists. As I am when I mentioned angry old ones. Which after two posts in a row feeling compelled to say calm down and maybe try to be helpful? to you in particular, makes it seem as though you fit the mold. Who calls Dawkins 'angry'? Fools? And who cares?
Despite your bull-headed approach to seemingly every subject, anger is not the direction any group needs to go.
I am through even reading your comments at this point. An angry atheist is just a marginally smarter but just as annoying person as a religious fanatic.

@DerekFuiten well, you are welcome to disagree. The way you express yourself is awkward, and doesn't help understanding.The bull headed you referred to is nonsense, so I'll ignore that. I'm not aware of all these so called angry young or old atheists, so I think the thread is basically a beat-up discussion, based on a false premise. Anyway, have a nice time here.

I saw a post once where someone say: if you wanted nice gay people, maybe you should have treated them nicer.

The same could be said for atheists.

One thing I’ve noticed since being atheist is people’s offhand comments about the immorality of atheists.

But I actually think the angry atheist thing is a trope. I haven’t ever actually met any militant atheist. Even the flighting spaghetti monster stuff etc is really just giving people their own medicine.

@Myah I agree. That's my problem with this post and some commentary. Angry / military atheist is a stereotype by religionists about the nonreligious. Individuals aside, the stereotype is hardly general. I decline to be sucked into religionist baiting or blithely accept that it's true. If some young people are passionate about their atheism, then good on them. Young people are often passionate. That's what atheism needs.

The feeling I recall witnessing some AYA’s was ..gee, given the same numbers, clout & privilege, would their views be driven home with as much intolerance and arrogance as their former oppressors..? Angry yes, arrogant, no..

@TheMiddleWay in your humble opinion. Never ceases to amaze me how you jump on anyone's view that doesn't sit well with you, but your own gross generalisations and simplifications are just fine, like this one.
@Varn

@TheMiddleWay Oh give me a break!

Your comment:
"Dawkins and Hitchens.... are the epitome of arrogance and strong role models for AYA's"

In reply you refer to one Dawkins site article, that says nothing specific like that about Dawkins, and 2 articles from 2 regressive-left magazines, Salon in particular that has waged a campaign against New Atheism for years as everybody knows.

Yes, there are lots of articles and comments from people about atheism being arrogant. Big surprise! Blind Freddie and his friggen' hearing impaired dog knows that. Obviously you are part of that. Again, big surprise! You don't like Dawkins and Harris and alike. Tough. Get Over it. HUGE NUMBERS OF US DO! And if that means young people as well, then great. And history will show that these guys have had a huge impact on the debate, motivating atheism and atheists, and bringing the topic to the forefront. Yes they ruffle a few feathers, like yours. Tough. You like Mr. Dennett. He's more your style. Philosophical and warm and cuddly and grandfather like. I get that. But I doubt his views on religion are any more forgiving than Dawkins and Harris. He just has a different stye, which you like.

And your statement: "Dawkins and Hitchens.... are the epitome of arrogance and strong role models for AYA's" is pure hyperbole.

Not only does it not do justice to Dawkins and Co, but it also shows a patronizing attitude towards young motivated atheists who may have a number of factors influencing their attitude towards religion, not just slavishly following 'role models'.

I began my reply to this post about so-called Angry Young Atheists by saying "More power to them". I say it again. To angry young atheists out there, stay angry, focused, reasoned and determined. You are the future. More power to you;

@TheMiddleWay wrong. I root for passionate young atheists. The poster called them angry. I said it was a beat up. As for you, I doubt you are capable of being passionate about anything, except perhaps the Catholic Church which you suppress. Some of us here, many I think, are passionate about creating a secular religious free world. That does not appear to include you.

@TheMiddleWay I also said " what you mean by angry is open to question" meaning I think they are only passionate, and that the reference to angry was a beat up. But this is pointless. I didn't join this site to deal with argumentative residue Catholics like you with little or no commitment to building a nonreligious world. This image you attempt to project doesn't work on me. There is an intellectual smugness about you which is insufferable. There are many people here with a genuine commitment to the ideal of creating a world without religion. Their ideas are interesting. Their stories are interesting. Their enthusiasm is genuine. They are genuine. You are a facade. You are boring. Your posts are boring. You are everything I don't want to deal with here, so let this be the end of it.

Oh we definitely have a few on here.

When theists claim that atheism is a religion, I'm sure it's precisely that sort of outburst that they have in mind. The evangelical "Must convert everyone to my way of thinking. It isn't enough for me to know that I'm right, I will not rest until I have stamped everyone who disagrees into the ground or brought them around to my way of thinking" attitude exists on both sides of the fence. It isn't constructive, for either side.

Well, i mean you could use the same argument against promoting your policies. Why bother with anything? I think it's important to raise the consciousness of other people.

I wouldn't have the ideas i have today if i didn't listen to people who were coming at this from the other side.

It’s strange how true that is … yet take someone like Madalyn Murray O’Hair.. She’s pissed, aggrieved, threatened, attacked, and eventually murdered ... thus angry -- and gets shit for that even around here! Anger has it’s place, I both get and respect that, but there’s also a price to be paid… I thank, admire, and praise those knowing when and how to use it.. so I don’t always have to ~

@Varn Agreed. I don't buy into the mindset that anger is always a bad thing. I've learned to use my anger as a motivator in a number of ways. I also agree with your last sentence, in spades!!!

Every damned time, too!

LOL.

@TheMiddleWay I think most people would be insulted just because you call them on their bullshit. Even if you're polite.