Condescending responses

This was in response to the article, "How can you dismiss the Bible/Koran if you haven't read it?".

It does sound like you're on the cusp of understanding the point of the article. I haven't read all of the holy books either. We have no intellectually honest obligation to do so. Their failure to proactively demonstrate their claims is all the justification we need to dismiss them. Humanity is likely creating tens of thousands of supernatural claims per day. It's not our responsibility to thoroughly research them all.

We'll get to the condescension in a moment.

I haven't come across a religion that wasn't a mythology. From Dictionary.com,

1. a body of myths, as that of a particular people or that relating to a particular person: Greek mythology.
2. myths collectively.
3. the science or study of myths.
4. a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered:

#4 is the one in use here. But what is a myth?

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

The struggle is figuring out which of these applies the most. Keep in mind... we're atheists. Our extended platform tends to be that religious beliefs are false invented stories. So it shouldn't be shocking that we're going to call it out as such. To ask us to stop calling it a myth is essentially asking us not to contradict you. I have no plans to discontinue.

If I cant assume my view is true and correct then neither should an atheist.

That condescension is right around the corner, in just a moment.

A world view is not 0% assumption or 100% assumption. The only assumptions I originally make are the ones that are absolutely necessary to function. For instance,

• I exist
• I have some access to something called "reality" (the "why" is not addressed)
• That "reality" has consistency

As much as I can, I minimize all other assumptions beyond this bare-most minimum. I see assumptions and faith as bad, and to be eliminated. I'm willing to assume bet that you and I agree on the three, at least. Where we rapidly part ways, is that I don't see those initial three as a blanket free-for-all to make whatever assumptions I want. The religious person, on the other hand, goes hog-wild. 

And then those people have the audacity to bless an atheist site with their presence and imply that those two world views are equals. They're not. One of these is objectively better than the other. 

Which is it? The one that does its best to minimize unjustified assumptions; to best-fit their world view to what aligns with demonstrable reality...  or the one that makes things up in spite of the staggering void of empirical justification and flies in the face of demonstrable reality, and nothing will dissuade them otherwise?

Keep in mind that a substantial chunk of my atheistic world view is that unambiguously all religious people I've encountered have failed to demonstrate their claims. That's not an assumption. That's observation. So when you say that an atheist shouldn't be able to assume their world view, we're thinking, "no shit?". Didn't even realize that option was on the table.

These two world views are not on equal footing, on assumptions or otherwise.

How's that for condescending? We don't (usually) go out of our way to condescend, but that's not something that'll be particularly policed here. We run into many religious people who seem to expect undue and undeserved respect for their beliefs, and to a degree, to deny them that respect is intentional. To give it respect is to affirm it. 

We don't expect respect or deference for our world view. We expect to be automatically distrusted, or treated as "broken", or as liars because we actually do believe but want to sin -  because we don't believe in the silly god thing. We expect to have to actually defend and justify our world view, on demand.

When being an out-atheist all but guarantees political un-electability, particularly in the U.S., from religious people who tell us they'll pray for us because we don't believe  them, or our atheism still cannot be brought up in polite company among a sea of religious babble, condescension is the least of our concerns.