A Friendly Place?

[tsg]

I had a bit of an epiphany on this which might slightly enhance this thread. It's around the whole Muhammad/Teddy Bear thing.

So I'm sitting in the pub, chatting about the this thing, and someone said 'well, you've got to respect other people's beliefs, haven't you'.

And after a moment of residual liberal humanist anguish I realised in a blinding flash (and almost immediately said, rather too loudly) that no, no I don't.

Whether it be demanding judicial murder over the naming of a soft toy, trying to punish consenting adults over what they do with each other's genitals or simply convincing generation after bloody generation of children that there's an inherent virtue in being able to convince yourself that made-up stuff exists.

I am under no obligation to respect any of that. Doesn't mean I'm going on a proselytising crusade, doesn't mean I don't respect any charitable or kind actions that people who happen to be religious perform (and yes, they do perform them, with sincerity and grace, just as atheists do), doesn't mean I'm about to get nasty. But your beliefs? Nope. Don't respect 'em. Find 'em ridiculous.

Free at last, free at last, thank...um...well, you know what I mean...

Bingo.

I respect others' rights to believe whatever the hell they want. That doesn't mean I have to respect their beliefs any more than the fact that I think people should have the right to make their own decisions means I have to think all their decisions are good ones.

I'd be the last person to suggest that there be a law against hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, but it doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to hit yourself in the head with a hammer and it doesn't mean I won't try to talk you out of it. And if you're trying to make everyone hit themselves in the head with a hammer, you can be damned sure I'm going to be angry about it.

 

[Beth]

And herein lies the paradox, because as soon as an atheist makes his views known, he is labeled as angry. "Militant" is just another word for "outspoken". "Be friendly" means "keep quiet about it".

I don't agree with this. I don't think that athiests making their views known is viewed as 'angry' or 'militant', nor does 'be friendly' mean 'keep quiet about it'. Why do you think this is the case?

Somehow, I'm the one whose wrong for not tolerating the intolerance of others. Bollocks to that.

What are you talking about here?

The stereotype is inaccurate. That is the point.

I'm not so sure of that. The little research available on atheists indicates that, as a group, people who are active in atheist organziations tend to be less happy (which may correlate with anger). Incidently, the same research also indicates that atheists tend to be more intelligent that the population at large.

When someone attributes fundamentalist behavior to all Christians, everyone, atheists included, come out of the woodwork to say that it isn't true of all Christians. When atheists are outspoken, angry even, regardless of why, they are accused of reinforcing the stereotype. It's a BS double standard.

When atheists are angrily outspoken, they ARE reinforcing the stereotype. It is possible to be outspoken without expressing anger.

"Angry atheist" implies he has no reason to be angry. It's not just dismissing the argument out of hand, it's refusing to acknowledge there's even one being made.

Why does it imply that there is no reason to be angry? What argument is being dismissed?

 

[bokonon]

This qualifies as angry? It must be a usage of the word I'm not familiar with.

Check this one out. Amazing Atheist "agrees" to debate creationist

But let me ask you another question I think is more important: Do you know why these people are angry in the first place?

I assume they're each angry for their own reasons. This "Amazing Atheist" guy just seems like an angry dude in general.

I'm angry too. I'm angry that the "evolution/creationism" debate is actually clawing its way into the sunlight again, like a zombie seeking a brain. I thought that one was settled, and the fact that it's not is the primary reason that I'm on a board like this. I was a "closet atheist" for decades, even when I lived in the Bible Belt, because (except, I guess, for the "blue laws") it didn't seem to matter what other people believed. I thought people could keep their delusions compartmentalized, could keep them inside their churches. It seems I was mistaken.

I recognize that it's difficult to tell people that their most cherished beliefs are a load of rubbish without offending them, no matter how nicely or how circumspectly or how respectfully it's phrased. I still think it's important to try. Sneering may be satisfying, and (with people like DOC) may even be almost unavoidable, but we're supposed to be the reasonable side here. I think the more often we present ourselves as calm and open-minded, rather than boiling over with contemptuous cursing, the more likely we are to be heard. Yes, there are those who will still dismiss even someone who is as even-tempered as Richard Dawkins. There may be no way to reach such people. I still think the Richard Dawkins type of atheist is a better representative than the Amazing Atheist type of atheist. Unfortunately, I think most people, when they picture an abstract "atheist," see someone more like the latter.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Atheists are demonized so much that many theists use the term as a derogatory. Reference the Dover Intelligent Design fiasco for evidence of this.

 

[-Fran-]

Yes, there are those who will still dismiss even someone who is as even-tempered as Richard Dawkins. There may be no way to reach such people. I still think the Richard Dawkins type of atheist is a better representative than the Amazing Atheist type of atheist. Unfortunately, I think most people, when they picture an abstract "atheist," see someone more like the latter.

Isn't Richard Dawkins often used by theists (and others too) as just an example of the angry militant and arrogantly rude atheist though?

 

[tsg]

I don't agree with this. I don't think that athiests making their views known is viewed as 'angry' or 'militant', nor does 'be friendly' mean 'keep quiet about it'. Why do you think this is the case?
What are you talking about here?

Because the vast majority of people complaining about "angry atheists" haven't given a moments thought about why they are angry. Because every complaint of violation of separation of church and state in the US is met with flippant remarks of "militant atheism" with virtually no discussion of the argument being made. Fifty years ago the same people would be complaining about "those uppity negroes".

I'm not so sure of that. The little research available on atheists indicates that, as a group, people who are active in atheist organziations tend to be less happy (which may correlate with anger).

And why do you think that is?

When atheists are angrily outspoken, they ARE reinforcing the stereotype.

The stereotype only exists if you ignore why they are angry in the first place. When was the last time you heard someone say "he's an angry atheist, but he has good reason to be"?

It is possible to be outspoken without expressing anger.

Why should it be necessary to be outspoken without expressing anger? If I'm angry about something, I'm going to make damned sure the people who are making me angry know about it. Intolerance makes me angry. Asking me not to be angry about it is asking me to be tolerant of others' intolerance. I refuse.

Why does it imply that there is no reason to be angry? What argument is being dismissed?

Any argument being made. "He's just an angry atheist" is refusing to even entertain the idea that he might have a reason for being angry.

 

[tsg]

I assume they're each angry for their own reasons. This "Amazing Atheist" guy just seems like an angry dude in general.

And that's pretty much my point. You don't know what there reasons are nor do you care. It's just so much easier to lump them into a single group to be dismissed with the wave of a hand without considering that they may have a point. And if they don't have a point, then fine, criticize their arguments for being wrong or misinformed. But simply labeling them as "angry atheists" is just dismissing an entire group of people as irrelevant based on the actions of a few.

I'm angry too. I'm angry that the "evolution/creationism" debate is actually clawing its way into the sunlight again, like a zombie seeking a brain. I thought that one was settled, and the fact that it's not is the primary reason that I'm on a board like this. I was a "closet atheist" for decades, even when I lived in the Bible Belt, because (except, I guess, for the "blue laws") it didn't seem to matter what other people believed. I thought people could keep their delusions compartmentalized, could keep them inside their churches. It seems I was mistaken.

I recognize that it's difficult to tell people that their most cherished beliefs are a load of rubbish without offending them, no matter how nicely or how circumspectly or how respectfully it's phrased. I still think it's important to try. Sneering may be satisfying, and (with people like DOC) may even be almost unavoidable, but we're supposed to be the reasonable side here. I think the more often we present ourselves as calm and open-minded, rather than boiling over with contemptuous cursing, the more likely we are to be heard. Yes, there are those who will still dismiss even someone who is as even-tempered as Richard Dawkins. There may be no way to reach such people. I still think the Richard Dawkins type of atheist is a better representative than the Amazing Atheist type of atheist. Unfortunately, I think most people, when they picture an abstract "atheist," see someone more like the latter.

Reason and politeness have their place. So does anger. Anger can be an effective way to motivate people to take action. Atheists are a minority. In order to stop the injustice we need other people whose lives aren't directly affected to care. They won't care if it we don't.

 

[triadboy]

Huh?

I, for one, do not hate you for not believing in God.

So, what's your beef again?

DR

You are right, a good Christian would not 'hate' - the word is 'pity'....because the non-believer is going to hell.

Quiet pity seems worse then hate, because it also carries with it, an "I know something you don't know" attitude.

On the other side of the coin - the atheist attitude toward the pitying believer is one of stupified amazement at the ignorance of a large block of people.

 

[Beth]

Because the vast majority of people complaining about "angry atheists" haven't given a moments thought about why they are angry. Because every complaint of violation of separation of church and state in the US is met with flippant remarks of "militant atheism" with virtually no discussion of the argument being made. Fifty years ago the same people would be complaining about "those uppity negroes".

No doubt, some of them would have, but not all. I think you are rather flippantly dismissing the complaints of 'militant atheism' even when they come from other atheists or agnostics.

And why do you think that is?

I don't know. Why do you think that is?

The stereotype only exists if you ignore why they are angry in the first place. When was the last time you heard someone say "he's an angry atheist, but he has good reason to be"?

Excuse me? There is a stereotype that atheists are angry and you a) complain that the stereotype is unjustified and b) claim that the anger is justified. This doesn't make sense to me. If the anger is justified, then perhaps the stereotype is too.

Why should it be necessary to be outspoken without expressing anger?

It isn't necessary. Clearly one can be outspoken with or without expressing anger. But it doesn't make sense to complain about the stereotype of angry atheists and, at the same time, maintain that atheists are justified in their anger and have the right to express it. That may be true, but that only perpetuates the stereotype.

If I'm angry about something, I'm going to make damned sure the people who are making me angry know about it. Intolerance makes me angry. Asking me not to be angry about it is asking me to be tolerant of others' intolerance. I refuse.

Any argument being made. "He's just an angry atheist" is refusing to even entertain the idea that he might have a reason for being angry.

I don't think anyone is asking you not to be angry about the intolerance you feel you must endure from society. But if you want society to change, angry outbursts about the injustice of a stereotype you are perpetuating with your angry outbursts will not facilitate that IMO.

 

[bokonon]

Isn't Richard Dawkins often used by theists (and others too) as just an example of the angry militant and arrogantly rude atheist though?

If he is, I expect it's by people who know nothing about him beyond the fact that he's written a book called "The God Delusion." Anyone who's actually seen him express an opinion would be hard-pressed to characterize his style as "angry."

 

[bokonon]

And that's pretty much my point. You don't know what there reasons are nor do you care. It's just so much easier to lump them into a single group to be dismissed with the wave of a hand without considering that they may have a point. And if they don't have a point, then fine, criticize their arguments for being wrong or misinformed. But simply labeling them as "angry atheists" is just dismissing an entire group of people as irrelevant based on the actions of a few.

Which is why I think displays of anger are counterproductive. They give people an excuse to tune out, to dismiss without hearing. If you have a point to make, make it calmly and reasonably, with the attitude that you're willing to listen to the other side's viewpoint too. Even if you've heard it a thousand times before, hear it out before you rip into it. That, to me, is the meaning of "respect." Not that I have to respect the belief itself, but I need to respect the person expressing it enough to let him state it clearly.

Reason and politeness have their place. So does anger. Anger can be an effective way to motivate people to take action. Atheists are a minority. In order to stop the injustice we need other people whose lives aren't directly affected to care. They won't care if it we don't.

Anger may occasionally be an effective way to motivate action, but it's rare that it will earn respect. Yes, we are a minority, but I personally don't feel like I'm a victim of "injustice." Whether you do or not, the first step toward accomplishing anything is to be heard. The theistic position is ubiquitous, so it's easy for it to be heard. That may make people impatient when it's necessary to hear it again, but I honestly think that listening and responding calmly and rationally is more effective than publicly venting.

I also think humor, and even ridicule, has its place, so don't get the idea that I'm urging all atheists to become Smurfs, but in my opinion we aren't persecuted enough in the United States to justify a lot of anger.

 

[-Fran-]

If he is, I expect it's by people who know nothing about him beyond the fact that he's written a book called "The God Delusion." Anyone who's actually seen him express an opinion would be hard-pressed to characterize his style as "angry."

I agree, but isn't it the very point of many here, that it is this prejudiced view of atheists that are prevailing, and that in many cases it really doesn't matter if you are toned down and respectful?

 

[tsg]

No doubt, some of them would have, but not all. I think you are rather flippantly dismissing the complaints of 'militant atheism' even when they come from other atheists or agnostics.

When the comment consists solely of "yet more militant atheism", how am I supposed to address it?

I don't know. Why do you think that is?

You brought it up. Did you consider why they are angry or did you just write them off as being angry?

Excuse me? There is a stereotype that atheists are angry and you a) complain that the stereotype is unjustified and b) claim that the anger is justified. This doesn't make sense to me. If the anger is justified, then perhaps the stereotype is too.

I am complaining that the stereotype doesn't address the issue. It is completely pointless to talk about "angry atheists" unless you also discuss why they are angry. Making flippant comments about angry atheists without discussing why they are angry is insinuating they have no reason to be.

It isn't necessary.

Apparently it is given how distasteful "angry atheism" is.

Clearly one can be outspoken with or without expressing anger. But it doesn't make sense to complain about the stereotype of angry atheists and, at the same time, maintain that atheists are justified in their anger and have the right to express it.

I can when the stereotype implies they have no reason to be angry.

That may be true, but that only perpetuates the stereotype.

"Gays should be less obviously gay." Whatever.

I don't think anyone is asking you not to be angry about the intolerance you feel you must endure from society. But if you want society to change, angry outbursts about the injustice of a stereotype you are perpetuating with your angry outbursts will not facilitate that IMO.

So, people dismissing the entire argument because I am angry about it is somehow my fault?

 

[tsg]

Which is why I think displays of anger are counterproductive. They give people an excuse to tune out, to dismiss without hearing. If you have a point to make, make it calmly and reasonably, with the attitude that you're willing to listen to the other side's viewpoint too. Even if you've heard it a thousand times before, hear it out before you rip into it. That, to me, is the meaning of "respect." Not that I have to respect the belief itself, but I need to respect the person expressing it enough to let him state it clearly.

I see, so I'm supposed to show respect for someone who hates me because I don't believe in their god. I'm sorry. Some positions are so ridiculous people should be embarrassed for even considering them. I don't care in the slightest why they think I am less of a person and I'll be damned if I'm even going to feign respect for anyone who believes it. Nobody gets upset when the sensibilities of other racists are offended, I don't see why this should be any different.

Anger may occasionally be an effective way to motivate action, but it's rare that it will earn respect. Yes, we are a minority, but I personally don't feel like I'm a victim of "injustice." Whether you do or not, the first step toward accomplishing anything is to be heard. The theistic position is ubiquitous, so it's easy for it to be heard. That may make people impatient when it's necessary to hear it again, but I honestly think that listening and responding calmly and rationally is more effective than publicly venting.

I disagree.

I also think humor, and even ridicule, has its place, so don't get the idea that I'm urging all atheists to become Smurfs, but in my opinion we aren't persecuted enough in the United States to justify a lot of anger.

You don't see it so it isn't happening. Now I get it.

 

[bokonon]

I see, so I'm supposed to show respect for someone who hates me because I don't believe in their god. I'm sorry. Some positions are so ridiculous people should be embarrassed for even considering them. I don't care in the slightest why they think I am less of a person and I'll be damned if I'm even going to feign respect for anyone who believes it. Nobody gets upset when the sensibilities of other racists are offended, I don't see why this should be any different.

You're not "supposed" to do anything. I think you'd find communication easier if you weren't walking around with a chip on your shoulder, but since you think you're entitled to have one, and apparently think the only thing you MUST communicate is your contempt of someone's ridiculous belief, I guess there isn't a lot to discuss.

You don't see it so it isn't happening. Now I get it.

How, exactly, are you persecuted? Do the police have you under surveillance for being an atheist? Have you been fired from your job, denied an apartment, stripped of your right to vote? What's happening to you that isn't happening to me?

 

[tsg]

You're not "supposed" to do anything. I think you'd find communication easier if you weren't walking around with a chip on your shoulder, but since you think you're entitled to have one, and apparently think the only thing you MUST communicate is your contempt of someone's ridiculous belief, I guess there isn't a lot to discuss.

This is exactly what I mean about dismissing the argument. You have no idea why I'm angry and no desire to find out. It's just so much easier to label me as an "angry atheist" with a chip on my shoulder that you can dismiss with the wave of a hand.

How, exactly, are you persecuted? Do the police have you under surveillance for being an atheist? Have you been fired from your job, denied an apartment, stripped of your right to vote? What's happening to you that isn't happening to me?

Let's see. When I was in boy scouts I was tormented and teased for not being Christian while the adults looked the other way. I was accosted by a nurse when my hours-old daughter lay dying because I didn't want to have her baptized. I have a former President of the United States telling me I'm not a real citizen because I don't believe in god. I have no end of morons insisting that my child be taught their religious beliefs because they don't understand evolution. I have other parents criticizing me because my son doesn't go to catechism with their kids (and we're not Jewish). And in social settings with people I don't know very well, if the subject of religion comes up, I have to bite my tongue and remain silent for fear of offending others, being called and thought of as evil, and hated for simply believing in one fewer god than they do. Shall I continue?

Note that in none of these situations did I make my atheism at all apparent until asked to conform to some other person's religious beliefs. The incident in boy scouts started because we were marched to chapel on a Sunday morning while camping and it was very obvious I had never attended services before. The hospital nurse asked me if I wanted her to get the chaplain when it looked like my daughter might not make it "just in case" and treated me with absolute derision and contempt when I said "that won't be necessary". My son's mere absence from religious classes is enough to warrant scorn from other parents. Chip on my shoulder, my ass. Except for here, I keep my lack of beliefs to myself unless asked or expected to conform to someone else's.

Not that I expect you to care about any of this. I'm just an angry atheist with a chip on his shoulder who is overreacting to imagined injustices that aren't happening because you don't see them.

 

[Stone Island]

This is exactly what I mean about dismissing the argument. You have no idea why I'm angry and no desire to find out. It's just so much easier to label me as an "angry atheist" with a chip on my shoulder that you can dismiss with the wave of a hand.



Let's see. When I was in boy scouts I was tormented and teased for not being Christian while the adults looked the other way. I was accosted by a nurse when my hours-old daughter lay dying because I didn't want to have her baptized. I have a former President of the United States telling me I'm not a real citizen because I don't believe in god. I have no end of morons insisting that my child be taught their religious beliefs because they don't understand evolution. I have other parents criticizing me because my son doesn't go to catechism with their kids (and we're not Jewish). And in social settings with people I don't know very well, if the subject of religion comes up, I have to bite my tongue and remain silent for fear of offending others, being called and thought of as evil, and hated for simply believing in one fewer god than they do. Shall I continue?

Note that in none of these situations did I make my atheism at all apparent until asked to conform to some other person's religious beliefs. The incident in boy scouts started because we were marched to chapel on a Sunday morning while camping and it was very obvious I had never attended services before. The hospital nurse asked me if I wanted her to get the chaplain when it looked like my daughter might not make it "just in case" and treated me with absolute derision and contempt when I said "that won't be necessary". My son's mere absence from religious classes is enough to warrant scorn from other parents. Chip on my shoulder, my ass. Except for here, I keep my lack of beliefs to myself unless asked or expected to conform to someone else's.

Not that I expect you to care about any of this. I'm just an angry atheist with a chip on his shoulder who is overreacting to imagined injustices that aren't happening because you don't see them.

You didn't answer the question. How are you persecuted?

 

[tsg]

You didn't answer the question. How are you persecuted?

Go to hell.

 

[Stone Island]

Go to hell.

Why don't you try friendly? Anger doesn't seem to be getting through.

 

[Nogbad]

I'm baffled by this - debate and bit of banter about theism and atheism is fun but I don't actually care if people think I am right or not and I certainly don't want to convert anyone to think like me. Consequently, I see no need to be friendly or unfriendly - although it is nice to be nice and all that