A Friendly Place?

[-Fran-]

It appears Denmark only had peaceful demonstrations after the Mohammad cartoon incident.

There is this "Fjordman" blog that seems pretty anti-Islamist. And isn't there some Evangelical political faction growing in one of the Scandinavian countries? I thought it was Denmark but I can't find anything on Google to confirm my vague memory.

I'm not sure if this stuff counts as atheism against theism but it does point out that when theism begins to affect your life, the "war" behavior comes out in many otherwise peaceful people. It's probably just taken longer to reach Scandinavia, that's all.

From Theocracy Watch

Yes, you're right. I do think we will probably see more of these things in the future. It's part of my point as well. That atheists really have no reason to be angry, unless religion in some way starts to influence their lives in a less than desirable way. That "the angry atheist" is 1) mostly in the head of the theists, and 2) when there really are angry atheists, it is provoked by religion being "pushy". (with the exception of the real nuts on both sides who will be angry no matter what their religion/non-religion is).

Most atheists does simply not see themselves as "having something in particular to fight for", they're just non-religious. The need to defend your lack of belief in gods, does not occur to you until it's threatened, I guess. Things like this happening (muslim groups arriving, the mohammed cartoon affair and so on) sure seems threatening to some, but it isn't clear to me that that alone will "wake up" the angry atheists. It seems to more be riling up the racists actually. It seems to become a political thing more than an atheist/theist-thing, yes. Islam is not seen so much as a religion that threatens secularism here, I suspect. It's seen more as a culture that threatens Scandinavian culture. I think atheists, (Christian) theists and all grades in between, that all have a racist streak, will unite in their suspicion of Islam.

I think that when the ordinary every day atheists will really start to feel threatened is when society in general will start to act suspicious and rude to atheists, for example in the way that tsg described above. Then it is no longer "them" "the others" who threaten your non-belief, weird groups that you can dismiss as just that. But suddenly it's your neighbours... that can provoke the "angry atheist" to appear, I think. That's more what I see happening in the USA, and what not seems to happen so much in Scandinavia.

I am sure we will see more of the things you mention above here though, yes, but these situations are still not reflective of what average people in general seem to think about atheists. What was that poll that showed that a rather big percentage of Americans wouldn't trust or vote for an atheist for president? I must check that up! Well, the reason to why that type of questions are asked at all, says something, I guess, about the general view of atheists among "ordinary" people. That fundementalist religious groups will have a negative view of atheists are not strange, and yeah, we have those groups here as well. There's certain Christian groups that has been in Scandinavia "for ages", and certain muslim groups that are a more recent thing.

Well, that's what all this seems like to me, but I am only speculating here.

 

[articulett]

Here's the poll

http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm
http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/would-you-vote-for-atheist.html

And here's an atheist show out of Austin that gives recent updates on what is going on in America with this faith based nuttiness.

http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/audio/

And this is great too: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2025,n,n

And for a real frightening look at the world's superpower:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1206,A-Look-at-Regent-University,Bill-Moyers-Journal

And here are a few telling clips too:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1...ut-the-Romney-Religion-Speech,Keith-Olbermann
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1...uch-Will-Voters-Accept,Michael-Luo-NYTimescom

I appreciate your support Fran. It has just gotten weird in the US. Embarrassingly so, I think.

And they are crappy to kids who don't believe too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk

I always wonder if my silence encourages the spread of this primitive nuttiness.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The blustery reaction from the religious is almost always unmerited. They don't let that stop them though.

When a person, like JJ, can't honestly refute an argument, he ignores it.

 

[articulett]

When a person, like JJ, can't honestly refute an argument, he ignores it.

I think of JJ as a surly apologist. He is a Dawkins basher. I think he's envious that people don't listen to him as readily as Dawkins . I always wonder about those advocating a "kinder, gentler, atheism..." Do the theists feel like these guys speak for them, I wonder? He strikes me as one of those guys that are quick to point out the slightest fault of an atheist and exaggerate it to obnoxious extremes while ignoring and apologizing for the egregious actions of the faithful caused by faith. I think when people are telling atheists to be friendlier they are really saying "be friendlier to me than I plan on being to you... respect my opinions more than I respect yours"

Do people see the skeptics who are critical of atheists as being nicer than the average atheist... Most of the people I think of as friendly atheists are not critical of anybody-- but they are critical of "belief systems" and want to keep church and state separate.

 

[-Fran-]

Here's the poll

http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm
http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/would-you-vote-for-atheist.html

And here's an atheist show out of Austin that gives recent updates on what is going on in America with this faith based nuttiness.

http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/audio/

And this is great too: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2025,n,n

And for a real frightening look at the world's superpower:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1206,A-Look-at-Regent-University,Bill-Moyers-Journal

And here are a few telling clips too:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1...ut-the-Romney-Religion-Speech,Keith-Olbermann
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1...uch-Will-Voters-Accept,Michael-Luo-NYTimescom

I appreciate your support Fran. It has just gotten weird in the US. Embarrassingly so, I think.

And they are crappy to kids who don't believe too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk

I always wonder if my silence encourages the spread of this primitive nuttiness.

Thanks for the links!! I will enjoy watching the "four horsemen"

It does seem, to a wide-eyed North European, that USA have gone a bit weird, yes. Though I try to express that carefully, since many might take it personally, and there are, admittingly, weird things going on in all countries (and there are things in Sweden I am highly critical about as well, of course).

I think that what many up here find so weird about USA is that we have so much in common otherwise. We have many similar traditions and a similar culture, and share many values, and USA is a big influence in many ways. So many of us emigrated to the USA in older times, and you all feel like our "cousins" over there, so to speak But then there pops up these things that just seem rather foreign to us, things we would expect more from cultures that are more different from us. Such as these religiously flavored situations, people fighting over Christmas trees, trials about creationism in schools, presidents who spouts religious messages, people thinking atheists are dangerous... TVevangelists ...

Sure, as I said before, there are nutty groups here as well. But what we think we see, here from the outside, looking in on USA is that these things are not just small marginalized groups, but a much larger part of USA as a whole, and things that seems very influential on the American society as a whole. I don't know if this is really the true image or not, but that is still the image of USA that many Europeans have. If it is a true image, then personally I find it worrying, since USA is such a powerful nation, that has influence on us all.

But I am unsure about what is the truth and what is not. The image I see from here can also be biased by so many things.

 

[tsg]

He's made you angry. Now you're not listening to him. Is it because you are assuming that the other has nothing to say or are you assuming that you don't want to hear whatever it is he has to say?

The difference is I listened to him first and let him prove himself a jackass before I decided he had nothing interesting to say.

 

[tsg]

I'm sorry, your childish egocentricity seems to have given you the mistaken impression that my ability to express myself is contingent on your interest in what I have to say. It isn't.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3246906#post3246906

 

[-Fran-]

I always wonder if my silence encourages the spread of this primitive nuttiness.

I do think silence on the whole encourages it, yes (as do showing the kind of "respect" that many theists demand). But who can blame the individual for not putting their neck on the line in all possible situations? You just want to live your every day life in peace. If there's a real risk for different types of harrassment, or social exclusion, it's rational to not want to speak up until one feels one is cornered, or it's too much of a blow to your integrity not to say anything.

I agree there is no reason to not speak your mind here in this forum, as long as it is done in a way that is within the rules of conduct of this forum. Those who want to "tone it down" are free to do so.

 

[fishkr]

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.

2000 years of preaching and persecution, repression and theological chauvanism without a shred of evidence or proof to support any of it. Stupified amazement seems like an appropriate response to me.

 

[fishkr]

I am ignoring the difference. I fail to see how killing for a god is any different from killing for a non-religious reason. Dead is dead, right? You still took another human's life. In the theist's case, his religious beliefs failed to stop him from taking another's life and in the atheist's case his non-belief failed. To the victim, it makes no difference.

Ok, I do understand that there's this popular meme going around that says that religions force people into killing, or gives them an out. I don't buy it. People do evil things. Look a the prison experiment. There was no religion involved there, and yet the "guards" abuse the "prisoners" to the point that the experiment had to be shut down. Violence and murder are part of our code, sorry to say. They help protect the tribe, which helps to control the gene pool of a locale. Religion just gives a face, poetically speaking, to the impersonal impulses we feel.

I fear that if atheism were as populous as religions are, the excuse "god told me to" would be quickly replaced by another, equivalently vacuous one.

If this arguement were valid, one would expect a predominantly atheist country like Norway, for example, to have a lot of murders and brutal crimes. But statistically they don't seem to.

 

[jjramsey]

I think of JJ as a surly apologist.

Apologist? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

He is a Dawkins basher.

A statement with no more substance than "Dawkins is a religion basher." Are you denying that Dawkins has said and done some things worth bashing?

I think he's envious that people don't listen to him as readily as Dawkins.

Ooh, wow, baseless speculation of motives!

 

[jjramsey]

Oh, I missed this ...

As opposed to whom?

Richard Dawkins, who recites grace when that duty falls to him at his Oxford college, and counts the Bishop of Oxford among his friends?

Christopher Hitchens, who has hosted Jewish religious ceremonies in his own home?

So some of Dawkins' and Hitchens' best friends are theists?

 

[Darth Rotor]

As a fan of, supporter of, producer of (very small scale) digital media I personally believe that 99 % of you-tube sucks. That would be because about 99 % of the people doing video on you-tube should not be allowed to touch the equipment - even if they own it. And the part that doesn't is just not enough for me to wallow through the rest --

Another vote for this position, even though I don't produce digital media. (Some of the people I work with do.)

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

I see, you seem to believe that your cookie cutter of a Christian is to be used. Thanks so much for the kilt fitting.

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

You assume a great deal.

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.

When setting fire to strawmen, it is first important to build them.

Hell, why burn 'em? Just nuke em until the glow!

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I already alluded to the fact we atheists have no special human qualities. But somewhere in my experiences, I know there is a different quality to "killing for god" than there is to "killing for atheism". I think you are ignoring that difference.

Much better to kill for King and Country, as I see it.

One can have a bit of fun with this, of course. It is the position of some, in the public debate over the Establishment clause, that the wall between church and state (Jefferson's term) is to be infinitely high, because of one justification or another.

Those of us who swore to support and defend the Constitution, etc, while serving under the colors thus support and defend a secular state, and if you take those arguments down to a gnat's behind, a state absent religion in its structure. ("Whatever you theists do in the closet/ in private is your own concern" is one line I see used.) Being slightly coy with that train of thought makes the US, by structure, an atheist state, as in the "not" a theist state," and therefore

Anyone who is killed by the US armed forces is killed in support of (in the name of) atheism. (That only works if you make secularism and atheism synonyms, which is a bit of a reach IMO.)

Yes, you have to play a few semantic games to get there, but no more than the rash of semantic games one sees in this thread, or on this forum on a daily basis.

thaiboxerken:

I have noticed over time that jj tends to respond to arguments of merit, so perhaps what he is ignoring is cheap shots not worthy of comment.

Can't speak for him.

Here's an example of what I mean.

The blustery reaction from the religious is almost always unmerited. They don't let that stop them though.

Would you rather a response to that jab, one that is in the same tone? I might have come back with

"Bukkake us with the seminal emission of your wisdom."
(quoting -- D'rok Lacone )

Maybe ignoring a cheap shot is a classier way of dealing with one than a smart alec response, which I for one tend to offer up in a quid pro quo.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes and no. If you look at the kind of humor that he shows on his blog, he does make some playful but sharp jabs at religion, and he is quite open about criticizing it. It's just that he also has long since made clear that he views religious people as human beings rather that some adversarial "Them."

Well said, jj.

Some of our participants here have chosen to use the "them" construction, an obstacle to human interaction in many cases. When one wants to hate, it is first useful to find a "they" or a "them" to hate.

DR

 

[Ladewig]

Does that make Berkowitz a dyslexic schizoid?

I thought it was funny even if no one else did.

 

[bokonon]

As a fan of, supporter of, producer of (very small scale) digital media I personally believe that 99 % of you-tube sucks. That would be because about 99 % of the people doing video on you-tube should not be allowed to touch the equipment - even if they own it. And the part that doesn't is just not enough for me to wallow through the rest to find (so I let others do the wallowing and go when they come up with something worth the effort - though that even runs at under 40% successful).

I wouldn't put the percentage at 99%, but it's way up there. Maybe I have lower standards; more likely, the searching and filtering I do (including watching only 5 seconds of a given video) helps me miss some of the suckiness. I think the big problem is that people who haven't given even a moment's thought to what it is they want to say, think something appropriate will come to them when the camera rolls, and can't be troubled to edit their spew once it's recorded.

I also think the wheat sometimes justifies the chaff, but we desperately need better tools to help weed out the latter. Boards like this one (where all the links are "recommended" for some purpose -- I certainly wouldn't have recommended any of the videos I posted except as bad examples) provide one such tool.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Thanks for the links!! I will enjoy watching the "four horsemen"

It does seem, to a wide-eyed North European, that USA have gone a bit weird, yes. Though I try to express that carefully, since many might take it personally, and there are, admittingly, weird things going on in all countries (and there are things in Sweden I am highly critical about as well, of course).

I think that what many up here find so weird about USA is that we have so much in common otherwise. We have many similar traditions and a similar culture, and share many values, and USA is a big influence in many ways. So many of us emigrated to the USA in older times, and you all feel like our "cousins" over there, so to speak But then there pops up these things that just seem rather foreign to us, things we would expect more from cultures that are more different from us. Such as these religiously flavored situations, people fighting over Christmas trees, trials about creationism in schools, presidents who spouts religious messages, people thinking atheists are dangerous... TVevangelists ...

Sure, as I said before, there are nutty groups here as well. But what we think we see, here from the outside, looking in on USA is that these things are not just small marginalized groups, but a much larger part of USA as a whole, and things that seems very influential on the American society as a whole. I don't know if this is really the true image or not, but that is still the image of USA that many Europeans have. If it is a true image, then personally I find it worrying, since USA is such a powerful nation, that has influence on us all.

But I am unsure about what is the truth and what is not. The image I see from here can also be biased by so many things.

Thank you, Fran, but I'd have to add that I don't think the United States is as weird as you think it is.

It was when we came here that my family stopped going to church. My cousins and friends in Poland are devout Catholics and all of our extended family is much more religious than we are.

I was born and raised in America and way back when I was a practising Catholic, I was an anomaly among my peers. For instance, I was one of two kids in my class and that went to Sunday school in elementary school and in high school, I was one of maybe five or six that had a Christian background. I'd say the Jews, Muslims and others but they were mostly secular as well, allthough I did have a practising Jewish friend and a teacher.

All things considered, I'd say I took more for being religious in America than I do now for being an agnostic in America.

Of course, "New York City isn't the rest of America" but even when I go to "the rest of America", I'm pleasantly surprised.

For instance, I went to Texas last summer - I've always had a fascination with Texas but had never been there before- and I don't know what I was expecting but I was surprised at how multi-cultural, modern and cosmopolitan San Antonio and Houston are. I apologize if that sounds condescending or ignorant, which it probably does.

You heard a few wacky things on radio and TV once in a while, to be sure, things that made my sister and me exchange "You'd never hear that in New York!" glances but other than that, it was great.

To be perfectly honest, the only thing that shocked me in Texas is that they have artists, homosexuals, Europeans, Muslims and Jews.

Edit: It's just my experience, of course, but I think most Americans are more liberal than people from other countries think. As a matter of fact, I think Americans are more liberal than we ourselves think we are.

 

[kmortis]

If this arguement were valid, one would expect a predominantly atheist country like Norway, for example, to have a lot of murders and brutal crimes. But statistically they don't seem to.

There could be other confounding factors. Like it being to damned cold to go out and commit crimes there.

I dunno, you could be right. I'd have to see a comparative study of per capita crime rates between Norway and other comparable countries. I don't think it'd be fair to compare a homogeneous country like Norway against heterogeneous one like the US, though. Try the UK, Sweden, Japan Germany, Italy and Australia. Maybe the Balkans too. That should give us the proper comparative breadth we need to make a decent judgment.