A Friendly Place?

[thaiboxerken]

When theists see someone like Dawkins as "ANGRY" there really is no way to not look angry as an atheist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well........

Some of we atheists can't understand why so many people in the educated modern world still believe in gods. Speaking as one of those atheists, while I don't have a mission to convert any specific god believers per se, if skeptics weren't making an exception for 'special god beliefs' then I'd imagine we would be including those beliefs in with the other woo targets of the JREF mission.

Being mean and nasty, however, is no way to convert anyone. I have certainly become annoyed my fair share of times in the forum. But I cannot imagine any skeptic attacking anyone physically or spamming them with death threats, expletives, and/or ostracizing them for their beliefs. Behavior like that is common among a minority of god believers whom appear to be threatened by those who think differently than they do. I suspect reactions from mean comments to outright violence occur when one cannot argue rational logic or the evidence. Atheists may sometimes exhibit rude behavior, especially in response to being on the receiving end of rude behavior, but not death threats.

J.K. Rowling Gets Death Threats Over Harry Potter

An anti-evolutionary Christian extremist suspected of sending threatening letters to biology professors at the University of Colorado...

Nothing atheists do in the name of atheism ever comes close to that kind of thing we see coming from supposed Christians. And certainly nothing atheists do in the name of atheism is anything like the current Islamic violence against non conformers in their own society and against "the infidels" they see as outside their societies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When atheists are angry it's usually because some sappy theist is spouting vapid platitudes and they're being forced to hold their tongue. .....

You know you are just a tad angrier of an atheist than most.

But I understand your position. I get annoyed at all the coddling skeptics do regarding special god beliefs. I understand that too, and I understand the need for it, but it can still be annoying.

 

[kmortis]

Being mean and nasty, however, is no way to convert anyone. I have certainly become annoyed my fair share of times in the forum. But I cannot imagine any skeptic attacking anyone physically or spamming them with death threats, expletives, and/or ostracizing them for their beliefs. Behavior like that is common among a minority of god believers whom appear to be threatened by those who think differently than they do. I suspect reactions from mean comments to outright violence occur when one cannot argue rational logic or the evidence. Atheists may sometimes exhibit rude behavior in response to being on the receiving end of rude behavior. But not death threats.

I can. Skeptics aren't any different from other humans. Granted, I would hope that we'd take the long view, but it can still happen that one of us will lose our temper and do something monstrously stupid. Bear in mind, at the time of this writing, we're a minor minority. There's a butt-load of Christians, which means that there's a proportional number of Buttheads for Jesus who do Really Stupid Things^tm.

If skeptics & atheists get more populous, we'll start seeing more angry skeptics & atheists, more happy ones, more melancholy ones, more stupid ones. There are angry atheists out there. There's just not enough to be a real issue.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've seen this stated by several people in this thread, but I'm not sure it's really true. Sure, maybe you're friendly, and maybe I'm friendly, but check out a few atheist videos on YouTube and that angry, snarling stereotype isn't hard to find. Guys who seem to need to have a cigarette to speak, who can't express themselves without obscenity...

It may be true that most atheists are friendly and in the closet, but I think it's naive to claim that the stereotype has no basis in reality. Lots of folks who are out of the closet fit the stereotype to a T.

While humans get angry when people don't accept their point of view, I'm not sure you can attribute all atheists who lose their temper in an argument to specifically be angry atheists. There are some, Hitchens for one. Obviously he isn't the only one. But it just doesn't come close to those death threats that predictably come out when extremists are raging about their religious beliefs. How many atheists can be counted on to send theists death threats when they block stem cell research, for example?

But I did go looking on YouTube since you brought it up. I found this very pleasant (calming music in the background) ~3 minute comment on angry atheists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can. Skeptics aren't any different from other humans. Granted, I would hope that we'd take the long view, but it can still happen that one of us will lose our temper and do something monstrously stupid. Bear in mind, at the time of this writing, we're a minor minority. There's a butt-load of Christians, which means that there's a proportional number of Buttheads for Jesus who do Really Stupid Things^tm.

If skeptics & atheists get more populous, we'll start seeing more angry skeptics & atheists, more happy ones, more melancholy ones, more stupid ones. There are angry atheists out there. There's just not enough to be a real issue.

Yes, the more I thought about it, the more I realized there would be the usual assortment of atheists as in any usual assortment of humans. But do see my comment above about the death threats. Are you aware of atheists making death threats to theists?

 

[bokonon]

When theists see someone like Dawkins as "ANGRY" there really is no way to not look angry as an atheist.

To those theists.

The fact is, many (most?) theists don't see Dawkins as an angry atheist. There are many theists, including priests and pastors, who are allies in the fight to keep creationism out of the curriculum. Writing them all off with "they're going to dismiss me as an angry atheist no matter what I do, so I might as well let them have it with both barrels," is being just as bigoted as the most hidebound theist. It's counterproductive. If atheists had the numbers to be a political force without such allies, it might not make any difference, but since we don't, it does.

 

[bokonon]

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?

No, I think I get the idea. You choose to be outraged by piddly little things that most adults would shrug off. Tormented and teased in the boy scouts? Poor thing. "Accosted" by a nurse? Did she manhandle you? Or did she just express an opinion that she had no right to express?

You don't have to bite your tongue in social situations with people you don't know very well. I've found that a friendly "I don't happen to believe any of that stuff" doesn't offend anyone, and may even lead to an interesting conversation. I've never felt "hated" for being on the wrong side of someone's opinion.

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 boy scouts were jerks, and the adults should have known better than to let them continue to behave that way.

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".

I'll take your word for it. She's one person, and her opinion has no effect on your life today except the one you're allowing it to have.

My son's mere absence from religious classes is enough to warrant scorn from other parents.

How is this "scorn" expressed? Do they brandish crosses at you when you go out to get your mail? Give you dirty looks in the supermarket? How have you ascertained that the "scorn" you're perceiving is based on nothing more than your son's absence from religious classes?

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.

That's the way it looks to me, sorry. Maybe there's something you're not telling me, but when you have to invoke "Bush Sr. said I wasn't a citizen" and "There are people who want to teach Genesis in school" to fill out your persecution roster, it seems like you've scraped the barrel pretty thoroughly. Even if Bush did say that (and it's not certain), none of your rights as a citizen have been infringed, and as far as I know, the creationists haven't managed to insert their religious beliefs in any public school classroom in the country.

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.

I heard the purported Bush quote, and shrugged. I saw the attempt to alter the curriculum in Dover, and was gratified to see it thwarted. I didn't see the boy scouts tease you, and I didn't see the nurse offend you, and I didn't see your neighbors' scorn. I was teased in boy scouts too, big deal, I also got into a lot of fights, at scout camp and elsewhere. Kids (including me) can be childish, and there's no excuse for the adults who let it continue. That was a long time ago, and the kids who were teasing you then are not all the theists in the world today. If you still have anger toward them that you need to express, you should probably track them down and express it instead of carrying it around to unleash on anyone who innocently asks you to join them in prayer or whatever it is that pushes your buttons. Just my opinion.

 

[tsg]

No, I think I get the idea. You choose to be outraged by piddly little things that most adults would shrug off.

I was eleven when I was in the boy scouts jackass. Shrug that off. And now I'm done with you. I'm not even bothering to read the rest of your drivel. You no longer have anything to say that I'm interested in hearing. How dare you?

I've got the perfect solution to this. Stereotypes work both ways. I'm automatically dismissing, out of hand, without even reading it, any argument containing the words "militant" or "angry atheist" as atheist bashing. Sorry guys, you fit the atheist bashing stereotype. That means I don't have to even acknowledge you might have a point.

 

[kmortis]

Yes, the more I thought about it, the more I realized there would be the usual assortment of atheists as in any usual assortment of humans. But do see my comment above about the death threats. Are you aware of atheists making death threats to theists?

Hold onna sec...

Fnord! I'm gonna kill you!

Ok, there's an atheist making a death threat against a theist. It can happen. Granted, I just did it in jest to prove a point, but there is nothing special about our moral code that would necessarily preclude that sort of behavior being done in seriousness.

I'd hope, as I think you would as well, that atheists would stop and think before they'd do something as stupid as making death threats (or worse, carrying them out), but there is no guarantee. WE atheists are not better, morally, than theists, we just don't allow ourselves the crutch of one or more deities to "guide our paths". Granted, our evolution has manifested quite a nice little tool box to keep us going, but that's distributed on a bell curve. To think that we're more moral, nicer, or whatever positive attribute-er than theists is to commit the naturalistic fallacy, writ large.

 

[-Fran-]

There are many countries where the conflict between theists and atheists are not as widespread or as common or expressed in this way. Where the notion of "the angry atheist" doesn't exist to the extent that is described in this thread. of course there is always smaller groups of theists who will have that notion, and there are a few atheists who will be very outspoken. But on the whole the hostile climate between atheist and theist that is described to take place in the USA (I guess this whole thread is discussed mainly from the basis of the situation in the USA?) does not exist in this form and to this extent. Why then are the atheists, on the whole, not as angry in those countries?

Atheism have not in itself the agenda of converting theists, or confronting them with anything. There is no common goal for atheists, it's just people with a lack of belief, who can be as diversified as humankind on its whole. Unless they are pointed out as a more or less uniform group that can't be trusted, then there's no need for an angry group. I agree with tsg, his feelings are not irrational in the least.

 

[bokonon]

But it just doesn't come close to those death threats that predictably come out when extremists are raging about their religious beliefs. How many atheists can be counted on to send theists death threats when they block stem cell research, for example?

I haven't heard of any yet. I think that's a good thing. I'd like nothing better than to have all the crazies on the other side.

But I did go looking on YouTube since you brought it up. I found this very pleasant (calming music in the background) ~3 minute comment on angry atheists.

I agree with the YouTuber. We're supposed to be the rational team. It's more effective in the long run to be just that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hold onna sec...

Fnord! I'm gonna kill you!

Ok, there's an atheist making a death threat against a theist. It can happen. Granted, I just did it in jest to prove a point, but there is nothing special about our moral code that would necessarily preclude that sort of behavior being done in seriousness.

I'd hope, as I think you would as well, that atheists would stop and think before they'd do something as stupid as making death threats (or worse, carrying them out), but there is no guarantee. WE atheists are not better, morally, than theists, we just don't allow ourselves the crutch of one or more deities to "guide our paths". Granted, our evolution has manifested quite a nice little tool box to keep us going, but that's distributed on a bell curve. To think that we're more moral, nicer, or whatever positive attribute-er than theists is to commit the naturalistic fallacy, writ large.

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.

 

[bokonon]

I was eleven when I was in the boy scouts jackass. Shrug that off. And now I'm done with you. I'm not even bothering to read the rest of your drivel. You no longer have anything to say that I'm interested in hearing. How dare you?

You're not eleven any more. When I was nine or ten, the scoutmaster was talking smack about my mother, because I had the audacity to observe that she sharpened knives differently than the way he was showing us. The other scouts took that as permission to tease me about being a "mama's boy" too. It stung at the time, but I don't carry it around with me now. I'll tell you how I dare -- I grew up.

I'm automatically dismissing, out of hand, without even reading it, any argument containing the words "militant" or "angry atheist" as atheist bashing. Sorry guys, you fit the atheist bashing stereotype. That means I don't have to even acknowledge you might have a point.

What incredible power you wield, when you stop your ears and sing "Tra-la-la I'm not listening." I'm just guessing here, but maybe the scorn you perceive from your neighbors has less to do with your son's absence from religious classes, and more to do with the level of maturity they observe in you.

 

[ChaoticLimbs]

The JREF forums are about the free exchange of ideas.

The reason we sometimes aren't sweet and full of treacle is that not all ideas are created equal.

 

[tsg]

[...]

I'm sorry. I seem to have left you with the mistaken impression that I have the slightest bit of interest in anything you have to say. Let me be more clear: I don't.

 

[kmortis]

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.

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.

 

[kmortis]

The JREF forums are about the free exchange of ideas.

The reason we sometimes aren't sweet and full of treacle is that not all ideas are created equal.

Thatn and there are asshats in this world. Even more so online.

 

[jjramsey]

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?

I wouldn't call Dawkins "toned down and respectful." He doesn't come off like a pro-wrestling heel, but he did imply that those willing to work with theistic evolutionists are cowards bending over backwards to appease an implacable evil. Heck, even in the part of the preface to The God Delusion where he is defending the use of the word "delusion," he never says outright that he is not implying that is not using the word "delusion" to imply insanity, but rather takes refuge in ambiguity and quotes a Kwai-Chang-Caine-ism from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance. Just because Dawkins isn't throwing chairs or spewing spittle hardly means that he isn't coming off as angry.

Now if you were to argue that people saw The Friendly Atheist(TM) as militant, you'd have a point.

 

[Beth]

There are many countries where the conflict between theists and atheists are not as widespread or as common or expressed in this way. Where the notion of "the angry atheist" doesn't exist to the extent that is described in this thread.

I agree with tsg, his feelings are not irrational in the least.

Thank you for posting this Fran. I was curious if the stereotype was found outside the U.S. If it's not, that would indicate that it's about the U.S. culture, not atheism. I don't know that anyone has said the anger atheists have is irrational or unjustified. I'm only saying that it isn't an effective way of getting non-atheists to listen to the complaints. Its rather irrational to expect that non-atheists will listen when athiests express their anger and contempt for religious beliefs. It's why arguments in this forum tend to be between strong atheists and agnostics; few believers can tolerate the atmosphere here. It is NOT a friendly place for them.

As it is mine.
Labeling someone an "angry atheist" is an excuse to not have to listen to them. Assuming I have nothing to say because I'm angry is, frankly, stupid.

Who needs an excuse not to listen? You don't have the right to force anyone to listen to you, they do it at their discretion. They are not stupidly assuming you have nothing to say because you are angry. They are rationally assuming you have nothing to say that they want to hear.

I was eleven when I was in the boy scouts jackass. Shrug that off. And now I'm done with you. I'm not even bothering to read the rest of your drivel. You no longer have anything to say that I'm interested in hearing. How dare you?

I've got the perfect solution to this. Stereotypes work both ways. I'm automatically dismissing, out of hand, without even reading it, any argument containing the words "militant" or "angry atheist" as atheist bashing. Sorry guys, you fit the atheist bashing stereotype. That means I don't have to even acknowledge you might have a point.

I'm sorry. I seem to have left you with the mistaken impression that I have the slightest bit of interest in anything you have to say. Let me be more clear: I don't.

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 'angry athiests' and 'militant atheists' likewise drive their potential audience away. They stop listening. Just like you did. It's not stupid. It's not irrational. It's perfectly predictable human behavior. It's why there is an ignore feature on forums such as this. If all you want to do is vent, fine. Here is a good place to do it. If you want non-atheists to listen to your complaints, that's a different matter.