A Friendly Place?

[Fiona]

Further to Fran's post I have to say I did not understand at all what this thread was about. It does not touch on anything I experience at all. Atheists are not a minority here (Scotland) and I cannot think of a single instance where it is an issue which has caused anger at all. There is anger between different religous groups - we have a shameful problem of sectarianism - and that is bad enough. But "angry atheists"? Scorn for atheists? Just does not happen in my experience

 

[-Fran-]

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.

It is to be found, for sure. But, for example here in Scandinavia it is not my experience that there is such a "war", for lack of a better word, going on. Be an open atheist here and you mostly get a shrug. There are fundie religious groups here as well, but they are comparatively small and marginalized, ask them in particular and you will probably get a rather negative view about atheists, yeah. But I guess if you were to ask people on the whole here, the every day joes and janes on the streets, most would probably see it as pretty much a non-issue.

Actually, I never got any particular reactions on my atheism before I started to talk to people on-line and then mostly Americans. An American was the first person who ever asked me how I can find any meaning in my life, how I can even get out of bed in the mornings after I told her I was an atheist It was the first time I came in contact with how people view atheism as total meaningless of life. Here I have Christian friends (one is a priest) and I had a pentecostal pen pal for many years as a teen, and sure we have different thoughts and opinions but I never felt my atheism was a problem to them, or that their religion is a problem to me.

There are problems and conflicts here as well, don't get me wrong, and there's plenty of woo in Sweden all right but it's far from such a big deal here as it seems to be in the USA. I think in many ways that it is about US culture, yes.

 

[bokonon]

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.

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.

 

[bokonon]

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.

Sadly, I think you're probably right.

 

[Herzblut]

There are problems and conflicts here as well, don't get me wrong, and there's plenty of woo in Sweden all right but it's far from such a big deal here as it seems to be in the USA. I think in many ways that it is about US culture, yes.

I agree. I assert that religious fundamentalism (which is abundant in the US) generates anti-religious fundamentalism (which can be adored here on this board).

Europe is very different. Which might be facilitated by our "lessions learnt" about the disastrous consequences of any kind of fundamentalism.

Cheers
Herzblut

 

[articulett]

Further to Fran's post I have to say I did not understand at all what this thread was about. It does not touch on anything I experience at all. Atheists are not a minority here (Scotland) and I cannot think of a single instance where it is an issue which has caused anger at all. There is anger between different religous groups - we have a shameful problem of sectarianism - and that is bad enough. But "angry atheists"? Scorn for atheists? Just does not happen in my experience

Yes... I am an American and an atheist, and I think even other atheists and agnostics have absorbed the "faith is good; atheism is bad" meme. Those who do it, just don't see it... but they overlook everything offensive about faith and go out of their way not to blame it for anything while mischaracterizing and implying really nasty things about the slightest things an atheist does. The Pope can say the most inane hateful things, and they don't blame religion for what results, and if an atheist feels that he's been treated unjustly for not believing they accuse him of being strident and exaggerate their interpretations of what was actually said from my perspective. Even the nontheists rush to "protect faith" as though it's something good. The faithful and the faith protectors are often accusing atheists of sounding arrogant, but they have a complete lack of awareness to their own pedantry and arrogance. It's so weird. I imagine it's odd for foreigners reading the Americans on this board who are "skeptics" but seem to have a bias against those who might speak out about non-belief... or feel wary at speaking up because of the irrational amount of prejudice and judgment inflicted on those who do.

I'm glad to get the perspective of others outside my country, that is for sure. I am always surprised when the skeptics are blind to their double standards on the issue. They want the atheists to be nicer, but they don't even think of their goals or whether they are nice or rather the theists are nice--much less rational. They don't understand that they are propping up a rather sick and childish paradigm--the notion that "faith is good". I think faith should be the childish thing kept in the closet, and that atheism should be presumed... the default position. Increasingly, in America, it seems that people wear their faith and protection of faith on their sleeve while fearing reprisal from the irrational if they express a lack of faith.

I think there's room for all kinds of skeptics--and all sorts of paths towards a more rational civilized world. I don't think atheists putting down the methods of other atheists is an answer for anything. I'm perfectly happy to let the religionists deal with sectarianism and whose woo is true. I resent someone telling me what atheists should and shouldn't do or how mean Dawkins is as so forth. These are not people whose opinions I am interested in any more than they are interested in mine. The odd thing is that they imagine I should be. They imagine themselves speaking for some higher cause, but they don't seem to be qualified to do so. They don't seem to be an asset to rational thinking because they are unaware of their own biases on the topic--their own exaggeration of "evil atheists" and "compassionate theists".

I don't think logic and words and anger are crimes AND Dawkins and "stident atheist" DO serve to raise consciousness. I think humor is great too--even if the believers feel you are mocking them. You can't win anyhow. Even amongst your own sometimes. I think theists and apologists and agnostics are unaware of how they might be furthering a prejudice against atheists by making everything an atheist says worse than it is while overlooking theistic blather because they've been taught to think of it as "good" or "harmless" or "inspired". If only we could get some of that "overlooking" of the nuttiness that theists feel so entitled to!

But mostly I'm tired of people whom I don't think of as particularly nice or insightful telling me to tone it down-- or Dawkins or the other people I find to be inspirational. Instead, they ought to work on their own biases, and examine whether they do cast harsher judgment on atheists rather than theists-- and ask themselves what their goal is. If you want to show that being nice is a great way to inspire some goal or other-- model it and prove it works for whatever it is you think it works for. But I do wish they'd quit casting their holier than thou judgment on the "mean atheists" and the like. Such people do not seem to be furthering any goals that I see.

The enjoyable and well loved theists on this forum from what I see are those like kittyh or LynnM who never lecture atheists about "toning it down". This forum should be a place where atheists can feel at home without the usual "you suck" attacks. America has gotten embarrassing regarding this nuttery. Friendly is in the eye of the beholder. I find this forum generally very friendly. I just don't like when people tell the atheists to tone it down. What's the point? Are theists so thin skinned that they need others to respect their faith to prop it up? Such people ought to practice the politeness they demand of others and keep as silent about their opinions as they expect atheists to be about theirs.

Welcome Fran and Fiona. I appreciate the international support and insight into what is going on in America.

 

[Fiona]

Without wishing to be provocative, the reason religion gets special privilege in terms of pussyfooting around ( over and above the common limits of courtesy and respect) is the not unfounded suspicion that the religious will burn you if you don't give them it. With all due respect to those who have argued that atheists would be just the same if they were in bigger numbers, I do not think that is true. There are atheists who happen to behave very very badly, as there are religious people who do too. But I have not personally encountered or heard about any atheist who justifies such behaviour on the grounds of atheism. It is perhaps true that atheists are embattled in the USA and therefore more extreme. But the idea is alien in this rather secular society, and so far as I can tell this has never happened.

I have seen the religious argue that such behaviour shows the perpetrators are not, in some sense, really religious. But they are, you know

 

[bokonon]

I think [...] atheists [who] have absorbed the "faith is good; atheism is bad" meme [...] overlook everything offensive about faith and go out of their way not to blame it for anything while mischaracterizing and implying really nasty things about the slightest things an atheist does.

I don't believe I've absorbed that "meme," and I'd be surprised if you could point to a single atheist who has. Faith tends to short-circuit critical thinking, so it isn't something I can wholeheartedly endorse. Atheism is neither good nor bad. I think a healthy society has room for both believers and non-believers.

I am always surprised when the skeptics are blind to their double standards on the issue. They want the atheists to be nicer, but they don't even think of their goals or whether they are nice or rather the theists are nice--much less rational. They don't understand that they are propping up a rather sick and childish paradigm--the notion that "faith is good".

Faith provides many of the same advantages provided by the placebo effect, so I can't dismiss it as something that has no value whatsoever. At the same time, there's that "short-circuit of critical thinking" aspect, so I can't give it blanket approval either. The problems that I see arise more from the specific myths embraced and the actions they inspire than from anything as abstract as "faith" itself.

I think there's room for all kinds of skeptics--and all sorts of paths towards a more rational civilized world.

Thanks.

I don't think atheists putting down the methods of other atheists is an answer for anything.

Isn't this post putting down my method of criticizing someone like tsg? Weren't you the one who was just amused by skeptics who were blind to their own double standards?

I resent someone telling me what atheists should and shouldn't do or how mean Dawkins is as so forth. These are not people whose opinions I am interested in any more than they are interested in mine. The odd thing is that they imagine I should be.

I suppose it's natural to resent being told what to do. I don't particularly resent being told to stop being critical of atheists, any more than I resent being told to stop being critical of Christians. Some people will agree, and maybe my reasons will resonate and reinforce their pre-existing opinion, some won't, and will either tune me out ("not people whose opinions I am interested in") or will consider, however briefly, my point of view. I am interested in your opinion, even though it is often different than mine. I think you tend to view things in an extremely polarized black-and-white way that also (in my opinion) actually short-circuits critical thinking.

You can't win anyhow. Even amongst your own sometimes.

Another area in which we have a different opinion, or maybe just a different definition of "winning." Look at those folks in Europe you're so impressed by. They were fighting open wars over religion for centuries, and now the accounts are that most of the population is either atheist or atheist-indifferent. I'd count that as a victory, if it happened in the US.

But mostly I'm tired of people whom I don't think of as particularly nice or insightful telling me to tone it down-- or Dawkins or the other people I find to be inspirational.

So, you're telling me to tone it down. I'll consider it.

Instead, they ought to work on their own biases, and examine whether they do cast harsher judgment on atheists rather than theists-- and ask themselves what their goal is.

My immediate goal is to beat back the rising tide of Creationist sentiment.

If you want to show that being nice is a great way to inspire some goal or other-- model it and prove it works for whatever it is you think it works for.

It wasn't anger and vitriol that won the day in Dover. It was a theist judge who still valued reason and evidence when choosing science curriculum. Theists have been critical allies in all such battles of which I'm aware.

But I do wish they'd quit casting their holier than thou judgment on the "mean atheists" and the like.

Not holier than thou, but probably more effective.

The enjoyable and well loved theists on this forum from what I see are those like kittyh or LynnM who never lecture atheists about "toning it down".

If I'm not enjoyable or well-loved, I guess I can live with it.

I just don't like when people tell the atheists to tone it down. What's the point?

I'm an atheist, and you're telling me to tone it down. What's YOUR point?

 

[articulett]

There is a great video/audio here with the big evil atheists talking about this very subject... how no matter what you say... there really is no way to disagree with religion and beliefs without receiving a blustery reaction. Heck, if Dennett can be labeled strident--then there really is no way to express our actual opinions about the ridiculousness religion without getting peoples' panties in a bunch. People are offended that you find their beliefs unbelievable.

I'll stick on the side of these 4 guys (Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, and Dawkins)-- http://richarddawkins.net/article,2025,n,n

(Bokenen.... why did you think I was talking to you or about you? I was actually thinking of others...and more effective at what? I'm not sure one method is better than any other... and I think that many theists take deference and kindness as something they deserve or have earned.)

 

[jjramsey]

There is a great video/audio here with the big evil atheists talking about this very subject... how no matter what you say... there really is no way to disagree with religion and beliefs without receiving a blustery reaction.

There most certainly is a way to publicly disagree with religion such that a blustery reaction is wholly unmerited. Judging from the way Hemant Mehta has done things, there even seems to be a way of keeping unwarranted blustery reaction to a relatively low level.

 

[bokonon]

There is a great video/audio here with the big evil atheists talking about this very subject... how no matter what you say... there really is no way to disagree with religion and beliefs without receiving a blustery reaction. Heck, if Dennett can be labeled strident--then there really is no way to express our actual opinions about the ridiculousness religion without getting peoples' panties in a bunch. People are offended that you find their beliefs unbelievable.

I'm reminded of the quote which I've always heard attributed to P.T. Barnum:

You'll offend some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't offend all of the people all of the time.

I wouldn't characterize any of these guys as "angry atheists," and I join you in dismissing anyone who would. My criticism isn't directed at them, or anyone who argues in the same tone and manner.

(Bokenen.... why did you think I was talking to you or about you? I was actually thinking of others...and more effective at what? I'm not sure one method is better than any other... and I think that many theists take deference and kindness as something they deserve or have earned.)

I guess it must be MY childish egocentricity.

And, more effective at finding allies among the faithful. While my current hot button (Creationism) is likely to have allies among the faithful no matter how many "angry atheists" have rubbed them the wrong way, I can conceive of cases in which their own self-interest wouldn't be so clear cut. In such cases, the "close encounter" experiences they've had with living breathing atheists might make the difference between taking the time to vote or express support, or "I think I'll just sit this one out."

 

[thaiboxerken]

There most certainly is a way to publicly disagree with religion such that a blustery reaction is wholly unmerited.

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

 

[kmortis]

You'll offend some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't offend all of the people all of the time.

1) I believe that the original the word in question was "fool" not offend
2) Look at Andy Kaufmann's late career. If he didn't offend everyone, he came damned close. I miss that man.
c) I agree with this general sentiment. It's something that I learned the hard way when I worked in the theater that there are people out there just chompin' at the BIT to be offended. We did the play version of "Diary of Anne Frank" and we got offended letters. Apparently, the people playing the Nazis were "too realistic"

 

[Dunstan]

There most certainly is a way to publicly disagree with religion such that a blustery reaction is wholly unmerited. Judging from the way Hemant Mehta has done things, there even seems to be a way of keeping unwarranted blustery reaction to a relatively low level.

Perhaps, but what has he accomplished? I'm only familiar with him through the occasional link here by people like you who are contrasting him with folks like Dawkins, Harris, et al, who have received much more attention and -- I would claim -- provoked much more critical re-examination of beliefs than Mehta's "friendly" approach.

Indeed, it's worth noting that "The Friendly Atheist"'s main claim to fame is his book about selling his soul on EBay, which doesn't seem that different to me than the Rational Response Squad's "Blasphemy Challenge." It's a stunt designed to provoke people.

 

[kmortis]

Perhaps, but what has he accomplished? I'm only familiar with him through the occasional link here by people like you who are contrasting him with folks like Dawkins, Harris, et al, who have received much more attention and -- I would claim -- provoked much more critical re-examination of beliefs than Mehta's "friendly" approach.

Indeed, it's worth noting that "The Friendly Atheist"'s main claim to fame is his book about selling his soul on EBay, which doesn't seem that different to me than the Rational Response Squad's "Blasphemy Challenge." It's a stunt designed to provoke people.

Bear in mind that, at a minimum, Dawkins was well known prior to "The God Delusion". Mehta was, and to a large degree is still, an unknown.

The biggest difference between Mehta and RRS's Blaspheme Challenge is that Mehta isn't thumbing his nose at the theist's most sacredly held beliefs. He's not making so much hamburger out of their sacred cows. He's going on their turf, and reviewing them from a non-believer's point of view.

RRS is only trying to be provocative, Mehta's trying to have an exchange. Both styles are necessary. You need the destructive power of the confrontation to tear down the walls, and you need the constructive ones to build the bridges. Religion isn't going away, no matter how much anyone wishes it to be. It's hardwired into our brains, ok. All I'm hoping for is more tolerance...on both sides.

 

[jjramsey]

The biggest difference between Mehta and RRS's Blaspheme Challenge is that Mehta isn't thumbing his nose at the theist's most sacredly held beliefs. He's not making so much hamburger out of their sacred cows.

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."

 

[Dunstan]

RRS is only trying to be provocative, Mehta's trying to have an exchange. Both styles are necessary. You need the destructive power of the confrontation to tear down the walls, and you need the constructive ones to build the bridges.

I don't disagree with any of this.

The problem I see is that by and large, the "destructive" and "confrontational" atheists aren't disputing the value of the "constructive, bridge-building" atheists' contributions. Discussions like this thread always seem to begin with someone complaining about the "destructive" approach, and the "destructive" atheists defending their contributions.

I know that I've heard Dawkins (for example) acknowledge that it's a good thing to have other atheists taking "softer" approaches than him. But many of the "softer" atheists don't seem to me to acknowledge the value of any approach other than theirs.

 

[Dunstan]

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."

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?

Dan Dennett, who bent over backwards in his book to avoid offense?

I submit that the "Friendly Atheist" would get just as much criticism for his "jabs" at religion if he were better known.

 

[kmortis]

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."

I haven't been to his blog in a long, long time. He was just talking about the idea of a book back then. Even if it is as you say, I don't see him doing a hearty **** you! to theists, like what the Blaspheme Challenge is doing. Yes, he'll take some shots, but, as you say, he tends to see them as people rather than as a faceless group of miscreants. I don't see teasing as a bad thing. Let's face it, we mostly tease our friends and family, right?

 

[kmortis]

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?

Dan Dennett, who bent over backwards in his book to avoid offense?

I submit that the "Friendly Atheist" would get just as much criticism for his "jabs" at religion if he were better known.

You may be right. I doubt we'll ever know for sure, though.