A Friendly Place?

[Beth]

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.

Nicely put. Shiva is needed to balance Brahma. I can understand the desire to choose a side and become part of the destructive or constructive force, but a bit more tolerance and respect for those who experience the world differently would be nice from both sides.

 

[kmortis]

Nicely put. Shiva is needed to balance Brahma. I can understand the desire to choose a side and become part of the destructive or constructive force, but a bit more tolerance and respect for those who experience the world differently would be nice from both sides.

Heh...I wasn't even thinking of Shiva and Brahma. I had the Erisian concept of Creativity crossed with Chaos.

[derail]
I thought that Kali was the Destructive deity?
[/derail]

 

[articulett]

I had the pleasure of meeting Hemant Mehta, the friendly atheist, at TAM and he has posted here. He is not at all critical of other atheists, but there are a lot of theists who are critical of him. Dan Barker and his wife who run the freedom from religion organization are some of the friendliest lowest key atheists I know and they get the most vile mail...

I think the clips from the Dawkins sight say it all. http://richarddawkins.net/article,2025,n,n

No matter how nice you are, they are threatened just by the fact that your argument is rational... just because you don't believe in their god. Their god depends on people propping up the delusion. I think those who judge atheists such as the "4 horseman" and others on this forum are probably threatened that people listen to these men more than they listen to the critics. The critics seem a little envious... they offer Hemant as an example, but Hemant isn't critical at all of other atheists that I've seen.

Dawkins et. al. make a good point... it will be nice when you can disbelieve religion and receive the same lesser reaction as not following someones politics or preferring different music or not liking the same sports team they like. The reaction to people finding out that you don't share their faith or even their opinion on how to talk with those of faith is visceral.

They all (Dennett etc.) mentioned the points here that many of those who are on the receiving end of such nonsense will relate too. And so, I shall conclude that all insults directed towards me are of the same nothingness directed towards them and use it to conclude that my voice has power and people recognize it. I suggest those accused of being strident or "god haters" or "not nice enough" watch the clips and feel pride every time an apologist insults you. I believe Dennett notices right off the bat that the people who don't have a religion can be the worst-- this is an irony I'd like to explore. I follow what these men are saying, and I'm glad to be considered of their ilk. And I really don't understand those non believers who judge them, but I'm perfectly willing to let them kiss up to religion as need be without accusing them of hurting the "cause". I, however, won't pretend that faith is good for anything... or that the faithful nor the faith protectors have a message that I want to be a part of. I especially won't do it on my skeptics forum. I bite my tongue many times a day in my regular world as people speak woo with abandon.

If you think these guys are shrill, strident atheists who "hurt the cause"--count me amongst them. I enjoy friendly atheists too... but I think these guys ARE pretty friendly--particularly Dennett and Dawkins. And I don't know of any actual friendly atheists criticizing these men. In fact, they seem to respect and recognize the value of all voices. So do the friendly theists for that matter. There's one truth, after all.

ETA--and I support the RRS-- I think they've given a lot of young people a chance to laugh off and bravely face the superstitions of their childhood... I think they do a great thing. I wish I was as smart and had as much confidence as them at that age, and I feel they are necessary in America right now. I bet Hemant Mehta supports their approach as well. Consciousness raising means provoking some people out of their complacency. Maybe they might even wonder WHY they are offended. If faith is so good, what harm can there be that others don't believe in it? Why shouldn't those who don't believe have as much right to express their non-belief as believers readily take. I'm proud not to be attached to the superstitions of my childhood; I'm proud to have thought my way out. And I hope my feeling proud encourages others to question the dogmas they've been indoctrinated with as well.

 

[Beth]

Heh...I wasn't even thinking of Shiva and Brahma. I had the Erisian concept of Creativity crossed with Chaos.

[derail]
I thought that Kali was the Destructive deity?
[/derail]

Might be. I'm not much of a scholar of such things. I just always enjoyed the different mythological stories. I read them a lot back in grade school. Those are the two that came to mind.

I think there is a lot to be gained from the mythological stories. They don't have to be taken at face value, their 'truth' lies in helping us understand our world. It doesn't hurt to remind ourselves that destruction is often a necessary precurser to building something new and better.

Society seems so polarized these days in so many ways and on so many issues. I sometimes think it's like a cell getting ready to split. Everybody seems to be encouraged to pick sides.

 

[Dunstan]

Society seems so polarized these days in so many ways and on so many issues. I sometimes think it's like a cell getting ready to split. Everybody seems to be encouraged to pick sides.

Cheer up, Beth. I would bet that your statement above would have attracted nods of vigorous agreement in just about every society at just about every time.

The "atheist vs. theist" thing barely registers with most people. Only us message board weirdos care that much.

 

[kmortis]

Might be. I'm not much of a scholar of such things. I just always enjoyed the different mythological stories. I read them a lot back in grade school. Those are the two that came to mind.

I think there is a lot to be gained from the mythological stories. They don't have to be taken at face value, their 'truth' lies in helping us understand our world. It doesn't hurt to remind ourselves that destruction is often a necessary precurser to building something new and better.

Society seems so polarized these days in so many ways and on so many issues. I sometimes think it's like a cell getting ready to split. Everybody seems to be encouraged to pick sides.

I agree. I see mythology to be history-by-other-means. Lessons to be learned without the necessity of living through them.

I disagree with you last point, however. Only from the standpoint that I don't really see any increase in hostility or polarization. If you have the literary fortitude, I recommend "The American Aurora" to have a looksee at the US, just after the Revolution. It wasn't any nicer than it is now. It wasn't more genteel. It was just 200+ years ago, and we put the happy filters on history. I see no reason to think that any other country is any different, that if you were to take a random point in history and truthfully compare it to today, it will be as contentious, are polarized, as hostile to one philosophy or another. We tend to split ourselves into groups, and attack those who do not agree (no matter how slight that disagreement takes form).

That's the biggest reason why I'm not all that worked up over the idea of a Friendly Atheist. Of course Dawkins is going to be portrayed (rightly or wrongly) as an Angry Person. He has to. He's bucking the status quo, and he's got a position to change serious minds. Same with Dennent, Harris and Hutchins. I agreed with Dunstan because it is very possible that if Hemet were as influential before he started, he could be getting the same whitewash.

However, that's not to say that Dawkins, et alia, haven't shown an angry side. They have. Maybe not to the degree that they're portrayed to do, but they have. Many posters here cannot have a discussion about religion without hurling invective at anyone who may not "toe the party line" and trash religion. See the nice, friendly posts between tsg and UnrepentantSinner elsewhere if you think I'm making it up.

meh...I'm done with this seriousness...I'm off to Humor, where I belong.

 

[Dunstan]

Many posters here cannot have a discussion about religion without hurling invective at anyone who may not "toe the party line" and trash religion. See the nice, friendly posts between tsg and UnrepentantSinner elsewhere if you think I'm making it up.

I would say that the invective flows both ways, not just from those who "trash religion."

 

[jjramsey]

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.

Unless they are calling them "Neville Chamberlains."

Discussions like this thread always seem to begin with someone complaining about the "destructive" approach, and the "destructive" atheists defending their contributions.

Except that "destructive" is used in two very different ways. One way of being "destructive" is simply to be straightforward in one's criticisms, pointing out genuine flaws in ideas. Another way is to stop thinking of your adversaries as people and more as if they were some "faceless group of miscreants," to borrow kmortis' turn of phrase, which usually involves exaggerating and caricaturing one's opponents, and even gets in the way of pointing out the genuine flaws. The latter way of thinking tends to encourage sloppiness and intellectual dishonesty, which is probably, for example, how Hitchens ended up doing a reverse David Barton on Ben Franklin and repeated a myth about Jews having sex through sheets. It is why we have Rook Hawkins of the so-called "Rational Response Squad" claiming "The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called 'Christians'" when the source for the claim does not indicate such a thing.

 

[Dunstan]

Unless they are calling them "Neville Chamberlains."

I haven't scoured the internet for references, but my impression is that, by and large, the "Neville Chamberlain" accusations are in response to the "your approach is wrong" criticisms of the alleged Chamberlains.

I'm sure there are exceptions. But I don't recall ever seeing a forum thread or blog post or book that begins with "that guy over there? His approach to atheism is wrong because he's too timid." Every instance I can recall begins with "you're too [harsh/rude/outspoken/angry/whatever]," and then the target responding with a defense of his approach.

Except that "destructive" is used in two very different ways. One way of being "destructive" is simply to be straightforward in one's criticisms, pointing out genuine flaws in ideas.

I take it you have no objection to this approach?

Another way is to stop thinking of your adversaries as people and more as if they were some "faceless group of miscreants," to borrow kmortis' turn of phrase, which usually involves exaggerating and caricaturing one's opponents, and even gets in the way of pointing out the genuine flaws. The latter way of thinking tends to encourage sloppiness and intellectual dishonesty, which is probably, for example, how Hitchens ended up doing a reverse David Barton on Ben Franklin and repeated a myth about Jews having sex through sheets. It is why we have Rook Hawkins of the so-called "Rational Response Squad" claiming "The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called 'Christians'" when the source for the claim does not indicate such a thing.

As to Hitchens, I believe he has corrected that error and apologized for it. I don't know about Hawkins, but I've never really thought of the RRS as being great scholars or researchers, and I think they've been too whole-hearted in their endorsement of the "Jesus never existed at all" historical claim, so their errors hardly surprise me. In either case, I have no problem whatsoever with anyone pointing out the errors in question. I don't see why you find it necessary to impute bad faith, though.

It's only your speculation that these errors were due to the mindset you attribute to Hitchens and Hawkins. People do make mistakes. Look at how many times Randi has had to issue corrections to things he's said in SWIFT; is he therefore sloppy and intellectually dishonest?

 

[articulett]

Theists tend to call their mistakes "higher truths".

I do think the faithful and the supporters of faith are less likely to admit to error over all... they certainly are less likely to see any of the harms of faith and more likely to exaggerate the "militancy" of the the non-believers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about the fact you don't see very many militant atheists killing for their cause. It has nothing to do with murder is murder. I wasn't saying there was any qualitative difference in why you murder, I was saying a lot of people believe in killing for gods. How many atheists have you heard of killing for their atheism cause?

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.

And I never said religion was the only reason for evil people or caused people to be evil. It does contribute but it isn't the only thing which contributes. You are totally missing what I am saying.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

And it wouldn't be happening here either in my opinion if the religious extremists weren't trying to makeover the Constitution and government into a church state. It's only when people start infringing on others that there is even a need to be angry.

Religion, OTOH, is often used as a pretext to be the aggressor. You don't see many instances of conquering in the name of atheism. It might be conquering in the name of something non-religious like communism, but not conquering in the name of atheism.

 

[kmortis]

That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about the fact you don't see very many militant atheists killing for their cause. It has nothing to do with murder is murder. I wasn't saying there was any qualitative difference in why you murder, I was saying a lot of people believe in killing for gods. How many atheists have you heard of killing for their atheism cause?

[DOC]What about the Soviet Union?[/DOC]
Ok, I see what you're cooking now.

Part of the reason, IMO, why we don't see atheists killing is that it's really hard to get worked up over a non-belief. Since we have very little dogma, it's hard to hang your hat on something to get THAT riled up over.

Of course, Beth could be right and we're going through a polarizing phase and soon we'll see "denominations" of atheists. THEN we'll see some killin'.

And I never said religion was the only reason for evil people or caused people to be evil. It does contribute but it isn't the only thing which contributes. You are totally missing what I am saying.

Actually, I think we're skinning the same cat, just from opposite ends. Someone said that "crazy is crazy", religion just gives them another reason to go off and kill.

Does that make Berkowitz a dyslexic schizoid?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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....

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

New York Times Magazine, October 7. 2003:

"This [the war on terror] surely is a religious war -- but not of Islam versus Christianity and Judaism. Rather, it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity. This war even has far gentler echoes in America's own religious conflicts -- between newer, more virulent strands of Christian fundamentalism and mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism. These conflicts have ancient roots, but they seem to be gaining new force as modernity spreads and deepens. They are our new wars of religion..."

This opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times is called "God, Satan and the Media."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Part of the reason, IMO, why we don't see atheists killing is that it's really hard to get worked up over a non-belief. Since we have very little dogma, it's hard to hang your hat on something to get THAT riled up over. ...
Actually, I think we're skinning the same cat, just from opposite ends. Someone said that "crazy is crazy", religion just gives them another reason to go off and kill....

I kept arguing with myself in one of the threads on, does religion cause bad things, since it was hard to decide if it was merely the pretext for human violence that would find another pretext if god beliefs weren't there or if god beliefs amplified human violence. Someone would make a point and I'd lean one way then someone would make another point and I'd lean the other way. I have yet to decide how much god beliefs actually increase violent human behavior, or if they are merely a means of acting on the violent tendencies. However, I do agree with you, violence will just find another avenue if religious intolerance isn't it.

The arguments which supported the other side, however, were things like religious beliefs for example, killing people for "sinning". One would not have reasons to perpetrate violence against some people if they weren't indoctrinated to hate that person or behavior. The indoctrination might be used by someone who would gain power from having the 'group' behind him willing to fight and die, but some hatred of "sinners" is more of a side effect than a direct use of religion for something you would find an alternative if religion wasn't there.

Atheists might be upset about theism intruding in their lives, but atheism isn't an underlying catalyst, differences of opinions yes, but the lack of god belief itself, no.

 

[jjramsey]

I haven't scoured the internet for references, but my impression is that, by and large, the "Neville Chamberlain" accusations are in response to the "your approach is wrong" criticisms of the alleged Chamberlains.

Which is irrelevant. So-called "Chamberlains" like Eugenie Scott are trying to build bridges with the religious and are being dubiously represented as bending over backwards by those making "Neville Chamberlain" accusations.

(There is a certain perversity in saying that those pushing for the religious to give up something--namely an easy, literal interpretation of their own origin stories--are simply bending over backwards on behalf of the religious.)

I take it you have no objection to this approach?

Heck, no!

As to Hitchens, I believe he has corrected that error and apologized for it.

Which misses the point, which is that his nonsense filter failed on the kind of too-perfectly sensational factoid that should have raised a skeptic's eyebrow.

I don't know about Hawkins, but I've never really thought of the RRS as being great scholars or researchers, and I think they've been too whole-hearted in their endorsement of the "Jesus never existed at all" historical claim, so their errors hardly surprise me. In either case, I have no problem whatsoever with anyone pointing out the errors in question. I don't see why you find it necessary to impute bad faith, though.

It's not so much bad faith per se. I doubt that Hitchens or the RRS are deliberately intending to deceive. However, I have noticed that partisan fervor tends to distort one's judgment, whether the subject is religion, politics, or well, almost anything that people get emotionally invested in.

Look at how many times Randi has had to issue corrections to things he's said in SWIFT; is he therefore sloppy and intellectually dishonest?

If he were to engage in a pattern of amateur errors that should have been caught from the get-go, then yes, I would consider him "sloppy and intellectually dishonest." So far, with regards to parapsychology and such, I haven't seen him be that clumsy.

 

[Dunstan]

Which misses the point, which is that his nonsense filter failed on the kind of too-perfectly sensational factoid that should have raised a skeptic's eyebrow.

Examining religious claims tends to dull one's nonsense filter through sheer volume. I'm not sure that "having sex through a sheet" is any more sensational or nonsensical than, for example, passing herpes to a child through mouth-to-genital contact at a circumcision, which has been documented. That doesn't excuse Hitchens's error; I just don't see it as something that was so obviously false that one can accuse him of having blinders on.

It's not so much bad faith per se. I doubt that Hitchens or the RRS are deliberately intending to deceive. However, I have noticed that partisan fervor tends to distort one's judgment, whether the subject is religion, politics, or well, almost anything that people get emotionally invested in.

Yes, but again, it's one error. It's just as consistent with "normal human error" as it is with "judgment distorted by partisan fervor"

If he were to engage in a pattern of amateur errors that should have been caught from the get-go, then yes, I would consider him "sloppy and intellectually dishonest." So far, with regards to parapsychology and such, I haven't seen him be that clumsy.

So multiple errors by Randi are excusable, but one by Hitchens makes him "sloppy and intellectually dishonest"?

 

[jjramsey]

Examining religious claims tends to dull one's nonsense filter through sheer volume. I'm not sure that "having sex through a sheet" is any more sensational or nonsensical than, for example, passing herpes to a child through mouth-to-genital contact at a circumcision, which has been documented.

Examining religious claims should make one very aware about how much junk gets passed around as gospel and should make one even more leery about accepting sensational stories without verification. That goes just as much for an account of mouth-to-genital contact at a circumcision as it does for the sheet myth.

Yes, but again, it's one error. It's just as consistent with "normal human error" as it is with "judgment distorted by partisan fervor"

You forgot Hitchens' "reverse David Barton," which is way more than just a single error. Indeed, that is even more damning to his credibility than his credulity about the sheet myth.

 

[kmortis]

I kept arguing with myself in one of the threads on, does religion cause bad things, since it was hard to decide if it was merely the pretext for human violence that would find another pretext if god beliefs weren't there or if god beliefs amplified human violence. Someone would make a point and I'd lean one way then someone would make another point and I'd lean the other way. I have yet to decide how much god beliefs actually increase violent human behavior, or if they are merely a means of acting on the violent tendencies. However, I do agree with you, violence will just find another avenue if religious intolerance isn't it.

The arguments which supported the other side, however, were things like religious beliefs for example, killing people for "sinning". One would not have reasons to perpetrate violence against some people if they weren't indoctrinated to hate that person or behavior. The indoctrination might be used by someone who would gain power from having the 'group' behind him willing to fight and die, but some hatred of "sinners" is more of a side effect than a direct use of religion for something you would find an alternative if religion wasn't there.

Atheists might be upset about theism intruding in their lives, but atheism isn't an underlying catalyst, differences of opinions yes, but the lack of god belief itself, no.

/me dusts hands

Ok, now that we got THAT settled, how 'bout a beer? Arguing psychology is thirsty work.

 

[articulett]

Dennett speaks of having reasonable religious people read his book (Breaking the Spell) and revising and revising, and he says, “It didn’t do any good in the end; I got hammered in the end for being rude and aggressive—it’s a no-win situation…. Religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude—they play the "hurt feelings card" at every opportunity…” from the link I put above. I agree with this. I think there is no winning. Even Eugenie Scott is vilified by the creationists. And many people who want evolution taught have to cater to the fears that understanding evolution will lead to atheism... but the fact is, it can. It makes the god story sound... silly... nonsensical-- original sin? Garden of Eden? Talking snakes? Virgin births? Blood atonement? Heavenly fathers who likes his kids ignorant and credulous?



I understand well the reasons atheists must play it down. I do so in my regular life all the time. I fear the irrational. Heck, didn't some creationist just stab an evolutionist? But I resent the power imposed upon me by religion, and I refuse to defer on a skeptics forum. All the irrational can do to me here is rant at me. And my skin has grown thick from such.