A Friendly Place?

[Stone Island]

The James Randi Educational Foundation forum presents itself as "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way." This statement reminded me of something that Michael Martin wrote called "Friendly Atheism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/friendly.html)".

In his essay, so thoughtfully preserved at Infidels.org (http://www.infidels.org), Martin writes,

As Rowe conceives of a friendly atheist he or she is a person that believes that some theists are rationally justified in believing a theistic God exists. It seems that this definition has little to do with the ordinary meaning of 'friendly'. According to the dictionary 'friendly' is defined as having the disposition of being open, warm, and social. In the ordinary sense of 'friendly' one can be friendly toward people who one believes holds rationally unjustified beliefs and one can be unfriendly toward people that one believes holds justified beliefs. Furthermore, despite this a friendly or unfriendly attitude may be justified. For example, one can be friendly towards a person in mental institutions who one believe holds a completely wrong view of the world, e.g, he thinks he is Jesus Christ and who has no rational justification for his beliefs. One may be friendly towards this person because he is likeable or has been kind or good to you. The irrationality of his beliefs does not enter into your motivation of your friendly behavior.

Perhaps, then, one should consider friendly atheism in a way that is more in accord with the ordinary use of the term 'friendly'. To advocate friendly atheism in this sense of the term 'friendly' would be to advocate that atheists be friendly people, that is, that they should be open, warm and sociable. This would include being friendly to theists, their traditional enemies. Is such a position plausible?
And, regarding the usefulness of being friendly, he writes,

It is possible such friendly behavior would help to eliminate a commonly held stereotype of the atheist as an embittered, suspicious loner snarling against the theistic culture he or she is forced to live in. (Whether there is any evidence that supports such a stereotype I do not know.) So more friendly atheists may be a good thing as a way of improving the social image of atheism.

Furthermore, in so far as atheists want theists to 'convert' to atheism, a friendly attitude is no doubt desirable. Just as religious missionaries may improve their success rate by a more friendly and less judgmental attitude to potential converts, so atheists 'missionaries' would possibly have a higher success rate if they adopted a less confrontational and more friendly attitude.

[wahrheit]

Well, yes, and what exactly is your point? That this place is hostile? That theists are always friendly?

Your thread received quite a number of views, yet nobody replied. You might want to clarify the purpose of this.

Besides, I personally disagree with this "atheists want theists to 'convert' to atheism" thing, even when written in inverted commas. So far, it has been the other way round, the theists were the missionaries.

[Stone Island]

Besides, I personally disagree with this "atheists want theists to 'convert' to atheism" thing, even when written in inverted commas. So far, it has been the other way round, the theists were the missionaries.

First, he wrote "in so far as".

Second, Sam Harris.

What did you think of the rest of the article?

[Irony]

It is possible such friendly behavior would help to eliminate a commonly held stereotype of the atheist as an embittered, suspicious loner snarling against the theistic culture he or she is forced to live in.
No, it is not. The people who hold this stereotype do not do so because of any actual experience with atheists. They hold it because atheists are demonized in their social group. Atheists are not demonized for any actions they have taken, but because the mere existence of people who don't believe and yet live perfectly fulfilled lives is a threat.

Being friendly to these people in their meaning of the word requires that atheists shut-up and remain in the closet. This allows them to continue to demonize us at their leisure because they never have to confront those stereotypes. The only way to put an end to the stereotype is to be so militant and rude and absolutely inconsiderate of their feelings as to not hide the fact that we're atheists, and maybe even be such evil fundamentalists as to mention that we have good reasons for our lack of belief. Of course, it helps to be friendly in the more sane sense of the word, but that's not the sense of the word that's being tossed about.

[tsg]

Not this claptrap again.

[kittynh]

I'm NOT an atheist. Many of us are NOT atheists. I rather imagine that my dear Quaker friend that posts her is far more religious and has stronger and better faith than YOU do. Let's see, you think God is telling you to post on this site as some sort of brownie point system.

Ummm, tell me what else you do to earn Brownie points with Jesus. Really.

[Stone Island]

I'm NOT an atheist. Many of us are NOT atheists. I rather imagine that my dear Quaker friend that posts her is far more religious and has stronger and better faith than YOU do. Let's see, you think God is telling you to post on this site as some sort of brownie point system.

Ummm, tell me what else you do to earn Brownie points with Jesus. Really.

:eek:

:confused:

What?

[Hokulele]

I would think that "atheist 'missionary'" is an oxymoron, no?

[Marquis de Carabas]

That's right. We get to use the other positions.

[T'ai Chi]

It is possible such friendly behavior would help to eliminate a commonly held stereotype of the atheist as an embittered, suspicious loner snarling against the theistic culture he or she is forced to live in. (Whether there is any evidence that supports such a stereotype I do not know.) So more friendly atheists may be a good thing as a way of improving the social image of atheism.


This is a free world. Atheists can simply create their own culture if they want to put some work in and they so choose. They could create the first society anywhere that has atheism as its center.

[wahrheit]

This is a free world. Atheists can simply create their own culture if they want to put some work in and they so choose. They could create the first society anywhere that has atheism as its center.

You haven't got around much in your life, have you? Not every society, not every country is based on religious dogma, darling.

And yes, I do officially regret replying to a T'ai Chi post.

[rocketdodger]

This is a free world. Atheists can simply create their own culture if they want to put some work in and they so choose. They could create the first society anywhere that has atheism as its center.

Or, we could brainwash, steal, rape, and murder our way into dominance of an existing society.

[triadboy]

Or, we could brainwash, steal, rape, and murder our way into dominance of an existing society.


"You forgot the main one......RE-CIRCUMCISION!!" <ORGAN SWELL>

...aaand CUT!

[Foster Zygote]

This is a free world. Atheists can simply create their own culture if they want to put some work in and they so choose. They could create the first society anywhere that has atheism as its center.

It's interesting to me that some people will claim that certain totalitarian societies were based on atheism in order to imply that atheists are bad people, while on the other hand people like T'ai Chi will claim that no society has ever been based on atheism in order to imply that atheists are bad people.

[fredcarr]

Overall - Online I do fine non-religious folks to be less friendly. But there have been plenty of exceptions to that.


In person this distinction would be much harder to discern. Most people are polite and friendly to me when face to face with me.

[Complexity]

I like Sam Harris, you twerp.

[Ladewig]

No, it is not. The people who hold this stereotype do not do so because of any actual experience with atheists. They hold it because atheists are demonized in their social group. Atheists are not demonized for any actions they have taken, but because the mere existence of people who don't believe and yet live perfectly fulfilled lives is a threat.

Being friendly to these people in their meaning of the word requires that atheists shut-up and remain in the closet. This allows them to continue to demonize us at their leisure because they never have to confront those stereotypes. The only way to put an end to the stereotype is to be so militant and rude and absolutely inconsiderate of their feelings as to not hide the fact that we're atheists, and maybe even be such evil fundamentalists as to mention that we have good reasons for our lack of belief. Of course, it helps to be friendly in the more sane sense of the word, but that's not the sense of the word that's being tossed about.

Seconded.

Presidential candidates are prepared to deny the existence of evolution to pander to fundamentalists. I don't have to listen to talk radio in Texas very much before I hear a caller blame the woes of society on "the atheists who kicked God out of public schools." Yet I seldom hear radio talk show hosts point out that the freedom of religion that is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights requires that the state not endorse any one religion.


National polls show that 45% of the voting public would not vote for an atheist even if he were well-qualified (1). I have a hard time believing that that number would go down if we all were just a bit more friendly.

-----
(1) Gallup. Other results include people willing to vote for Baptists: 94%, Blacks: 95%, Homosexuals 59%.

[fagin]

When will thse idiots work out that atheism is not a movement, it is just simply knowing that fairy stories are fiction.
I am sure I have some things in common with many people here, and equally many differences, and the last thing I would want to do is to join a group, based on non belief. I don't believe in pixies or unicorns, but I have no intention of joining an anti pixie group.
Get a life.
ps I am quite friendly generally.

[Correa Neto]

The situation should dictate the approach.

Example-
I am the atheist of the office (actually the one who came out of the closet). Yesterday I had a nice talk with a cow-orker who is a Catolic. Education and morals where the subject of the talk. She asked "You are an atheist, right? How are you going to deal with religion when it comes to educationg your son?" Now, this is a very intelligent, nice and gentle young lady. Of course I was polite. I had to be.

My reply was along the "there are no Christian children, only children whose parents are Christians" and the "provide information and let him decide" lines. She was caught completely off ballance and a seed was planted, I think. She said "You are right, I never saw the issue through that angle before."

But against rabid people... Playing nice with some people in some situations is very hard if not impossible. Note, however, that many religious zealots may be defeated in a debate quite easily- just keep your head cool and expose the flaws in their reasonings. It may be enough to make them loose their minds and start the ad homs.

[Lothian]

This is a free world. Atheists can simply create their own culture if they want to put some work in and they so choose. They could create the first society anywhere that has atheism as its center.Good idea. I'll start with a complete set of athestic rules.

Article 1

France Rationalvania shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis.

Article 2
.....
See article 1.



P.S. Any similarity with another state's constitution dating back to 1789 is purely coincidental. As Tai said; nowhere has ever had atheism at its centre.

[fuelair]

I'm a very friendly atheist - as long as you do not try to convert me, force me to pretend otherwise, try to control what I can watch, read, say or write because it does not agree with your specific religion (whichever it may be), try to kill me for not believing - or advocate my being killed for same, try to drive me from my home/location/ job for same, etc. You have the right to be religious, I should have the right not to be.
Eventually, one of us will be proven correct - and I am perfectly, happily willing to wait.

[linusrichard]

Why would I believe that some theists are rationally justified in believing a theistic God exists? If I could believe something like that, I could probably just believe in God. And why would this be a requirement of "friendliness"? I mean, if you want to define "friendly" in that way, it's fine, but it's confusing, because it has nothing to do with the usual definition of friendliness.

I don't consider theists my "traditional enemies" any more than I consider people who believe in leprechauns my traditional enemies. People who want to inject their brand of theism into our secular government - those may qualify as enemies, I guess.

Atheists being friendly will do nothing to combat the stereotype of atheists being angry, bitter, etc. This is because that stereotype has no basis in reality but comes instead from the imaginations of anti-atheist Christians.

This is a free world. Atheists can simply create their own culture if they want to put some work in and they so choose. They could create the first society anywhere that has atheism as its center.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - one of the great things about atheism is it doesn't demand to be at the center of society. It confuses theists, but it's true. Most people don't believe in leprechauns, but there has been no society that has aleprechaunism as its center. It might not seem like the same thing to you, but it's the same thing.

A while ago, a group of theists, deists, and atheists "put some work in" and created a country that would officially not be centered around religion, which is something different, and better, than a society centered around atheism. Ever since, theists have been trying to screw it up.

[Beerina]

No, it is not. The people who hold this stereotype do not do so because of any actual experience with atheists. They hold it because atheists are demonized in their social group. Atheists are not demonized for any actions they have taken, but because the mere existence of people who don't believe and yet live perfectly fulfilled lives is a threat.

As part of Sagan's "Demon Haunted World", they truly believe athiests, at best, are misguided and helping the Devil. At worst, they are knowing in league with the Devil.

Their world is haunted by demons who are out to trick them. It's tough to deal with people laboring under such a delusion, especially when said delusion claims that you, the athiest, are actively evil and lying.

[Beerina]

I'm NOT an atheist. Many of us are NOT atheists. I rather imagine that my dear Quaker friend that posts her is far more religious and has stronger and better faith than YOU do. Let's see, you think God is telling you to post on this site as some sort of brownie point system.

Ummm, tell me what else you do to earn Brownie points with Jesus. Really.

You fall on your knees, scream "John 3:16" a few times, gloat how you're going to Heaven while Mother Theresa, who spent her whole life living poor and helping the poor, as Jesus commanded, goes to Hell because she did not have such a moment, then you get back to ordering pizza for dinner on Fridays and paying your credit card bills.

[Ladewig]

I misread your opening post, Stone Island. My response in post 17 was based on how we should act in the public arena in the U.S.

You were asking about being friendly to theists who post on the JREF board. The vast majority of newcomers (both Christians and non-Christians) are treated with respect. When Kurious Kathy and Amy Wilson initially appeared, they were treated in a friendly but skeptical manner. They were asked what evidence they had. They were asked how their arguments were different from those of devout Muslims or Hindus.

It was only when they ignored questions and insisted on trying to convert us that they were treated to mocking and disdain.

I could be completely mischaracterizing how Christians are treated when they arrive here. If you can point me to threads where Christians were immediately treated in an unfriendly manner, I will change my position.

[Stone Island]

You were asking about being friendly to theists who post on the JREF board.

Was I? No, really, was I?

RTFP :D

[calebprime]

Was I? No, really, was I?

A suggestion: instead of Just Asking a Question in response, say what your intent was. As in, "No, I was (fill in the blank)."

[Marquis de Carabas]

A suggestion: instead of Just Asking a Question in response, say what your intent was. As in, "No, I was (fill in the blank)."
Should he? No, really, should he?

[tsg]

A suggestion: instead of Just Asking a Question in response, say what your intent was. As in, "No, I was (fill in the blank)."

That would mean committing to a position and then wouldn't be able to deny that was what he meant when it turns out it's unsupportable.

He probably studied under T'ai Chi.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That would mean committing to a position and then wouldn't be able to deny that was what he meant when it turns out it's unsupportable.
Would it? No, really, would it?

He probably studied under T'ai Chi.
Did he? No, really...

OK, I'll stop now.

[Hokulele]

Would it? No, really, would it?


Did he? No, really...

OK, I'll stop now.


Will you?

[tsg]

Would it? No, really, would it?


Did he? No, really...

OK, I'll stop now.

Will you? No, really, will you?

AAUUGH! It's contagious!

[Hokulele]

Hah! Winner iz me!

[wahrheit]

OK, I'll stop now.

Will you? No, really. I mean it. Not.

@Stoned Island: I will not answer your last question directed at me, it's a waste of time, sorry about that. Also, you haven't said what's the point of your OP, yet.

ETA: Of course, the other spammers were much quicker than me in replying to the Marquis. ;)

[tsg]

Hah! Winner iz me!

Disqualified because you didn't do the "no, really" part.

[Hokulele]

Disqualified because you didn't do the "no, really" part.


Didn't I?

:p

[tsg]

Didn't I?

:p

Confused, would we?

[Darth Rotor]

Stone, the premise is consistent with Mr Randi's position in a general sense, but given the varied motivations and issues a given poster has, and past experiences, the penchant among some to be complete pricks is to be expected. On the other hand, Capel Dodger and drkitten, and fuelair as he noted, shine as examples of atheists who don't discuss in other than friendly ways. Lively fits. See also RandFan, Tricky, MdC, and Mercutio. I'll stop there, a fine assemblage of others also play here at R & P.

And some right pricks.

Taking the bitter with the sweet seems a good rule of thumb.

DR

[Furi]

Well sorry to let an supported side down guys, but I am a cantankerous Atheist, I am sick of getting attempted conversions by xian stormtroopers or watching legislation being passed based on faith,

Note I am not against religion, which ever religion you follow is as important to me as whatever football team you support, Just don't EVER try and force me to support Man U or I WILL injure you.

=^..^=

you won?, No really? You won?

[tsg]

Well sorry to let an supported side down guys, but I am a cantankerous Atheist, I am sick of getting attempted conversions by xian stormtroopers or watching legislation being passed based on faith,

Note I am not against religion, which ever religion you follow is as important to me as whatever football team you support, Just don't EVER try and force me to support Man U or I WILL injure you.

Pretty much how I feel.

I get annoyed every time this "Friendly Atheism" crap comes up because the paper can be summed up in two sentences: "Hey atheists, stop hating those who believe in god!" and "Hey atheists, stop hating those who hate you because you don't believe in god!"

The absolute last person I want to hear from about angry atheists is someone who has no interest in finding out why they're angry in the first place.

[Stone Island]

Pretty much how I feel.

I get annoyed every time this "Friendly Atheism" crap comes up because the paper can be summed up in two sentences: "Hey atheists, stop hating those who believe in god!" and "Hey atheists, stop hating those who hate you because you don't believe in god!"

The absolute last person I want to hear from about angry atheists is someone who has no interest in finding out why they're angry in the first place.

Do you even know who Michael Martin (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/michaelmartin.html), the author of the above paper, is, or what he's written?

[Marquis de Carabas]

No, really, do you?

I can quit anytime I want.

[tsg]

Do you even know who Michael Martin (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/michaelmartin.html), the author of the above paper, is, or what he's written?

Appeal to authority?

ETA: On the other hand, if you think I was referring to Martin when I said "the absolute last person", I wasn't.

[Darth Rotor]

I get annoyed every time this "Friendly Atheism" crap comes up because the paper can be summed up in two sentences: "Hey atheists, stop hating those who believe in god!" and "Hey atheists, stop hating those who hate you because you don't believe in god!"

Huh?

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

So, what's your beef again?

DR

[bokonon]

Atheists being friendly will do nothing to combat the stereotype of atheists being angry, bitter, etc. This is because that stereotype has no basis in reality but comes instead from the imaginations of anti-atheist Christians.
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.

[tsg]

Huh?

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

So, what's your beef again?

DR

I was speaking about the paper referenced in the OP.

[tsg]

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.

Examples?

[Furi]

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.

You are walk into a pub, and the first thing you see is someone suddenly stand up swear loudly and headbutt another.

You do not know what precipitated this action the history or the people involved. You cannot draw any conclusions apart from making a decision to drink else where, or remain and see what transpires.

Is the person who threw the punch unfriendly, Violent and incoherent normally, or are you viewing out of context,

Rabid Atheists on youtube etc made a video and placed it in public media because something precipitated that action, I have been sought out in my local for discussions on physics Religion and politics (some perverse masochists even bring friends along for the match) as I am annauseatingly friendly and fun loving person, but in every belief system you have your tub thumpers, and I have been known to thump my tub when the situation warrants it, and relatively I'm just a street busker they've got a full blown military tatoo going on

Gotta go, I have blood forming in my caffeine system, and I am nearly out of smokes, women and children get the:talk034: out of my way I need stimulants... come to papa you slender tube of vegetation.

=^..^=

[bokonon]

Examples?
Here's a few, but I've seen worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXGODGRoa-Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyKV-mQmi_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l05rbHsdZro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCpdvK3F_Qs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryV_IdNFnvg

[tsg]

Here's a few, but I've seen worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXGODGRoa-Y

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyKV-mQmi_w

This guy seems to be complaining about some free speech issue. But he is an atheist/irreleventist agnostic(?), and he's angry. So I guess that makes him an angry atheist, even though he's complaining about other atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l05rbHsdZro

I have no idea what's going on here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCpdvK3F_Qs

This guy is virtually unwatchable, but I wouldn't call him angry. He's promoting an atheistic position, but how does that differ from just about any other religious program on Sunday morning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryV_IdNFnvg

And this is someone complaining about Rational Response Squad getting banned from YouTube. He seems more despondent than angry.

Exactly what is it about these videos that is promoting the "angry atheist" stereotype? Because I have seen fire and brimstone preachers on Sunday morning television that make these look like a civics discussion on public access.

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

[Beth]

When most homosexuals were in the closet, often the only gay people that the straight community was aware of were those that fit the stereotype. I suspect that the stereotypical 'angry' atheist is equally representative of their group. Such individuals certainly exist and they often typify the group to outsiders just as flamboyant gay men and manish lesbians once did.

[tsg]

When most homosexuals were in the closet, often the only gay people that the straight community was aware of were those that fit the stereotype. I suspect that the stereotypical 'angry' atheist is equally representative of their group. Such individuals certainly exist and they often typify the group to outsiders just as flamboyant gay men and manish lesbians once did.

That seems to me to be saying that complaining about "angry atheists" is like complaining about "flaming homosexuals". In other words, as long as they stay in the closet, keeping it hidden from view so as to avoid offending the sensibilities of the intolerant, nobody will mind. Screw that.

[Foster Zygote]

When most homosexuals were in the closet, often the only gay people that the straight community was aware of were those that fit the stereotype. I suspect that the stereotypical 'angry' atheist is equally representative of their group. Such individuals certainly exist and they often typify the group to outsiders just as flamboyant gay men and manish lesbians once did.

I've known people for many years who are surprised to find out that I'm an atheist. I know others who probably don't know. This is not because I've hidden the fact from them but simply because I don't meet someone and say "Hi, I'm Steve. I'm an atheist".

[Furi]

That seems to me to be saying that complaining about "angry atheists" is like complaining about "flaming homosexuals". In other words, as long as they stay in the closet, keeping it hidden from view so as to avoid offending the sensibilities of the intolerant, nobody will mind. Screw that.

yay, shag the out of sight out of mind issues, if I affront their sensibilities, then they really need to work harder at their beliefs, maybe go get themselves a faithlift at their local Religious retailer.

Is it called the don't ask don't tell principle, I am all for that however the damned fools keep asking.

[Egg]

That seems to me to be saying that complaining about "angry atheists" is like complaining about "flaming homosexuals". In other words, as long as they stay in the closet, keeping it hidden from view so as to avoid offending the sensibilities of the intolerant, nobody will mind. Screw that.

I didn't see that analogy as one that should necessarily be extended to complaining about the people in question. I took it just to be making the point that the "angry atheists" were just the more visible ones and often those atheists would be the only ones which people were aware of, therefore creating the stereotype.

If anything, I would say that the analogy suggests that level headed, calm and friendly atheists making their views known more would combat the stereotype, in the same way that if more people were aware that plenty of the less-flamboyant people one sees every day are homosexual, the flamboyant stereotype would be less prevalent.

[Matt the Poet]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[articulett]

What Matt said.

What a lot of people said.

I don't want to defer to notions I find ridiculous.

And if people didn't share their opinions of my lack of belief with me or assume I shared their beliefs--I wouldn't have to. The atheists I know are among the nicest, funniest, and most honest people I know. It seems no matter what they say or do, people are dashing about criticizing their very right to say something and imagining all sorts of nefarious intent that I don't see at all. Even on a skeptics forum we see this. It seems that the "nicer" we are the more entitled some theists feel to that niceness-- they interpret as deserved respect-- a nod to the notion that faith is good. Faith is the opposite of skepticism to me, and I don't see anything good about excess credulity.

And when people come here and preach the "my woo is true" stuff, I think of them as invading my skeptics forum. If I'm going to be accused of being strident by people who do not know me, then I want the opportunity to practice my barbs on line to those who have decided to share their opinions about me with me. I consider criticisms of me an opportunity to share my reciprocal opinion of the critic. It allows me to a nice gentler atheist in the real world where irrational people can throw real things.

My favorite believers are the ones I don't know are believers. They behave in the manner many theists would like atheists to behave. They keep their beliefs (or lack thereof) to themselves.

[Beth]

That seems to me to be saying that complaining about "angry atheists" is like complaining about "flaming homosexuals". Yes

In other words, as long as they stay in the closet, keeping it hidden from view so as to avoid offending the sensibilities of the intolerant, nobody will mind. Screw that.
No.

What Egg said. If more folks like FZ were known to be atheists, then the stereotype would not be so prevalent.

[fuelair]

Here's a few, but I've seen worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXGODGRoa-Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyKV-mQmi_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l05rbHsdZro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCpdvK3F_Qs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryV_IdNFnvg

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).:)

[tsg]

I didn't see that analogy as one that should necessarily be extended to complaining about the people in question. I took it just to be making the point that the "angry atheists" were just the more visible ones and often those atheists would be the only ones which people were aware of, therefore creating the stereotype.

If anything, I would say that the analogy suggests that level headed, calm and friendly atheists making their views known more would combat the stereotype, in the same way that if more people were aware that plenty of the less-flamboyant people one sees every day are homosexual, the flamboyant stereotype would be less prevalent.

And herein lies the paradox, because as soon as an atheist makes his views known, he is labeled as angry. "Militant" is just another word for "outspoken". "Be friendly" means "keep quiet about it". Somehow, I'm the one whose wrong for not tolerating the intolerance of others. Bollocks to that.

I mean, really, think about what you're saying here: If gays were more obviously less obviously gay, then the stereotype would be less prevalent. How are they supposed to act like everyone else yet make it known they are gay? Wear a sign?

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

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

[tsg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bingo.

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

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

[Beth]

And herein lies the paradox, because as soon as an atheist makes his views known, he is labeled as angry. "Militant" is just another word for "outspoken". "Be friendly" means "keep quiet about it". I don't agree with this. I don't think that athiests making their views known is viewed as 'angry' or 'militant', nor does 'be friendly' mean 'keep quiet about it'. Why do you think this is the case?

Somehow, I'm the one whose wrong for not tolerating the intolerance of others. Bollocks to that. What are you talking about here?

The stereotype is inaccurate. That is the point.

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

When someone attributes fundamentalist behavior to all Christians, everyone, atheists included, come out of the woodwork to say that it isn't true of all Christians. When atheists are outspoken, angry even, regardless of why, they are accused of reinforcing the stereotype. It's a BS double standard. When atheists are angrily outspoken, they ARE reinforcing the stereotype. It is possible to be outspoken without expressing anger.
"Angry atheist" implies he has no reason to be angry. It's not just dismissing the argument out of hand, it's refusing to acknowledge there's even one being made. Why does it imply that there is no reason to be angry? What argument is being dismissed?

[bokonon]

This qualifies as angry? It must be a usage of the word I'm not familiar with.
Check this one out. Amazing Atheist "agrees" to debate creationist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFqdX1jtHU4)

But let me ask you another question I think is more important: Do you know why these people are angry in the first place?
I assume they're each angry for their own reasons. This "Amazing Atheist" guy just seems like an angry dude in general.

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

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

[thaiboxerken]

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

[-Fran-]

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

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

[tsg]

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

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

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

And why do you think that is?

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

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

It is possible to be outspoken without expressing anger.

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

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

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

[tsg]

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

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

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

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

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

[triadboy]

Huh?

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

So, what's your beef again?

DR

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

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

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

[Beth]

Because the vast majority of people complaining about "angry atheists" haven't given a moments thought about why they are angry. Because every complaint of violation of separation of church and state in the US is met with flippant remarks of "militant atheism" with virtually no discussion of the argument being made. Fifty years ago the same people would be complaining about "those uppity negroes". No doubt, some of them would have, but not all. I think you are rather flippantly dismissing the complaints of 'militant atheism' even when they come from other atheists or agnostics.


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

The stereotype only exists if you ignore why they are angry in the first place. When was the last time you heard someone say "he's an angry atheist, but he has good reason to be"? Excuse me? There is a stereotype that atheists are angry and you a) complain that the stereotype is unjustified and b) claim that the anger is justified. This doesn't make sense to me. If the anger is justified, then perhaps the stereotype is too.

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

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

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

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

[bokonon]

Isn't Richard Dawkins often used by theists (and others too) as just an example of the angry militant and arrogantly rude atheist though? :confused:
If he is, I expect it's by people who know nothing about him beyond the fact that he's written a book called "The God Delusion." Anyone who's actually seen him express an opinion would be hard-pressed to characterize his style as "angry."

[bokonon]

And that's pretty much my point. You don't know what there reasons are nor do you care. It's just so much easier to lump them into a single group to be dismissed with the wave of a hand without considering that they may have a point. And if they don't have a point, then fine, criticize their arguments for being wrong or misinformed. But simply labeling them as "angry atheists" is just dismissing an entire group of people as irrelevant based on the actions of a few.
Which is why I think displays of anger are counterproductive. They give people an excuse to tune out, to dismiss without hearing. If you have a point to make, make it calmly and reasonably, with the attitude that you're willing to listen to the other side's viewpoint too. Even if you've heard it a thousand times before, hear it out before you rip into it. That, to me, is the meaning of "respect." Not that I have to respect the belief itself, but I need to respect the person expressing it enough to let him state it clearly.

Reason and politeness have their place. So does anger. Anger can be an effective way to motivate people to take action. Atheists are a minority. In order to stop the injustice we need other people whose lives aren't directly affected to care. They won't care if it we don't.Anger may occasionally be an effective way to motivate action, but it's rare that it will earn respect. Yes, we are a minority, but I personally don't feel like I'm a victim of "injustice." Whether you do or not, the first step toward accomplishing anything is to be heard. The theistic position is ubiquitous, so it's easy for it to be heard. That may make people impatient when it's necessary to hear it again, but I honestly think that listening and responding calmly and rationally is more effective than publicly venting.

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

[-Fran-]

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

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

[tsg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It isn't necessary.

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

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

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

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

"Gays should be less obviously gay." Whatever.

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

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

[tsg]

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

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


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

I disagree.

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

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

[bokonon]

I see, so I'm supposed to show respect for someone who hates me because I don't believe in their god. I'm sorry. Some positions are so ridiculous people should be embarrassed for even considering them. I don't care in the slightest why they think I am less of a person and I'll be damned if I'm even going to feign respect for anyone who believes it. Nobody gets upset when the sensibilities of other racists are offended, I don't see why this should be any different.
You're not "supposed" to do anything. I think you'd find communication easier if you weren't walking around with a chip on your shoulder, but since you think you're entitled to have one, and apparently think the only thing you MUST communicate is your contempt of someone's ridiculous belief, I guess there isn't a lot to discuss.

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

[tsg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stone Island]

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



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

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

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

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

[tsg]

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

Go to hell.

[Stone Island]

Go to hell.

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

[Nogbad]

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

[Tanstaafl]

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


Persecution:

c.1340, "oppression for the holding of a belief or opinion," from O.Fr. persecution (12c.), from L. persecutionem (nom. persecutio), noun of action from persequi "pursue, start a legal action," from per- "through" + sequi "follow" (see sequel). The verb persecute is attested from 1482 in the sense of "to oppress for the holding of a belief or opinion," from M.Fr. persécuter "pursue, torment, open legal action" (14c.), from L. persecutus, pp. of persequi. Psychological persecution complex is recorded from 1961; earlier persecution mania (1892).

It seems to me that tsg has given you several excellent examples. Maybe you should consider them.

[Stone Island]

Persecution:

c.1340, "oppression for the holding of a belief or opinion," from O.Fr. persecution (12c.), from L. persecutionem (nom. persecutio), noun of action from persequi "pursue, start a legal action," from per- "through" + sequi "follow" (see sequel). The verb persecute is attested from 1482 in the sense of "to oppress for the holding of a belief or opinion," from M.Fr. persécuter "pursue, torment, open legal action" (14c.), from L. persecutus, pp. of persequi. Psychological persecution complex is recorded from 1961; earlier persecution mania (1892).

It seems to me that tsg has given you several excellent examples. Maybe you should consider them.

Hurt feelings do not persecution make.

How was he injured or oppressed in an unjust manner? I'm not saying that his examples have to rise to the level of a pogrom, but they have to be more hurtful than being confronted with the fact that he's out of step with most of the rest of the world.

[Tanstaafl]

Well, I think some parts, particularly the Boy Scout story, go beyond that.

But you could have actually said that earlier, directly, rather than being obtuse.

You are here to discuss these issues, aren't you?

[-Fran-]

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

As if friendliness will... :rolleyes:

[Beth]

When the comment consists solely of "yet more militant atheism", how am I supposed to address it? It depends on the context and what your goals are for the exchange. Since I don't know the context you encountered that remark in or what you wanted to acheive with your response, I can't comment on it further.

You brought it up. Did you consider why they are angry or did you just write them off as being angry? I brought it up because you were claiming the stereotype wasn't accurate. My point was that the available research indicates that that stereotype has some foundation in reality. Do you want me to provide a cite for the research?

I am complaining that the stereotype doesn't address the issue. It is completely pointless to talk about "angry atheists" unless you also discuss why they are angry. Making flippant comments about angry atheists without discussing why they are angry is insinuating they have no reason to be. I don't think so. People can observe behavior, such an angry outbursts, and comment about it without insinuating that the anger is unjustified.

Apparently it is given how distasteful "angry atheism" is. You are free to express yourself however you like. You need only take into account other people's reaction to the extent that you care about their reactions.

I can when the stereotype implies they have no reason to be angry. Why do you insist that the stereotype implies that? It doesn't to me. Does the stereotype exist in Europe, where atheism is much more accepted and they have less cause to be angry?

"Gays should be less obviously gay." Whatever. Not what I'm trying to get across. Try it this way: There is a stereotype in the culture. When those who are not in the group only observe members of the group that fit the stereotype, the stereotype will appear accurate and societal attitudes are unlikely to change. Changing the cultural stereotype will require either changing the behavior of those in the group who fit the stereotype OR getting those in the group who don't fit the stereotype to come out of the closet so the rest of society can observe that the stereotype isn't accurate.

So, people dismissing the entire argument because I am angry about it is somehow my fault? If lots of different people are reacting in a similar way to similar statements you are making, and you are not happy with their reaction, then it would behoove you to change your approach. You aren't going to change the way other people react to you without changing your own behavior. That's all I'm saying. Of course, if all you want to do is vent your anger and you are not interested in attempting to change other people's opinions of atheists, then by all means, continue with your current approach.

[slingblade]

Overall - Online I do fine non-religious folks to be less friendly.

It was largely the religious ones who made me this way.
I'm mean and hateful. The nice person I used to be died of neglect.

[Ladewig]

Why don't you try friendly?


Why don't you? You had a choice between friendly and antagonistic and you chose the latter.

[kmortis]

<sigh>
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/kmortis/theory.jpg

[Stone Island]

Why don't you? You had a choice between friendly and antagonistic and you chose the latter.

What, are your feelings being persecuted?:rolleyes:

[tsg]

It depends on the context and what your goals are for the exchange. Since I don't know the context you encountered that remark in or what you wanted to acheive with your response, I can't comment on it further.

Then I suggest you refrain from criticizing how I react to it.

I brought it up because you were claiming the stereotype wasn't accurate. My point was that the available research indicates that that stereotype has some foundation in reality. Do you want me to provide a cite for the research?

No, I want you to tell me if you considered why they were angry or if you just said, "well, they fit the stereotype."

I don't think so. People can observe behavior, such an angry outbursts, and comment about it without insinuating that the anger is unjustified.

It's possible. It's not what happens, though.

Why do you insist that the stereotype implies that? It doesn't to me. Does the stereotype exist in Europe, where atheism is much more accepted and they have less cause to be angry?

Why would they dismiss "angry atheists" if they thought their anger was justified?

Not what I'm trying to get across. Try it this way: There is a stereotype in the culture. When those who are not in the group only observe members of the group that fit the stereotype, the stereotype will appear accurate and societal attitudes are unlikely to change. Changing the cultural stereotype will require either changing the behavior of those in the group who fit the stereotype OR getting those in the group who don't fit the stereotype to come out of the closet so the rest of society can observe that the stereotype isn't accurate.

Whether you want to see it or not, people are dismissing arguments entirely because of the "angry atheist" stereotype. The stereotype is that atheists are angry and have no reason to be. Otherwise, why do people even use the term? If they are justified in their anger, why label them as "just angry atheists"?

[Beth]

Then I suggest you refrain from criticizing how I react to it. I didn't mean to do so. My apologies if you felt I did.

No, I want you to tell me if you considered why they were angry or if you just said, "well, they fit the stereotype." I don't think the research indicated that they were angry. It indicated they were not as happy as people who did not classify themselves as atheists. Since anger and unhappiness are often correlated, I think there may be some justification to the stereotype. It certainly fits plenty of people who post here, including yourself.


It's possible. It's not what happens, though. And you are able to ascertain this based on what?


Why would they dismiss "angry atheists" if they thought their anger was justified?

Whether you want to see it or not, people are dismissing arguments entirely because of the "angry atheist" stereotype. The stereotype is that atheists are angry and have no reason to be. Otherwise, why do people even use the term? If they are justified in their anger, why label them as "just angry atheists"?

People use the term because the atheists frequently come across as angry. As far as dismissing arguments entirely because of the "angry atheist" stereotype - well, I'm not convinced that's true. No doubt some people do, which may be justification to try to change the stereotype.

But you are assuming that the arguments are dismissed because of the stereotype. I think it's possible the arguments are being dismissed because they aren't good arguments. For example, things like suing to get roadside memorial crosses for slain highway patrolmen removed does not improve the image of atheists. They didn't lose the case because they were angry atheists, but they sure managed to perpetuate that stereotype.

[thaiboxerken]

Research indicates that atheists are not as happy as Theists?

I agree that suing to get religious symbols removed from government institutions fuel the stereotype. But any challenge to religion does. Atheist are "angry" everything they fight to maintain the wall of separation.

[tsg]

I didn't mean to do so. My apologies if you felt I did.
I don't think the research indicated that they were angry. It indicated they were not as happy as people who did not classify themselves as atheists. Since anger and unhappiness are often correlated, I think there may be some justification to the stereotype. It certainly fits plenty of people who post here, including yourself.

And you are able to ascertain this based on what?



People use the term because the atheists frequently come across as angry. As far as dismissing arguments entirely because of the "angry atheist" stereotype - well, I'm not convinced that's true. No doubt some people do, which may be justification to try to change the stereotype.

But you are assuming that the arguments are dismissed because of the stereotype. I think it's possible the arguments are being dismissed because they aren't good arguments. For example, things like suing to get roadside memorial crosses for slain highway patrolmen removed does not improve the image of atheists. They didn't lose the case because they were angry atheists, but they sure managed to perpetuate that stereotype.


Explain to me how calling someone an "angry atheist" addresses their complaints at all.

There's already one instance in this very thread of someone who gave examples of what he considered to be "angry atheists" and couldn't tell me why they were angry. He's already written me off as an angry atheist without bothering to find out why. In fact, he only even asked the question because he assumed I wouldn't have an answer. Do you still want to argue that it isn't being done?

[Ladewig]

What, are your feelings being persecuted?:rolleyes:

Not all at all. I was asking the question because you were suggesting something that you, yourself were not willing to do.

[Foster Zygote]

It was largely the religious ones who made me this way.
I'm mean and hateful. The nice person I used to be died of neglect.

I must respectfully disagree. The thread that you posted regarding the passing of your mother and what a wonderful and loving person she was genuinely touched me. She may be wounded and justifiably angry, but the nice person is quite strong and still very much alive.

[Furi]

Research indicates that atheists are not as happy as Theists?

I agree that suing to get religious symbols removed from government institutions fuel the stereotype. But any challenge to religion does. Atheist are "angry" everything they fight to maintain the wall of separation.

This could be that few of the mainsteam western religions are particularly tolerant of atheism in any way shape or form they reqire totalitarian comitment, and as such atheists grow up with labels of "misguided" "uneducated" "uninformed" or blame is laid at the feetof the parents or media, government, technology or anything else apart from the asshattery that the atheist has interpreted their religion as,

It seems that the fault is with the atheist and not with their religion. so at which point should we be happy? it wasn't long ago that it would have been impossible for me not to have a religious ceremony upon death. WHY? is it a case of playing the numbers a la Pascal, don't care, my instructions on death are simple, medically harvest what you can and if the family wishes a grave marker it is to state atheist (although I came up with a few dirty or sily jokes)

you also have to appreciate that atheists are not labouring under any misconception of life after death, so we probably take our mortality a little more seriously, we also get a little :talk034: off when religion causes disputes ranging from individual spats to full blown wars. to me your religion and belief is as relevant as which series of star trek you prefer, ultimately pointless but we still have to live with the crap you create (personally I prefer blakes 7)

No secular countries government should make concessions based on religious faith apart from either outlawing practice due to public safety / morality (oh shut up the atheist can't be moral crowd)

Atheists are considered "Angry" the moment they question an article of religion, however attempts at imposing religion upon us or enforcing laws based on faith is ok?, seems we have an awful lot more angry fan boys than angry atheists.

and yes I am one of those mouth frothing peops that you hate, just offset my singularity to a portion of the frothing fundy hordes of any other religion.

bite me, not going to play nice any more

[articulett]

It was largely the religious ones who made me this way.
I'm mean and hateful. The nice person I used to be died of neglect.

When atheists are angry it's usually because some sappy theist is spouting vapid platitudes and they're being forced to hold their tongue. TAM is always a blast-- it's a very strongly atheist group, and I have never seen such a happy crowd.

I'm calling BS on the notion that atheists are angry anyhow. Theists want to believe it so they can feel like Jesus makes them happy. Yet, they are the ones most likely to provoke the anger with the nutty things they do and say while pretending to be holier than thou.

Think of the angriest people you know... even the angriest or most hypocritical posters on this forum... I don't think it's the atheists... except when the woo come to preach and play the "innocently trying to have a discussion" game. Disingenuous conversation makes me a bit peeved. So does hypocrisy. I find this a very friendly place. I wish some people like DOC and tokenconservative and fnord found it a little less friendly, frankly. I think this is a very friendly, funny, intelligent group overall. I think the theists feel peeved because we mock their belief... but it is mockable. If they didn't do their underhanded preaching, they might find this a much friendlier place. I think theists see us as angry because it's easier than thinking that we may have a point.

If they really thought their god was real, I don't think they'd need to worry about shoring up their own faith by preaching here. To me, religion is like any other woo. And every woo gets mad when you don't respect their woo as the true woo. Besides, we do have several long time forum members that believe to some extent or other... so I imagine they find this place perfectly friendly--probably moreso if they don't play the preaching game or rile atheists and then say, "gee whiz, why are you so angry?"

The theists who complain tend to be all for skepticism--except they want their god kept out of bounds. If they want that, they ought not to advertise their faith. They ought to be as "in the closet" as they expect atheists to be.

[Beth]

Explain to me how calling someone an "angry atheist" addresses their complaints at all. It doesn't. That's my point. Coming across as an "angry atheist" isn't the best way to get your complaints addressed. It's great for venting and can give you an ego boost, but it isn't particularly effective at getting your complaints addressed. If you want your complaints addressed, I suggest you try another tactic.

[tsg]

It doesn't. That's my point.

As it is mine.

Coming across as an "angry atheist" isn't the best way to get your complaints addressed.

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.

[articulett]

I think his tactic is working fine. I enjoy his posts here. I feel welcome here. And I have met slingblade and others on this forum and they are not angry people at all--they are among the coolest people around. Theists may see angry atheists, but they don't have a clue that they may be the ones provoking the anger. Theists have a way of being vapid, arrogant, and holier than thou while tsk tsking atheists for qualities they never examine in themselves... as though atheists would look to theists for advice...

It's not like theists are the socially charming people they seem to imagine themselves to be... on this forum they seem to think that everyone should be eager to hear their opinion on the topic, but they don't even seem to have a clue that others have opinions.

Beth, I think tsg comes across as a lot friendlier than you, frankly. I think he's doing fine at getting his complaints addressed. And I'm glad atheists can find camaraderie here without having to walk on eggshells for the self important feelings of theists who don't care about our feelings at all.

[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 (http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/07/26/jk-rowling-gets-death-threats-over-harry-potter.htm)

An anti-evolutionary Christian extremist suspected of sending threatening letters to biology professors at the University of Colorado... (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/07/colorado_threats)

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 Thingstm.

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.


BUQ0BYBtFqM

[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 Thingstm.

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 (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/hitler_zombie_massacre_over_evolution_pa.php) 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) (http://friendlyatheist.com/) 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.

[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 :D
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 (http://www.friendlyatheist.com) 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 (http://www.friendlyatheist.com) 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.

[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.


I thought that Kali was the Destructive deity?

[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.


I thought that Kali was the Destructive deity?


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 (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/02/hitchens_and_franklin.php) and repeated a myth (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-oppenheimer/hitchens-glaring-error_b_47480.html) about Jews having sex through sheets. It is why we have Rook Hawkins of the so-called "Rational Response Squad" claiming (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/3997) "The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called 'Christians'" when the source for the claim (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Firmus_et_al*.html) 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 (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/02/hitchens_and_franklin.php) and repeated a myth (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-oppenheimer/hitchens-glaring-error_b_47480.html) about Jews having sex through sheets. It is why we have Rook Hawkins of the so-called "Rational Response Squad" claiming (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/3997) "The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called 'Christians'" when the source for the claim (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Firmus_et_al*.html) 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 experienceAnd 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?
What about the Soviet Union?:p
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 (http://www.lastingnews.com/maps/cartoons_protests.html) after the Mohammad cartoon incident.

There is this "Fjordman" blog (http://www.islam-watch.org/Fjordman/index.html) 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 (http://www.theocracywatch.org/relig_inst.htm#Global)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.

* kmortis 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.

[-Fran-]

It appears Denmark only had peaceful demonstrations (http://www.lastingnews.com/maps/cartoons_protests.html) after the Mohammad cartoon incident.

There is this "Fjordman" blog (http://www.islam-watch.org/Fjordman/index.html) 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 (http://www.theocracywatch.org/relig_inst.htm#Global)

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,1977,Keith-Olbermann-talks-about-the-Romney-Religion-Speech,Keith-Olbermann
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1447,God-08-Whose-and-How-Much-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,1977,Keith-Olbermann-talks-about-the-Romney-Religion-Speech,Keith-Olbermann
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1447,God-08-Whose-and-How-Much-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://forums.randi.org/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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2923336#post2923336). I do not think it means what you think it means (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=52).

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? :p

[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! :D

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. :o

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. :p

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.

[jjramsey]

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

Or that there isn't an occasion where there is a perceived need for an excuse to commit atrocities, such as a war, a "Red Scare," etc.

[Ladewig]

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.

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.

So, in Sweden there is no equivalent of Fundies Say the Darndest Things (http://www.fstdt.com/)?

[-Fran-]

So, in Sweden there is no equivalent of Fundies Say the Darndest Things (http://www.fstdt.com/)?

No one has seen the need to make such a site in Swedish, I guess (not what I've seen anyway, there might be one that I am unaware of) but they do say the darndest things here too, for sure :)

[-Fran-]

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.

I agree it might have been a bad choice of words to say 'weird'. I was writing that following articulett's words when she said:

It has just gotten weird in the US. Embarrassingly so, I think.


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.

Yes, of course. Poland is a country where religion is highly influential of many things. That's why I made a point of comparing USA to countries in Northern Europe (or Western Europe would have been a better choice, I guess), and not the whole of Europe. It was my point that when you compare USA to countries of comparabele culture in Western Europe, then religion on the whole seem to have a bigger influence on society as a whole in USA than in Western Europe. Even considerably more influence it sometimes seems to me (but that is the part that I am unsure about, how much it actually differs, I am more certain that it does, in fact, differ). That's what I found weird. Of Poland I expect it ;)


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.

Yes, I do understand these things as well, and I am not saying, for example, that "Scandinavia is an atheist paradise, and that USA has been overrun by fundamentalists". It's not that black or white of course. USA has made quite some achievements in science and it's of course "full of normal" as well. This forum is positively crawling with perfectly sane and nice Americans, just as one example :)

But I am talking about a sort of statistical average here, when it comes to religion and what influence it has over a country as a whole. How much religious notions and ideas are spread among people in general. How much it influences the politics (and indirectly then things like education and progress in science and similar things). And then, yes, it does seem to me as if the USA is much more influenced by religion than comparable countries in Western Europe. The poll above that investigated people's attitudes about other groups (in the context of who would you vote for as president), for example, made a point about singling atheists out as a controversial group to ask about in the first place, and people also responded with great suspicion about atheists it seems. This seems to be a general view among Americans then that would probably mostly be found among fundamentalist groups here.

Well, it is still my view that religion have a larger influence on people in general, and on the country as a whole in USA, than it have over here. But I am open to that I can be wrong about this, or at least that I think it is more so than it really is. In fact, it is one of those things I would be quite glad to be wrong about, because as I said above, personally it does worry me a bit. I read in some other thread how Ronald Reagan had been influenced by astrology. To me it is equally worrying that your current president seems to be influenced by religion to such an extent.


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

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.

You might have a point. The view many Europeans have of USA as a nutty country overrun by fundie religious people is in many ways simply a prejudice, but I do sometimes see Americans hold the same view about "other" states.

Lastly, I think that maybe our differing views also can be a bit about that you seem to have a much more positive outlook on life as a whole :) I admit that I am a rather pessimistic character, and I do find it nice that you are pleasently surprised when traveling the USA, gives me a bit of hope :)

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

That's why I made a point of comparing USA to countries in Northern Europe (or Western Europe would have been a better choice, I guess), and not the whole of Europe. It was my point that when you compare USA to countries of comparabele culture in Western Europe, then religion on the whole seem to have a bigger influence on society as a whole in USA than in Western Europe. Even considerably more influence it sometimes seems to me (but that is the part that I am unsure about, how much it actually differs, I am more certain that it does, in fact, differ). That's what I found weird. Of Poland I expect it ;)

Yes, I do understand these things as well, and I am not saying, for example, that "Scandinavia is an atheist paradise, and that USA has been overrun by fundamentalists". It's not that black or white of course. USA has made quite some achievements in science and it's of course "full of normal" as well. This forum is positively crawling with perfectly sane and nice Americans, just as one example :)

But I am talking about a sort of statistical average here, when it comes to religion and what influence it has over a country as a whole. How much religious notions and ideas are spread among people in general. How much it influences the politics (and indirectly then things like education and progress in science and similar things). And then, yes, it does seem to me as if the USA is much more influenced by religion than comparable countries in Western Europe. The poll above that investigated people's attitudes about other groups (in the context of who would you vote for as president), for example, made a point about singling atheists out as a controversial group to ask about in the first place, and people also responded with great suspicion about atheists it seems. This seems to be a general view among Americans then that would probably mostly be found among fundamentalist groups here.

Well, it is still my view that religion have a larger influence on people in general, and on the country as a whole in USA, than it have over here. But I am open to that I can be wrong about this, or at least that I think it is more so than it really is. In fact, it is one of those things I would be quite glad to be wrong about, because as I said above, personally it does worry me a bit. I read in some other thread how Ronald Reagan had been influenced by astrology. To me it is equally worrying that your current president seems to be influenced by religion to such an extent.

You might have a point. The view many Europeans have of USA as a nutty country overrun by fundie religious people is in many ways simply a prejudice, but I do sometimes see Americans hold the same view about "other" states.

Lastly, I think that maybe our differing views also can be a bit about that you seem to have a much more positive outlook on life as a whole :) I admit that I am a rather pessimistic character, and I do find it nice that you are pleasently surprised when traveling the USA, gives me a bit of hope :)

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that there is a considerable difference in religion between the United States and countries that are alot like us. I guess my argument is that it's that it's not as enormous as people think.

Like you said, people do seem to think that it's a country overrun by fundies and nuts- and you do have a very nuanced, fair and accurate view of it, which I'd like to give you credit for- and miss the full picture.

I do think that that's a very loud and very driven minority that pretends to speak for all of the United States and that part of the reason they are so loud and driven nowadays is because they feel threatened in America. Like you said, there's a lot of that "us against them" right now about other parts of the country on both sides.

They know they live in a country where more than 50% of the country wouldn't and didn't vote for Bush and that he'd never have won if more liberals and moderates voted, where (just to offer examples) abortion is legal everywhere, racism and homophobia aren't publicly acceptable and gays have legal rights and protections.

And again, I hate to play the "oh it's not us, it's them!" and "that's not all of America!" card but in a country consisting of 50 states, each with it's own culture, and enormous differences existing even within states, I don't think it's accurate to compare America as a whole.

So yeah, I think it looks like there is more than it really is, which isn't to say that religion doesn't play a large role in politics, social life, etc and much more so than in countries just like us.

[Nogbad]

So do we have numbers on how angry atheists actually are? Is there a objective evaluation of angriness?

It rather seems to me to be one of those myths that people use to reassure themselves that their choices are valid and sound.

Individuals that are vocal exponents of any particular point of view can often appear angry because the only time they are seen is when they are sounding off about their hobby horse. This includes mad mullahs and the Fred Phelpps (sp?) of this world as well as the Dawkins. That Christian Voice chap is always moaning about something and Peter Tatchell seems to be as much fun as trapping ones fingers in a drawer. Of course all of these people may be lovely when discussing non hobby horse subjects :D then again some may not be.

For the most part ordinary day to day, common or garden atheists are no angrier than anyone else in my experience. The rain and sunshine fall equally on all.

[-Fran-]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that there is a considerable difference in religion between the United States and countries that are alot like us. I guess my argument is that it's that it's not as enormous as people think.

Like you said, people do seem to think that it's a country overrun by fundies and nuts- and you do have a very nuanced, fair and accurate view of it, which I'd like to give you credit for- and miss the full picture.

I do think that that's a very loud and very driven minority that pretends to speak for all of the United States and that part of the reason they are so loud and driven nowadays is because they feel threatened in America. Like you said, there's a lot of that "us against them" right now about other parts of the country on both sides.

They know they live in a country where more than 50% of the country wouldn't and didn't vote for Bush and that he'd never have won if more liberals and moderates voted, where (just to offer examples) abortion is legal everywhere, racism and homophobia aren't publicly acceptable and gays have legal rights and protections.

And again, I hate to play the "oh it's not us, it's them!" and "that's not all of America!" card but in a country consisting of 50 states, each with it's own culture, and enormous differences existing even within states, I don't think it's accurate to compare America as a whole.

So yeah, I think it looks like there is more than it really is, which isn't to say that religion doesn't play a large role in politics, social life, etc and much more so than in countries just like us.

Yes, I agree with you. One tends to forget that the picture is always nuanced. I am unsure about how big the difference is, yes, and how much I really need to worry (keeping my pessimism in mind as well :)). It's hard to get "the zeitgeist" of a country you do not live in, and I am aware of the risk of a biased view of things, when you mostly read a lot of material that seems to speak for these views. I do spend a lot of time reading on this forum, and other skeptic blogs, who will naturally often address the things they think are a problem in the USA, but maybe not so often the things that show progress in another direction. Media on the whole in Europe is often also rather critical of the USA, sometimes it seems to be well justified, sometimes less so.

You do get a hint though, about what people from the USA who post here regard as more or less controversial subjects in their home land. And it has struck me several times, that several things that seems to be controversial in the USA, seems to be pretty much non-issues over here. Many such things brought up in different threads, have never even entered my mind before, and I see other non-American posters also being a bit :confused: about the nature of some conflicts. It's often smaller things, like this controversy about Christmas, or someone asking in a thread if it could be a bad idea to fill in a hospital form that you are an atheist, or in another thread someone saying he didn't feel comfortable reading The God Delusuin in public... Small things, but all of them together seems to point to a certain climate that seems to have no real equivalent here (though it's not an impossibility here of course). It all gives you this "feeling" of something being very different "over there".

I think you have a good point in that that loud minority feels threatened, which also makes the atheists feel threatened... it's like a vicious circle, I guess.

[Herzblut]

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

Try Ohio! :D

Herzblut

[-Fran-]

Like you said, people do seem to think that it's a country overrun by fundies and nuts- and you do have a very nuanced, fair and accurate view of it, which I'd like to give you credit for- and miss the full picture.


Thanks, by the way. I do try. Though I'm not immune towards having biased views, and sometimes even being prejudiced. I am aware of these flaws of mine though, and try to work on them.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Try Ohio! :D

Herzblut

Why, what's in Ohio? :) Other than my uncle's ex-wife?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Yes, I agree with you. One tends to forget that the picture is always nuanced. I am unsure about how big the difference is, yes, and how much I really need to worry (keeping my pessimism in mind as well :)).

It's hard to get "the zeitgeist" of a country you do not live in, and I am aware of the risk of a biased view of things, when you mostly read a lot of material that seems to speak for these views. I do spend a lot of time reading on this forum, and other skeptic blogs, who will naturally often address the things they think are a problem in the USA, but maybe not so often the things that show progress in another direction. Media on the whole in Europe is often also rather critical of the USA, sometimes it seems to be well justified, sometimes less so.

You do get a hint though, about what people from the USA who post here regard as more or less controversial subjects in their homeland. And it has struck me several times, that several things that seems to be controversial in the USA, seems to be pretty much non-issues over here. Many such things brought up in different threads, have never even entered my mind before, and I see other non-American posters also being a bit :confused: about the nature of some conflicts. It's often smaller things, like this controversy about Christmas, or someone asking in a thread if it could be a bad idea to fill in a hospital form that you are an atheist, or in another thread someone saying he didn't feel comfortable reading The God Delusion in public... Small things, but all of them together seems to point to a certain climate that seems to have no real equivalent here (though it's not an impossibility here of course). It all gives you this "feeling" of something being very different "over there".

I think you have a good point in that that loud minority feels threatened, which also makes the atheists feel threatened... it's like a vicious circle, I guess.

Yeah, I see that. On the other hand, it can go both ways. You don't hear about the, say, parents in Philadelphia whose neighbors treat them as though they were insane because they homeschool their children or the kid in a New Jersey high school civics class who can't say she's against abortion out loud.

Also, I think we're only conservative by the standards of the very least religious countries in the world. For example, I can't imagine an openly atheist candidate running for President anytime soon but the good news is that we currently have an open atheist, two Buddhists and six "unaffiliated" members of Congress and none of their appointments inspired any real controversy.

That probably wouldn't sound like much to many people but it's alot more than you could say of many other societies.