What It Feels Like to be an Atheist

[RichardR]

Read this excellent article (http://brentrasmussen.com/log/node/363):

Imagine that you live in a world where 90% of the people around you sincerely believe in something that appears to you to be downright whacky, if perhaps relatively pleasant on the surface in many respects. Say they believe in Santa Claus; beard, the big red suit, the flying reindeer, the sled loaded with a billion gifts, the North Pole Workshop, Mrs. Claus and the elves; all of it.

But in this fantasy world, they're not content merely to believe in Santa Claus, they want you to publicly agree all the time that you also believe in Santa, in their specific version of same, and they pressure everyone else in numerous ways to pretend that they're not strange or childish for believing in this. They don't just limit it at that even, they insist everyone kiss their ass about their Santa belief every damn day of their lives and if you don't humor them at the drop of hat under any circumstances, you're being disrespectful, you're out of line. No matter how much you humor them, they always demand more.
It's a long but good article. One of my favorite pieces, 3/4 the way down:


Now imagine: Just two or three-hundred years ago it was totally SOP to take folks, men, women, children, who didn't believe in a specific version of Santa and stick red-hot steel objects into their rectums and vaginas, boil their limbs, beat them senseless with padded clubs, tear them apart with teams of horses, cut open their stomachs and rip out their intestines while they're still alive in front of their loved ones, or slowly burn them alive in public; all in the name of Santa's good will and often on the mere anonymous allegation from some two-bit ten-year old kid or a crazy deranged nutcase suffering from schizophrenia that you once said you don't believe Santa can really fly. Now imagine that that still goes on in some parts of the world AND there's a whole bunch of people in your country who are clamoring to bring that all back.

Imagine that when your mom or dad or heart surgeon or teacher or your best friend tells you they firmly, devoutly, believe in Santa replete with the flying reindeer and the ability to get down every chimney in the world in one evening, that you'd better believe also or you won't be getting a damn thing in the will or in life from them ever, or maybe they'll just treat you like s*** in front of the rest of the family, AND THEY'RE NOT KIDDING IN THE SLIGHTEST ABOUT ANY OF IT.

[ceo_esq]

Without meaning to devalue in the slightest this fellow's personal encounters with religious persecution, I can't help but infer that he buys into an awful lot of historical myths on the subject.

[Jorghnassen]

I might add this is might be what it feels like to be an atheist in the US (most other industrialized countries aren't so religious, except maybe for Italy). Being an atheist or agnostic, say, just north of the border is no big deal (as most people's religious or lack or religious views are much more private).

[Gurdur]

It's too heavy on the melodrama and hyperbole, and frankly, some atheists are just as bad as those the author denounces.
And BTW, I am an atheist.

[RichardR]

Without meaning to devalue in the slightest this fellow's personal encounters with religious persecution, I can't help but infer that he buys into an awful lot of historical myths on the subject.
Such as?

[Max560]

I might add this is might be what it feels like to be an atheist in the US (most other industrialized countries aren't so religious, except maybe for Italy). Being an atheist or agnostic, say, just north of the border is no big deal (as most people's religious or lack or religious views are much more private).

Depends on your location north of the border. Lots of LDS in my neck of the woods.

[c4ts]

It really depends on your location. I don't get much persecution, most people don't care that I'm an atheist as long as I don't go around telling everybody they have to be athiests, telling them all they're stupid or something. And I don't, as I know religion has no place in polite conversation. But every once and a while I get some prostletyzing nut who personifies every single reason not to be religious telling me hellfire and such. They're not exactly helping their cause.

[Beerina]

Read this excellent article (http://brentrasmussen.com/log/node/363):

Imagine that you live in a world where 90% of the people around you sincerely believe in something that appears to you to be downright whacky, if perhaps relatively pleasant on the surface in many respects. Say they believe in Santa Claus; beard, the big red suit, the flying reindeer, the sled loaded with a billion gifts, the North Pole Workshop, Mrs. Claus and the elves; all of it.

But in this fantasy world, they're not content merely to believe in Santa Claus, they want you to publicly agree all the time that you also believe in Santa, in their specific version of same, and they pressure everyone else in numerous ways to pretend that they're not strange or childish for believing in this. They don't just limit it at that even, they insist everyone kiss their ass about their Santa belief every damn day of their lives and if you don't humor them at the drop of hat under any circumstances, you're being disrespectful, you're out of line. No matter how much you humor them, they always demand more.


Note this also applies to politics, though that's about two centuries behind in training people to "live and let live". As Ayn Rand said, "There should be separation of economics and state, just as church and state, and for exactly the same reason." The same reason does apply, but most don't acknowledge it yet.

Religion in the West has been pushed into the corner where it's little more than a harmless lifestyle choice. We sit puzzled, looking at, well, in olden days we'd racistly say "more savage cultures" where religion runs rampant. In reality, the only reason religion is a harmless lifestyle choice here is because those in power have shifted, or shall we say stole, the thunder by moving it into politics. No longer does the Jewish businessman ruin your life, but rather the generic businessman.

Unfortunately, long term one of two things will happen:

1. Humanity will finally mature and give up on using economic arguments to control people in a massive way

or

2. Some other thing will come along, and those in power (in this new area) will steal the thunder from the old guard politicians.

Unfortunately, I cannot conceive 2 happening, and there is no evidence 1 will happen as rare are the instances in history where those in power sought to increase general freedom rather than decrease it -- control is, of course, the name of the game when wielding power.

[c4ts]

Actually, I was thinking along the lines of Wealth of Nations, as to why religion should stay out of politics...

[Gurdur]

Getting back to the OP:
let's look at the reasons why the cited article is a poor one.

1) It is simply far too self-indulgently wordy; it comes off as a meandering rant, and otherwise-valid points get lost in the sheer mass of surrounding hyperbole

2) It is too egocentric. If you want to talk about genuine persecution of atheists, just mention the well-documented cases in the Middle East, or Salman Rushdie or similar; but does the author do this? No, the author proceeds fropm a personal POV of being in the USA, and frankly, massively overstates his case. It's hardly as though atheists were being persecuted everywhere in the USA, and quite a few regions inside the USA are for all intents and purposes quite, quite secular, e.g. New York, large parts of urban California, etc.

3) The author is fond of overly demonizing the opposition in melodramatic terms. Here are several quote from the article:
The Santa Clausians are becoming more demanding, more powerful, more delusional and more arrogant every year.
Simply not true for most of the world.
Now imagine: Just two or three-hundred years ago it was totally SOP to take folks, men, women, children, who didn't believe in a specific version of Santa and stick red-hot steel objects into their rectums and vaginas, boil their limbs, beat them senseless with padded clubs, tear them apart with teams of horses, cut open their stomachs and rip out their intestines while they're still alive in front of their loved ones, or slowly burn them alive in public; all in the name of Santa's good will ...
Actually, the author is off by one hundred years; this kind of behaviour started dying out towards the end of the 1600's. That aside, so what? It was often SOP to torture and kill anyone disagreeing with any ruling ideology, and BTW, any theist could retort here that Pol Pot and his minions broúght such practices well into the latter half of the 20th century against religion (as well as against other things), so it's hardly limited to the religious.
And no matter how many times you freely state you have no 'world-view' outside of an intuitive 'reality'
Here the author massively contradicts himself. He's being claiming up till now that the religionists are all wrong and worse because they have no evidence for their own "intuitive realities", then suddenly he gets upset when the religionists (allegedly, all of them) won't accept or coexist with his own intuitive reality.
A world gone bonkers, populated and completely run by a majority of people who are frankly clinically insane, dangerously immature, often violent, historically monstrous, completely irrational, closed to any internal questioning
He's completely and simply wrong on the "clinically insane" bit. Whether the author likes it or not, belief in a god does not make you per se "clinically insane"; the author should look up the DSM-IV guidelines before throwing around the phrase "clinically insane".
As for being closed to internal questioning, that goes for lots of people, and is not limited at all to theists, and many theists do in fact question their own stances and beliefs.

[Gurdur]

Getting onto the Rand derailment:
As Ayn Rand said, "There should be separation of economics and state, just as church and state, and for exactly the same reason." The same reason does apply, but most don't acknowledge it yet.
Huh? Since the state exists for economic reasons among others, that simply does not make sense, and since the state has a synergistic and well-accepted relationship with economics, it is simply out of touch with reality. It may have disappointed An Rand that the vast majority do not and won't agree with her theories, but simple assertions that don't match reality won't help her cause.
1. Humanity will finally mature and give up on using economic arguments to control people in a massive way
Huh again? What does this actually mean? It can also be retorted Rand's theories themselves were "economic arguments" (actually more like assertions), and those wanting Rand's theories adopted into law simply want to control everyone else with economic arguments.

[ceo_esq]

Such as?

Gurdur has already made some salient observations in this regard.

Basically, the author is suggesting that up to the 18th or early 19th centuries, it was very common (in the West, I take it) for otherwise innocent adults and children to be killed or maimed as punishment for "not believing in a specific version of Santa" (heresy or apostasy, one assumes). This is false, and leads me to suspect that the author has uncritically accepted myths about the historical scope, severity, and timeframe of purely religious persecution in the West, as well as the relative clemency and progressiveness of secular versus ecclesiasical justice.

[Beerina]

Getting onto the Rand derailment:

Huh? Since the state exists for economic reasons among others,

You've just assumed too much.

If you mean "economic reasons" as in protecting rights and property, then yes. If you mean "economic reasons" as in "politicians getting elected promising to redistribute wealth", then no.

And don't confuse why something exists for why it should exist. Some would argue a state exists for, among other things, teaching people ethics and morality.

that simply does not make sense, and since the state has a synergistic and well-accepted relationship with economics, it is simply out of touch with reality.

Again, "does" vs. "should". And religion is "well-accepted" by 95% of the world's population. Is it right? No? Oh. Should it lord over us by force and force us to accept the obvious rightness to that 95%?

No?

Oh.


Huh again? What does this actually mean? It can also be retorted Rand's theories themselves were "economic arguments" (actually more like assertions), and those wanting Rand's theories adopted into law simply want to control everyone else with economic arguments.

Again, comparing back to relilgion, it could be argued that those wanting religious freedom (as in freedom from) are really seeking to control everyone else using religious arguments.

That is, of course, the entire point. My wanting to be free, whether for religion or economics, and your desire to control me, whether for religion and economics, are not equally arbitrary, equally valid worldviews.

[Gurdur]

You've just assumed too much.
Maybe you simply haven't explained enough. I also see lots of contradictions further on in your post, such as...
If you mean "economic reasons" as in protecting rights and property, then yes. If you mean "economic reasons" as in "politicians getting elected promising to redistribute wealth", then no.
...such as here. You mean your "economic reasons" are good, but others are bad? And only because you or Ayn Rand says so? Not much of a convincing argument.
And don't confuse why something exists for why it should exist. Some would argue a state exists for, among other things, teaching people ethics and morality.
On the contrary, it's you who has made this mistake, in thinking you can simply wish away the state by dictate, or simply declare others wrong without good argumentation.
Again, "does" vs. "should". And religion is "well-accepted" by 95% of the world's population. Is it right? No? Oh. Should it lord over us by force and force us to accept the obvious rightness to that 95%?
Pardon me, do you have an actual argument anywhere? Answering my points?
Again, comparing back to relilgion, it could be argued that those wanting religious freedom (as in freedom from) are really seeking to control everyone else using religious arguments.
Again, it could be argued that you or Ayn Rand simply are seeking to control everyone else using unsubstantiated assertions masquerading as arguments.
;)
That is, of course, the entire point. My wanting to be free, whether for religion or economics, and your desire to control me, whether for religion and economics, are not equally arbitrary, equally valid worldviews.
My goodness. So what you're saying is that your politics is good because you say so and mine is bad because you say so. Tcha. You may well be bound for a lot of disappointment in this life.

[Melendwyr]

Without meaning to devalue in the slightest this fellow's personal encounters with religious persecution, I can't help but infer that he buys into an awful lot of historical myths on the subject. Historical myths like "Christian denominations tortured and executed people over points of doctrine and accusations of supernatural powers"?

[Gurdur]

Historical myths like "Christian denominations tortured and executed people over points of doctrine and accusations of supernatural powers"?
No, actually, that wasn't the point. It's been covered in my post above.

[Melendwyr]

No, actually, that wasn't the point. It's been covered in my post above. I'm not aware of any "myths" discussed in your previous post. Which ones, then?

[Gurdur]

Just address the points made in my long post above then.

[Melendwyr]

Just address the points made in my long post above then. Your post deals with the reasons you think the article is a poor one. That is not what my question was about.

[Gurdur]

Your post deals with the reasons you think the article is a poor one. That is not what my question was about.
Really? OK, let's look at what your post was about.
Without meaning to devalue in the slightest this fellow's personal encounters with religious persecution, I can't help but infer that he buys into an awful lot of historical myths on the subject.Historical myths like "Christian denominations tortured and executed people over points of doctrine and accusations of supernatural powers"?
Do you have any evidence at all that ceo_esq would say that that old persecution was a myth in itself? If you have no such evidence, then you just constructed a big strawman, didn't you? Rhetoric that doesn't approach the point.

ceo_esq already made a longer post which quite specifically dealt further in this, by repeating the author was off in his time-frame; and I tackled the whole point from a couple of different directions; to repeat, here is what I said:
Actually, the author is off by one hundred years; this kind of behaviour started dying out towards the end of the 1600's. That aside, so what? It was often SOP to torture and kill anyone disagreeing with any ruling ideology, and BTW, any theist could retort here that Pol Pot and his minions broúght such practices well into the latter half of the 20th century against religion (as well as against other things), so it's hardly limited to the religious.

So tell me: do you have any evidence that ceo-esq would claim Christian persecution never happened at all? If not, what's your point supposed to be? Or was it just a strawman which did not deal with points already made, such as:
1) atheists have been known to use torture and murder too as a means of repression
2) the fact that Christian persecution by torture and murder of others happened four and more hundred years ago does not say all that much about Christianity today
3) just as the fact that some atheists have persecuted religious people does not say much about atheism per se
4) and the author of the original piece is off in his time-frame.

[Melendwyr]

Do you have any evidence at all that ceo_esq would say that that old persecution was a myth in itself? There's very, very little in the article that could have been a historical myth in the first place.

There's no false historical tradition about most of the points you brought up. So what, if anything, could ceo_esq have been referring to?

[Gurdur]

There's very, very little in the article that could have been a historical myth in the first place.

There's no false historical tradition about most of the points you brought up. So what, if anything, could ceo_esq have been referring to?
You're not making much sense and not answering the question. ceo_esq and I already dealt with the author's wrong time-frame; it simply constituted a wrong claim by the author. Deal with it. As shown already, you are wrong in putting the strawman; ceo_esq was very clear about the time-frame point.

[Melendwyr]

You're not making much sense and not answering the question. ceo_esq and I already dealt with the author's wrong time-frame; it simply constituted a wrong claim by the author. Deal with it. As shown already, you are wrong in putting the strawman; ceo_esq was very clear about the time-frame point. So what? I'm not arguing that the article-writer was correct. But there isn't a historical myth that people were systematically killed for atheism in that period, so that couldn't have been what ceo_esq was referring to.

Not making much sense? I don't think you understand anything I've said thus far.

[Gurdur]

So what? I'm not arguing that the article-writer was correct. But there isn't a historical myth that people were systematically killed for atheism in that period, so that couldn't have been what ceo_esq was referring to.
Not making much sense? I don't think you understand anything I've said thus far.
Í think I understand all too well, and you have yet to actually address any concrete points. Deal with them. The nature of your strawman has been pointed out to you.

[ceo_esq]

Let me try to clear this up.

1. The author is clearly off regarding the timeframe.

2. It is not clear that it was ever "standard operating procedure" for alleged heretics and apostates to be executed or tortured to death (or nearly so) in the West. Certainly with regard to the Inquisitions, this happened in a very tiny minority of cases. There are certainly many myths circulating which massively inflate both the number of inquisitorial casualties and the characteristic severity of procedures employed. The author's claims are too vague, finally, to determine precisely what he based them on, but as I wrote, I infer that his statement is influenced by such myths.

3. The author's statements omit, in a manner I find potentially misleading given the context, any acknowledgement that from, say, the 11th century onward, ecclesiastical justice - including that meted out to religious dissenters - was, if anything, relatively benign and progressive in comparison with that offered by secular legal systems.

[Melendwyr]

2. It is not clear that it was ever "standard operating procedure" for alleged heretics and apostates to be executed or tortured to death (or nearly so) in the West. Certainly with regard to the Inquisitions, this happened in a very tiny minority of cases. There are certainly many myths circulating which massively inflate both the number of inquisitorial casualties and the characteristic severity of procedures employed. The author's claims are too vague, finally, to determine precisely what he based them on, but as I wrote, I infer that his statement is influenced by such myths. The author didn't cite a specific, or even a vague number. So how exactly are his comments based on these "myths" of which you speak? When I last read about the matter, historians thought as many as twenty million people might have been burned (not executed, tortured, or otherwise prosecuted - burned) in Europe for witchcraft and heresy.

You didn't really have any substantive complaint about that part of the article, did you? You just needed an excuse to downplay what happened.

[ceo_esq]

The author didn't cite a specific, or even a vague number. So how exactly are his comments based on these "myths" of which you speak?

It's really the notion of "SOP" (standard operating procedure) that seems historically objectionable. Unless you can convince me that "standard operating procedure" is a flexible enough description to include an unusual procedure witnessed in perhaps one or two out of a hundred cases - which is the reality - then I'm going to feel justified in at least suspecting that the author was led to use that description on the basis of historical inaccuracies. The fact that the author cites no specific facts makes it a little easier for him to make such highly prejudicial (if vague) remarks, but I think we can all see what he's getting at, and there's no reason to let him off the hook for it.


When I last read about the matter, historians thought as many as twenty million people might have been burned (not executed, tortured, or otherwise prosecuted - burned) in Europe for witchcraft and heresy.

Absolute rubbish, to put it charitably. That's an example of the sort of myth to which I was referring. The most reliably calculated contemporary estimates are less than 1% of that figure. This is an issue, incidentally, which has been discussed in detail in other threads.


You didn't really have any substantive complaint about that part of the article, did you? You just needed an excuse to downplay what happened.

That's an odd remark. I have no conceivable interest in "downplaying" any aspect of history.

[RichardR]

Gurdur has already made some salient observations in this regard.

Basically, the author is suggesting that up to the 18th or early 19th centuries, it was very common (in the West, I take it) for otherwise innocent adults and children to be killed or maimed as punishment for "not believing in a specific version of Santa" (heresy or apostasy, one assumes). This is false, and leads me to suspect that the author has uncritically accepted myths about the historical scope, severity, and timeframe of purely religious persecution in the West, as well as the relative clemency and progressiveness of secular versus ecclesiasical justice.

So he should have said 400 years instead of 2-300 years. Hardly can be categorized as "buys into an awful lot of historical myths".

[Ragutis]

Sure the article is rather hyperbolic, but I nonetheless quite enjoyed it. It's obvious the author has had a harder time than perhaps the average athiest has, and thus developed a certain bitterness towards the believer. I've experienced only some of what he has in my interactions with believers, and often found myself feeling similarly, even if only temporarily or if only towards a specific individual. Whenever one is faced with something so irrational and sees how doggedly an idea is clung to in spite of all reason and evidence, unless you're completely apathetic, I'd think that frustration, anger, pity and confusion are quite natural reactions. At least a limited feeling of persecution when outnumbered so wholly as the typical American athiest is shouldn't be surprising either.

[EatatJoes]

Well, in the States, it's very hard to be an atheist when you read and hear our president trying to make policies based soley on biblical teaching. 90% of this population believes in a higher power. Just saying that you're an athiest brings glares. The author of the article may have been a bit liberal with his history, but the truth remains that being an atheist in this country is hard and it's easy to get angry.

[ceo_esq]

So he should have said 400 years instead of 2-300 years. Hardly can be categorized as "buys into an awful lot of historical myths".

Except that the things he's talking about could not, in my view, fairly be characterized as "standard operating procedure" 400 years ago, either. Or 500 years ago. The idea that they were ever "standard operating procedure", in any widespread institutional sense, lacks a solid historical foundation.

[Gurdur]

Whenever one is faced with something so irrational and sees how doggedly an idea is clung to in spite of all reason and evidence, unless you're completely apathetic, I'd think that frustration, anger, pity and confusion are quite natural reactions. At least a limited feeling of persecution when outnumbered so wholly as the typical American athiest is shouldn't be surprising either.
If actual persecution does not exist, then crying "Persecution!" is downright melodramatic self-pity.
Maybe some simple need a thicker skin and to learn how to live and let live?

[Melendwyr]

So he should have said 400 years instead of 2-300 years. Hardly can be categorized as "buys into an awful lot of historical myths". Ah, but you have to realize that ceo_esq thinks that any historical statement that casts the RCC or the Christian faith in general in a bad light is untrue.

[Gurdur]

Ah, but you have to realize that ceo_esq thinks that any historical statement that casts the RCC or the Christian faith in general in a bad light is untrue.
Either he is right or wrong on the actual claims here. If he is wrong, show so; as it is, I largely agree with him here, and I am an atheist and unsympathetic to the RCC or Christianity.

[ceo_esq]

Either he is right or wrong on the actual claims here. If he is wrong, show so; as it is, I largely agree with him here, and I am an atheist and unsympathetic to the RCC or Christianity.

As am I. Frankly, I don't think sympathy really enters into it. Facts do.

[Melendwyr]

Either he is right or wrong on the actual claims here. He said the writer had accept some historical myths - again, which of those claims are myths about history instead of mere mistakes?

Your inability to understand the nature of this argument is shocking, and I suspect you're not likely to improve in the immediate future. Say hello to hammegk and Interesting Ian for me, 'cause you're joining them.

[ceo_esq]

He said the writer had accept some historical myths - again, which of those claims are myths about history instead of mere mistakes?

A mistake about history that is merely an isolated error is one thing; a mistake which has grown into a popular belief or story is another, and we refer to it as a historical myth. I allow for the possibility that the author's specific remarks are based on mistakes of the merely inadvertent or fortuitous sort - a faulty historical reading, a misremembered fact, or the like. I simply find it far more likely that he has mistaken myth for fact, since the existence of historical myths closely aligned with his remarks is well attested. I have met no shortage of people who erroneously believe that the historically typical response of Western ecclesiastical institutions to religious heterogeneity has been execution and punitive torture, and even that such conditions prevailed in the 18th century.