I have noticed there are some atheists that are just as mean and hateful as the Religious Reich. Not only that, their prejudice towards religion is as bad as many Christians’ attitude towards atheism.
<...>
The thing is, I don’t understand the extremes on either side of the fence nor do I understand militant atheists acting like religious extremists, esp towards the more liberally religious. They are so defensive and hateful that you would think they are afraid liberals are going to do them harm. It makes no sense, but whatever the case, I think some people are taking Harris and Dawkins too seriously. In which case, that line of thinking could become just as dangerous as the Religious Reich.
<...>
Yes, I am also well aware that not all atheist are Humanists, but still it bothers me that anyone (Religious Reich or militant atheist) could be so hateful. I fear it reinforces the stereotype some Xians have of atheists. Is it just me or has anyone else notice this behaviour and find it troublesome?
I am new here, so if I have broken some rule in posting, please accept my apologies.
Mriana, I believe strongly in my humble opinion, that it deals with a fallacy, of stereotyping, concerning a person motivations and attitude. Yes, religion, and science, and politics, and culture, and family, and enviromental indicators do effect personalties; though whether you are religious or non-religious, believe in a God or do not, in my experience does not indicate whether a person is a humanitarian, kind, tolerant, etc. individual. We all have choices in life and we are all responsible for our behaviors, and I believe we are responsible to keep everyone aware of their own behaviors so that none are with excuse, whether they accept it or not, is their choice. A person is not mean because they are religious. A person is not nice because they are an atheist. These titles, have no power in establishing these personalities of either a religious or athiest.
In my life, I have found that a victim’s mentality serves as the biggest motivator in how a person reacts and handles the knowledge and their responsibility of their actions. An example: if someone has grown up in a religiously strict home, were beat for every subjective form of sin in their lives, grow up to embrace atheism as a tool to avenge their abuse and not out of reason that God does not exist. These militaristic atheists have made atheism their central motivator, and it itself atheism does not promote a humanitarian attitude.
Likewise, a man could have grown up in a religiously strict home, were beat for every subjective form of sin in thier lives, grow up to embrace religion but reject their parents for the abuse they suffered, reject the religion their parents embraced and out of reason and kindness provide a humanitarian effort and be a famed philantropist. This religious person have made humanitarianism their central motivator and religion may be how they interpret this humanitarianism effort. Religion as historically may have had this premise, but has not demonstrated this in practice.
I would want a loving religious person, over a hateful athiest. I would want a loving athiest, over a hateful religious person. Though as you can see the adjective of loving outweighs the noun of atheism or religion.
My question is what was the motivation of that hateful individual to be so hateful.
This strong hatred by the extremes on both sides doesn’t seem like it will accomplish anything, except more battles.
Exactly.
Craig
[ Edited: 15 December 2007 11:12 AM by mckenzievmd ]
It’s no biggy, Craig, but the mods usually use blue when they post something serious- like say scolding/warning another member.
Anyway, as for the motivation, I can’t say for sure, but I do know the subject posted was liberals working in “good faith” to fight the religious reich. Some how the idea of “good faith” v. “bad faith” seemed to have set an atheist off against the liberal Christian minister who posted the new blog. Now mind you, both atheists and theists blog and both atheists and theist post replies. For some reason though, a few atheists get set off about this or that when the liberal Christian posts and seem to be on the defensive as well as the offensive. Why? I don’t know.
For some reason though, a few atheists get set off about this or that when the liberal Christian posts and seem to be on the defensive as well as the offensive. Why? I don’t know.
It is my experience, that I give my opinion concerning this. I have found that most of the time when I am defensive, it has been my insecurity that has made me defensive. The insecurity that my opponent will insult me personally for having the position I have, or will manipulate what I have said to fit their own agenda.
Example, Just as you had said earlier about the Militarisic Athiest using the same positions have used against fundimentalist Christians concerning liberal or progressive Christians. If I believe in Christianity, there will be always someone who brings in the fact Christianity has been responsible for some of the most horrible massacres of people and genocides, they then attach me to those murderers who used the Lord’s Name in vain, calling themselves Christians when all they were Roman, English, French, Italian, etc. murderers using Christianity as the excuse to murder one another. Or if they know that would be used, take the Torah and show where God ordered the murder of many including the lame and the blind, and so group me up with them! Though, there are many protestants who do not accept the Torah as a literal acount of what happened, and archeologists and scientists are having problems establishing the written records archeologically, which may mean they were stories that had a cultural context to those who at the time held them. Though, instead of breaking it down, discussing it rationally and reasonably, I am grouped up in a hasty generalization that everyone who believes in Christianity is a murderer. So my reaction has been one of distrust, defensiveness, against the person who uses such fallacy to support their position of athiesm or agnostism, and I lose my kindness due to this insecurity that someone would take what these people say and label me and exclude me the things that are beneficial to humanity as a whole, simply because I am a Christian.
The other side is an over abundance of confidence, lacking empathy for the person whom they are speaking to. They are so confident that it becomes an offensive rather than a gentle persauder. For me, I know that if something is truth, it will be made clear; but it doesn’t matter how much truth a person has, if it is not done out of empathy for the person they are speaking to, it will be rejected and the more it is pushed the more pushed back it becomes until it get’s personal.
That is from my experience, I know there is more reasons for some others, but those are lessons I have learned about my own behavior because they are counter-intuitive to my desires though seemed so right at the time.
There isn’t a whole lot that sets me off, except maybe dogma and insistance that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, along with imposing it on others at the same time.
Some points:
There’s a famous old cartoon from the New Yorker, showing a dog at a computer terminal typing away and he tells this other dog: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog!”
Which is to say that sometimes who hides behind an inscrutable handle is a thirteen year old.
Then take the fact that discussion boards are self selecting: loners, procrastinators, and unsociable folk who live off Twinkies and Chinese take out make up a good chunk of the valued contributors. And they love to vent.
Also: Have you ever been in a personal war that was the result of rash and sharp email comments you’d never tell to someone’s face? I have been, and have started two. Since then I’ve made it a habit not to send replies until I’ve slept over it and re-read my message.
It’s my opinion that triage is in order: a large portion of believers are out of their fucked up minds, and the chances are slim they’ll ever come back on the carpet - and plain zero that they’ll do so in reaction to a web conversation with a person of reason. If atheists get into fights with those they’ll only increase their blood pressure and will likely become rude and nasty in the process. Part of me says: let’s not go there.
I could add that I don’t mean no disrespect but I’d be lying. Not everyone is a Gandhi at heart, and my compassion only goes so far. Compassion for perpetrators, to be more precise, because it’s not that their actions are harmless.
Finally, there are those angry atheists who have personally suffered from religion a lot and need an outlet. Yeah, one wishes they were a little more civil but hey. On the other hand, it’s sometimes instructive to hear what people really think when no one can punish them for speaking out.
One had the audacity to site Dawkins’s virus theory to me! I told him “come on! You can’t catch “the virus” by working with liberal Christians in some humanitarian effort and these people [refering to the liberal Xians] aren’t out to convert anyone to their way of thinking.” So the battle on this particular site continues and I find it very undignifying to the human
I am a naturalist and humanist, I went on a Christian mission to new Orleans once the christians knew I was an atheist and they all tried to convert me. These were the quote liberal Christians.
Some points:
Finally, there are those angry atheists who have personally suffered from religion a lot and need an outlet. Yeah, one wishes they were a little more civil but hey. On the other hand, it’s sometimes instructive to hear what people really think when no one can punish them for speaking out.
Amen, er I mean, exactly.
I totally understand those who are atheists who have personally suffered from religion lashing out and needing an outlet for their suffering. It would be inhumane to keep them from releasing, what could be years and decades, of turmoil they have suffered. Though saying this, once we recognize our own behavior is destructive, even if it is releasing the tension we kept in, we should find better ways to release it. The truth is at least 80% of the world population believes in a religion or a god(s), this fact leads to a deadlock and counter-intuitive behavior on the part of an atheist since they constitute the minority, no matter how correct they think they are that there is no god and religion is a lie to keep the masses dependant upon some authority to keep them in line.
I have had ‘Christians’ knock on my door to convert me; I have had ‘Christians’ tell me I am not a Christian because I don’t go to their church, a church, or associate with a church; I have had ‘Christians’ say I was not a Christian because I did not follow their practices, rituals, prayers, and other magical and mystical things ‘Christians’ think they know. Yet, on the same side, believe it or not, I have had atheists knock on my door to convert me and use all sorts of fallacy in order to convince me that what I believed was wrong.
Time Magazine has called Atheism a religion of it’s own along with Enviromentalism and Globalism. So I don’t think we can get away from religion, but we can always work on being more tolerant of each other, and educate ourselves on how to share our thoughts.
My friend James said to me the other day, “Craig, I cannot be offensive when it comes to religion because those who listen to me who are offended, choose to be offended, they can also just ignore me.” He is an agnostic.
One had the audacity to site Dawkins’s virus theory to me! I told him “come on! You can’t catch “the virus” by working with liberal Christians in some humanitarian effort and these people [refering to the liberal Xians] aren’t out to convert anyone to their way of thinking.” So the battle on this particular site continues and I find it very undignifying to the human
I am a naturalist and humanist, I went on a Christian mission to new Orleans once the christians knew I was an atheist and they all tried to convert me. These were the quote liberal Christians.
Everyone is out to convert each other to their way of thinking, do you not agree? That is what a conversation about philosophy, values, morals, ethics, and yes, religion is all about. I don’t know, any time I talk abour religion and politics to someone who doesn’t have a religion and abstains from politics, they try to convince me of the evils of religion and the conspiracy of politics.
Well, I certainly find prosyletizing and demeaning criticism to be intolerable regardless of the source. I suspect, based on the media and my personal experience, that there is a great deal more of this driected from religious persons to those of other faith or no faith than from atheists towards religious persons. Atheism is not, by and large, an evangelical movement, though some (Dawkins, for exampl) do believe converting the world to atheism is a laudable goal that should be actively pursued.
On the other hand, I don’t think there is anything itnirinsically wrong about bringing up ideas of religious belief or no-belief and discussing or debating them. I think the practice is considered socially taboo to somee xtent because people often feel so strongly about such matters than discussion leads to anger and harmful words or deed. As an agnostic and a rationalist, I think free and open discussion is vital to a healthy life as an individual and scoiety, so I don’t necessarily mind if believers want to talk me into their belief, as long as they can do it in a reasonable and respectful way (which they seldom can).
As for Atheism being a religion, this topic has been extensively discussed here and elsewhere, but I think it is a completely false and misleading nomenclature deliberately designed to confuse the distinctions that are real and crucial between religious and non-religious weays of lookng at things. People are people, and passionate beliefs are often expressed and enacted in similar ways, but the beliefs themselves are dramatically and meaningfully different, and the idea that any world view passionately held is a kind of religion is, IMHO, nonsense.
I like the following quote form Albert Einstein which seems germane:
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
Craig,
On a completely unrelated note, while posting all of your text in color is not a violation of forum rules, it does seem unecessary and visually jarring. Could you restrict the use of color to particular points of emphasis, perhaps?
[ Edited: 17 December 2007 11:54 AM by mckenzievmd ]
Well, I certainly find prosyletizing and demeaning criticism to be intolerable regardless of the source. I suspect, based on the media and my personal experience, that there is a great deal more of this driected from religious persons to those of other faith or no faith than from atheists towards religious persons. Atheism is not, by and large, an evangelical movement, though some (Dawkins, for exampl) do believe converting the world to atheism is a laudable goal that should be actively pursued.
<...>
As for Atheism being a religion, this topic has been extensively discussed here and elsewhere, but I think it is a completely false and misleading nomenclature deliberately designed to confuse the distinctions that are real and crucial between religious and non-religious weays of lookng at things. People are people, and passionate beliefs are often expressed and enacted in similar ways, but the beliefs themselves are dramatically and meaningfully different, and the idea that any world view passionately held is a kind of religion is, IMHO, nonsense.
Just by looking at this reply, I do understand you disagree with being labelled a religion by the mere contrast that religion may have been the reason you have come to a rational and logical conclusion that you are not part of one (agnostic or athiest). I guess it just comes down to the definition that is used. If religion is qualified as a ”Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” then I agree with you, it is not. However, if it is qualified as a “the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices” then it is.
I find a fine line between discussing what a person believes versus prosyleting and sometimes it is too fuzzy for some, so just bringing up the mere fact that I may believe in a higher power, has labelled me as a fanatic trying to convert them. Haha. I am very much not religious, and have fought hard against the ‘Christian’ agenda for too long to be grouped with them when I discuss Christianity. Though people will be passionate about what they believe, and why would they not be; whether religious or not, as the cook on Muppets take on Manhatten says, “People beez people.”
On a completely unrelated note, while posting all of your text in color is not a violation of forum rules, it does seem unecessary and visually jarring. Could you restrict the use of color to particular points of emphasis, perhaps?
As for the definition of religion, I personally find the second you give too broad to be meaningful, not to mention quite unlike what the majority of speakers believe the word means, which is after all what matters in purely linguistic terms. If any group of people who share some beliefs and behaviors are a religion, then you end up including football teams, political parties, social clubs and membership organizations of virtually any kind, etc. I think the element of the supernatural is central to virtually all religion, along with certain tendancies to resist inquiry about and changes in revealed truths and other such self-perpetuating mechanisms. Certainly, you can redefine a word however you like, especially if your goal is to shift the prevailing definition in a way more consistent with your beliefs. But I think if you stretch too far, the word loses any real meaning, and it becomes disconnected from what the majority of speakers understand it to mean. Fine for poetry, not so useful for discussion and debate about sociological and political issues.
My point in challenging this sort of definition of “religion,” apart from my own feeling that it is not a useful or accurate one, was that I think there is a deliberate intent to confuse the issue on the part of groups and activists pushing a pro-religious agenda and trying to marginalize science and secularism for political reasons. These folks deliberate confound science with religion because it serves a propoganda purpose. Not that I necessarily think this is your goal (I’m not sufficiently acquainted with your positions to judge), but I think when such things appear in Time magazine and elsewhere, they are driven by a desire to deliberately minimize the salient differences between secular and religious world views for political effect.
Granted, discussions about belief or disbelief are often emotional and hard to maintain in a civil way. I get a fair bit of heat from some quarters for choosing to use the label agnostic, despite the fairly minor technical differences between what I bleieve and what I would label atheism. As you say, people are a lot alike despite big ideological differences.
The term “religion” is almost universally associated with theism, so I’m always curious as to why people want to force that term onto non-theist belief systems. English is a rich language with a very large vocabulary. There are many words that can be used to describe the non-theist ontology. Why is it important to require that it be called a religion?
I run into many people who wear a cross or a star of David, and many who make some comment that identifies them as christian or some other religion. Similarly, I might mention that I’m an atheist if it’s germane to the conversation. However, I never expand on that or question others about their beliefs unless they start the conversation, especially if they clearly have the goal of converting me. Even then, I try to change the subject and avoid the discussion.
I think it’s much easier for us to see those who have beliefs different from ours as being confrontational. It’s hard work, but I think we should all try to be considerate of others and avoid argument unless they are really determined and force their beliefs on us or challenge us.
It makes no sense, but whatever the case, I think some people are taking Harris and Dawkins too seriously. In which case, that line of thinking could become just as dangerous as the Religious Reich.
